Check out this great op-ed from LEAP advisory board member Gary Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico.

Soon Arizona voters will have the chance to fix our broken medical marijuana law by approving the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, and like the legislature; the Arizona Medical Board needs to get ahead of a few potential problems.

Everyone knows that California’s medical marijuana law is laughable at best. One of the problems is the Pot Doc’s who write recommendations for almost anything. But it’s not their fault, it’s the law.

In California doctors can write a medical marijuana recommendation for patients who suffer from specific list of conditions, but the California law also adds a catchall provision that lets doctors approve marijuana use for "any other illness for which marijuana provides relief."

Like the California law, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act lists specific conditions and treatments for which doctors can recommend medical marijuana, but there's an important difference.

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act lists debilitating medical condition as one or more of the following,
(a) cancer, glaucoma, positive for human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis c, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, crohn’s disease, agitation of alzheimer’s disease, or the treatment of these conditions.
(b) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or it’s treatment that produces one or more of the following: cachexia or wasting syndrome, severe and chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, including those characteristic of epilepsy, or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

This is the important difference..
(c) Any other medical condition or it’s treatment added by the department pursuant to section 36-2801.01

This is a good start; it puts the responsibility to add other medical conditions on the Arizona Department of Health Services, but Arizona need to go farther.

Doctors need to know what the state expects from them when writing medical marijuana recommendations. We need guidelines like those the Arizona Medical Board enacted in 1997 for the treatment of chronic pain.

I don’t know anyone who suffers one of the debilitating medical conditions listed in the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act who doesn’t see a doctor on a regular basis, or at least have a diagnosis from a doctor and medical history.

If Arizona voters approve medical marijuana in November, we need to take it seriously and treat it like medicine, because it is very serious for patients who rely on medical marijuana for relief from chronic pain, nausea, and seizures.

Last year a local pain management physician was arrested by DEA's Tactical Diversion Squad and charged with not only improperly prescribing drugs, but also money laundering, conspiracy and assisting in a criminal syndicate. Attention was focused on him partly because he had patients from several states.

It’s not uncommon for pain management specialists, or any medical specialist to have a large practice with patients form a wide geographical area. So few doctors are willing to treat pain today, any physician willing to do pain management ends up with not only the pain patients from their local area, but usually from hundreds of miles away.

When DEA arrests a pain management physician, or the state medical board suspends a pain physician’s medical license, the media concentrates on the charges filed against the doctor, when the story should be about what happens to the physician’s patients.

When a pain management specialist is arrested by DEA, their DEA registration is suspended, and their practice is shut down. Patients end up abandoned, stigmatized, and neglected by the whole medical community, because no other physician wants to be associated with doctor so-and-so patients.

I know because I was one of these patients. I can’t tell you how many doctors told me, "I can’t give you pain medication because I’ll lose my medical license if I do."

Medical boards tell us that patient abandonment is a serious charge against a physician, and can lead to malpractice law suits. Patient abandonment is defined as the termination of the professional relationship between the physician and the patient at an unreasonable time or without affording the patient the opportunity to find a new physician.

While there are no laws related to patient abandonment in Arizona, the American Medical Association has some guidance for physicians on how to close a medical practice without abandoning patients. Physicians are told to notify patients well in advance to ensure continuity of care, and send a letter to each active patient at least 3 months prior to closure. Avoiding abandonment complaints can be avoided by notifying patients of the physician’s intent to terminate their care in writing, and give the patient sufficient time to arrange for care by another physician.

Yet state medical boards that are supposedly run by physicians create situations themselves where hundreds of patients are abandoned by their actions when a pain management practice is closed. It time state medical boards consider continuity of care and patient abandonment when shut down a pain management practice.

Investigations into a pain management physicians practice go on for months or years, all the time allowing the physician to prescribe medications to their patients. So what would be the harm in allowing the physician to write pain patients at least a 30 day supply of medication to allow them time to find a new pain management specialist?

If shutting down the practice to protect patients was the priority, they would shut the practice down as soon as they have evidence of wrong doing rather than allow the physician to continue practicing for months. Who’s protecting the hundreds of patients abandoned by the actions of DEA or the state medical board it’s self.

Pain management specialists are often charged with murder when a patient overdoses from taking medications they prescribe. So why don’t we hold DEA and state medical boards responsible when they create a situation where patients are abandoned because of their actions, and commit suicide due to uncontrolled pain.

In a press release August 6th the Lake Havasu Police in Arizona valued 5.7 ounces of marijuana at $1000.00 an ounce, and 191 Ecstasy tablets at $4750.00 or $24.86 each. This over valuing of seized drugs has gone on for years, but Lake Havasu Police have gone above and beyond on these values. But like I've always said, the drug war is about statics and money.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 6, 2010
Narcotic Detectives Arrest Four and Seize Narcotics
The Lake Havasu City Police Department’s Special Investigations Bureau detectives served a narcotic-related search warrant at a residence in the 800 block of Cactus Drive on August 6, 2010. During the search, detectives seized approximately 5.7 ounces of marijuana, 191 Ecstasy tablets, and psilocybin in various stages of cultivation. The marijuana has an approximate street value of $5,700 and the Ecstasy tablets have an approximate street value of $4,750.

1) Toronto becomes the first municipality in the world to endorse the Vienna Declaration. The city councillor considered to be the front runner for mayor in the upcoming October election, Rob Ford, voted against the endorsement.

2) Police in British Columbia found a field with 60,000 opium poppies. Do you think this is a one-time event or the start of a new trend?

This post is intended as a reminder that my opinions on this blog do not represent the official views of my employer. Although I believe the drug laws in most parts of the world should be changed, I also believe in the rule of law. Police officers need to uphold the law even if they disagree with certain aspects of it.

My efforts toward drug policy reform are focused on changing laws that are ineffective and harmful, not picking and choosing which laws to enforce. There is room for discretion, of course, but discretion is something that occurs at the time of the offence. It's not something one can announce in advance. A variety of factors influence police discretion, including the age of the offender, department policy, nature of the offence, and so on.

The ability of Canadian police officers to engage in public debate about complex social issues is protected by Section Two of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

These freedoms are afforded to "everyone," not "everyone except police officers."

Don't worry... nothing precipitated this entry. All of my public statements include similar warnings, so I thought it would be good to post the same kind of language on the blog.

The moderators over at the Blue Line forums have locked my post about the National Black Police Association's endorsement of Proposition 19 in California. This means further discussion is prohibited as no one can add any responses.

I certainly respect the rights of the moderators to make such decisions. It's their web site, after all, which is why I am posting my response here on the LEAP blog.

Now, I love Blue Line. It's Canada's national law enforcement magazine. I wrote a couple of opinion essays for the magazine last year. And I've learned a lot from the Blue Line discussion forums. As a junior police officer, I feel it is important to keep up to date with the latest developments in the complex world of law enforcement.

The forum in which this post appeared is called The Rant. It's supposed to be a grab all for subjects that don't fit any of the other sections of the web site. Here's a few of the hot topics debated in the forum:

Maryland man arrested after recording of T-stop surfaces

RCMP commissioner uses his BlackBerry at Mountie memorial

Strangle your kid to death, get a suspended sentence.

LAPD Unlawfully Detains Photographer

Child Porn ISNT art

... and my personal favourite:

Even Robert Munsch is on Blow!!!

Clearly, in this context, an article about black cops who want to regulate cannabis is way over the line. (Sarcasm intended.)

This is not any group of black police, mind you. It's the National Black Police Association, representing some 15,000 black law enforcement officers in the United States.

This brings me to the heart of the reason why I don't post more often on Blue Line. Like policing itself, the forum is dominated largely by social conservatives. Without getting into my own political beliefs too much, suffice to say I'm not a fan of an ideology that insists, "it is the role of the government to enforce traditional values because __________."

My problem is that I rarely see anything logical in the last part of that sentence. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is a big tent organization and we welcome folks from across the political spectrum. But my personal feeling is that locking a thread on a discussion forum is a knee jerk reaction from someone who is afraid of the issue. It doesn't even come close to the kind of intellectual rigour needed to defend social conservatism.

In fairness to social conservatives, I have seen one strong argument advanced in their name that favours drug policy reform. You won't find it on the Blue Line forums though. It was articulated by "Inspector Leviathan Hobbes," the pseudonym for the founder of the Thinking Policeman blog. He was kind enough to let me write a guest post back in August 2009 about Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

The post generated a number of comments and eventually Hobbes himself waded into the discussion:

I've kept reasonably quiet throughout this debate. In fact, I've been reading through the links Officer Bratzer provided, as well as the one-stop-shop of complete information provided by 200 Weeks. Not only have I been reading, but I've been thinking. It's difficult as a police officer to agree with the legalisation and regulation of drugs. Why? It's because we see the evil ruination that it has upon addicts. Not only that, but those who are the real dealers, the Mister Bigs, are extremely difficult to bring to justice. Add to this the consequential victims, the ones who have their property stolen to fund habits, and it seems difficult to say to all of them that what LEAP proposes is the way forward. However, after nigh on 20 years of reading philosophy, I've fallen foul of the Platonic adage I swore I never would - 'an expert is someone who knows nothing at all.'

What I mean by this is, just because as police officers or MOPs we see the full impact that drugs misuse has on the wider community, not only on the user themself - and because we know the law inside and out regarding drugs - we can sometimes become blind to the alternatives. Just because the law and societal opinions have been the same throughout the lives of almost all of us, it doesn't mean it's right. It doesn't mean the law was devised because it works. Sometimes it's wrong. I can point to many examples, as I am sure many of you can. Think about it this way - if drugs WERE legalised and regulated, the Mister Bigs would suffer - the ones who deserve to suffer. Prostitution, a drug-reliant trade, I'm guessing would halve at the very least, as would most ascquisitive crime. You can't get away from the fact that the majority of acquisitive crime is committed by habitual drug users. Yes, there are issues around the practicalities of this proposal, but they're not unachievable in the overall aim.

-- snip --

So, I'll subscribe to LEAP. Sometimes what appears radical actually isn't. It's a conservative reaction to restore order to that similar to times gone past. My only hope is that if we ever did take on the experiment, the current government would be long gone, because otherwise they'd screw it up. As with everything else.

Thank you, Inspector. You said it better than I ever could.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 19, 2010
CONTACT: Tom Angell - (202) 557-4979 or media//at//leap//dot//cc

National Black Police Association Endorses Marijuana Legalization

African American Cops Say California's Prop. 19 Will Protect Civil Rights & Public Safety

SACRAMENTO, CA -- A national organization of African American law enforcement officers has announced its endorsement of Proposition 19, California's initiative to legalize marijuana.

The National Black Police Association (NBPA), which was founded in 1972 and is currently holding its 38th national conference in Sacramento, is urging a yes vote on legalization this November 2.

"When I was a cop in Baltimore, and even before that when I was growing up there, I saw with my own eyes the devastating impact these misguided marijuana laws have on our communities and neighborhoods. But it's not just in Baltimore, or in Los Angeles; prohibition takes a toll on people of color across the country," said Neill Franklin, a 33-year veteran police officer and executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an international group of pro-legalization cops, judges, prosecutors and corrections officials who have been organizing to support Prop. 19. "This November, with the National Black Police Association's help, Californians finally have an opportunity to do something about it by approving the initiative to control and tax marijuana."

On Thursday, Franklin spoke alongside California NAACP president Alice Huffman at the NBPA conference on a panel about criminal justice issues like marijuana legalization.

Many cops and civil rights leaders are now speaking out against marijuana prohibition because it is not only ineffective at reducing marijuana use and results in the arrest and incarceration of people of color at a highly disproportionate rate, but also because making marijuana illegal has created a lucrative black market controlled by violent gangs and cartels. LEAP has organized a group of more than 30 California police officers, judges, prosecutors and other criminal justice professionals who support Prop. 19.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) and its 30,000 supporters represent police, prosecutors, judges, FBI/DEA agents and others who want to legalize and regulate drugs after fighting on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and learning firsthand that prohibition only serves to worsen addiction and violence.

According to NBPA, there are 80,000 black law enforcement officials in the U.S.

For more information, visit http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com or http://www.BlackPolice.org

#       #       #