I'll just leave this here....

[Telarus]

Whoa, thread got a little ahead of me, but I think I can answer ECH's question.

Well what I'm hearing is that people are Dr shopping, getting scripts, and THEN selling.  Certainly it is also happening where people are simply giving a little bit of their supply to friends/families.  But there is medical marijuana, at least in Maine, that is ending up in the black market.  

ehhh...that doesn't make much sense. You don't get a prescription for medical marijuana, you just get a doctor's recommendation. And your insurance doesn't pay for it so you still have to pay full price at whatever rate the dispensary decides to charge.

No, in Maine anyway, according to the law, you have to have a prescription for it.  By law, you aren't legally allowed to possess and use medical marijuana without a prescription.  

I really think you're mistaken, RWHN. Federal law prevents MMJ from entering into the "licensing scheme" which is Prescription Medication.

MRS Title 32, Chapter 117: MAINE PHARMACY ACT

30. Prescription drug or legend drug.  "Prescription drug" or "legend drug" means a drug that:

A. Under federal law is required, prior to being dispensed or delivered, to be labeled with either of the following statements:
(1) "Caution: Federal law prohibits dispensing without prescription."; or
(2) "Caution: Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian."; or [2007, c. 402, Pt. DD, §2 (NEW).]

B. Is required by an applicable federal or state law or rule to be dispensed on prescription only or is
restricted to use by practitioners only. [2007, c. 402, Pt. DD, §2 (NEW).] [ 2007, c. 402, Pt. DD, §2 (NEW) .]

31. Prescription drug order.  "Prescription drug order" means a lawful written or oral order of a practitioner for a drug or device. Written orders may be issued on a prescription form or by electronic transmission. [ 2007, c. 402, Pt. DD, §2 (NEW) .]

The Federal CSA, when you boil it down, basically says "We have no interest in prohibiting possession/use of these substances when their use and safety has been licensed by a doctor, only when it has not. If you have a license then we will not prosecute, as we have no mandate to prosecute behavior we have no interest in preventing." This ties to a legal term called "General Applicability". Of course, there's a bunch of language exempting "employees or actors of persons authorized for possession".

Title 21 United States Code defines "Prescription" in § 802. DEFINITIONS:

(35) The term prescription means an order for medication which is dispensed to or for an ultimate user but does not include an order for medication which is dispensed for immediate administration to the ultimate user. (e.g., an order to dispense a drug to a bed patient for immediate administration in a hospital is not a prescription.)

Also Title 21 United States Code, § 829. PRESCRIPTIONS specifically LEAVES OUT Schedule 1 from the list of "prescriptions".

Now, the specific language that allows MMJ use in Main is this:

Chapter 558, §2383. Possession

1. Marijuana.  Except as provided in chapter 558-C, a person may not possess marijuana.

Chapter 558, §2383-B. Authorized possession by individuals [snipping out the veterinary language]

1. Lawfully prescribed drugs.  A person to whom or for whose use any scheduled drug, prescription drug or controlled substance has been prescribed, sold or dispensed for a legitimate medical purpose by a physician, dentist, podiatrist, pharmacist or other person acting in the usual course of professional practice and authorized by law or rule to do so [snip] may lawfully possess the drug or substance, except when in use, only in the container in which it was delivered by the person selling or dispensing the drug or substance. For purposes of this subsection, "when in use" includes reasonable repackaging for more convenient legitimate medical use.

3. Definitions.  As used in this section, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.
A. "Controlled substances" has the same meaning as defined in 21 United States Code, Section 812 (1970) and 21 Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter II, Part 1308. [1995, c. 499, §3 (NEW); 1995, c. 499, §5 (AFF).]

C. "Prescription drugs" has the same meaning as defined in Title 32, section 13702-A, subsection 30 and includes so-called legend drugs. [2007, c. 695, Pt. B, §4 (AMD).]
D. "Scheduled drug" has the same meaning as defined in Title 17-A, chapter 45. [1995, c. 499, §3 (NEW); 1995, c. 499, §5 (AFF).]
E. "Usable amount of marijuana for medical use" means 2 1/2 ounces or less of prepared marijuana, as defined in section 2422, subsection 14, and a total of 6 plants as defined by the department pursuant to section 2424, subsection 1. [2009, c. 631, §51 (AFF); 2009, c. 631, §6 (AMD).]

Chapter 588-C, §2422. Definitions

16. Written certification.  "Written certification" means a document signed by a physician and stating that in the physician's professional opinion a patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marijuana to treat or alleviate the patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition. A written certification may be made only in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship after the physician has completed a full assessment of the qualifying patient's medical history. The written certification must specify the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition.
[ IB 2009, c. 1, §5 (NEW) .]

Chapter 588-C, §2423-B. Authorized conduct by a physician

A physician may provide a written certification for the medical use of marijuana under this chapter and, after having done so, may otherwise state that in the physician's professional opinion a qualifying patient is likely to receive therapeutic benefit from the medical use of marijuana to treat or alleviate the patient's debilitating medical condition. Nothing in this chapter prevents a professional licensing board from sanctioning a physician for failing to properly evaluate or treat a patient's medical condition or otherwise violating the applicable standard of care for evaluating or treating medical conditions. [2009, c. 631, §22 (NEW); 2009, c. 631, §51 (AFF).]

State CSA Laws incorporate references to the federal CSA in their definition categories, which (in some cases, like Iowa) actually 'downloads' the language from the federal CSA.

Your state's definition of "written certification" doesn't meet the definition of "prescription". Neither does Oregon's, Hawaii's, or California's.

This leads me to Carl Olsen, a MMJ activist out of Iowa. The Iowa statues have totally adopted the language from the fed CSA defining how drugs are scheduled (the "high potential of abuse and no medical use in the United States" language from Sched I). Carl's argument, is that according to the 14th Amendment, the State of Iowa must accept law passed in other states as "valid, and meaning what they say".

So, the Iowa language says "accepted medical use in the United States", and not "accepted medical use in Iowa". Other States have passed laws specifically stating that Cannabis has medical use. The State of Iowa must then implement the rules in their state CSA to re-schedule Cannabis out of schedule I (can I mention that in Iowa, it's in Sched I AND II?). Carl is in state court for this issue now. The latest docket says that the Judge has Dismissed this case as "the questions are abstract and do not present a justiciable controversy" (HA!). Carl has appealed to the State Supreme Court.

Carl also has presented the same argument as an 'intervenor' in a Federal Case. His website is: http://petition.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/

[AFK]

It comes down to a game of semantics.  Bottom line, without the signature of a Doc, you can't, by law, have medical marijuana dispensed to you.  I've seen references to "prescription" as well as "written certification".  It's pedantry at a certain point because the mechanism is the same.  To get the drug, legally, you need doctor approval.  Obviously insurance doesn't cover it but insurance already doesn't cover every "regular" prescription a doc gives.  BUt you still need Doc approval to have the medicine dispsensed. 

[AFK]

But let me just tie this up as I am going to be tied up pretty heavily for the next few days.

Referring back to the OP, I don't know precisely why the Obama Administration is doing this.

I will repeat that I suspect it is a statement that they don't believe in the medical marijuana model as it has manifested in the states. 

However, I do believe that this crackdown will be limited to dispensaries and not extended to citizens.  I think if someone were stopped in possession of medical marijuana, as long as it's in one of these states and there is documentation that it is for them, they will not feel the full force of the law. 

I can say it certainly isn't poll driven as recent polls suggest 53% of Americans are for decriminalization or legalization of marijuana.

Which makes me think even more this is related to some kind of information they have on hand that suggests this medical marijuana model is causing more problems than it is solving.  Because otherwise there is no motive for them to change course. 

WHen I was talking about diversion earlier my only point was to answer the point about increases and decreases in crime.  Medical marijuana has lead to one decrease for sure as using marijuana for medical purposes is now, mostly, legal in several states.  But it HAS also increased another kind of crime which is drug diversion.  Did it open up flood gates of diversion?  Probably not.  But it is happening and that is based off of what I've heard from law enforcement agents I work very closely with.  But I am not, and have not, stated that it was causing an astronomical problem on par with cartel activity. 

WIth that, I've got shit to do so I will leave you all to the discussion. 

[AFK]

I will also add that there is a certain position in the state that will be opening for which I will likely be putting in my name.

If that happens, this account will be going dark.  This may happen very soon. 

[East Coast Hustle]

No, because you are now conflating two issues.  One is my perception as to why the Obama administration is changing course and the other is about people selling their medical marijuana.

And I have no interest, nor time, to get steeped into another one of these pointless pissing matches.

I've got a drug collection to coordinate. 

translation: I prefer if you just take my word for it rather than making me back up my ridiculous claims with anything approaching facts or science.

I mean, really. You're starting to sound like a taped collection of urban legends stuck on repeat. I hope to god that you're actually trolling and that you don't actually believe the crap you're spewing here because if you do, I weep for the at-risk youth of Maine. Because the fact is, you're so utterly wrongheaded and full of shit about the field that you WORK in, FFS, that it's almost comical.

Almost.

[East Coast Hustle]

Oh, and the difference between "prescription" and "recommendation" is hardly an issue of semantics, as you well know, and trying to frame it like that is a pretty piss-poor way of backing out of a debate that you had no intentions of having in good faith in the first place, as is trying to equate the "diversion" of medical marijuana to the very real problem of diversion of prescription drugs which are so profitable on the black market precisely because they are prescribed and partially payed for by insurance. At least have the decency and honesty to be up-front about your agenda.

[East Coast Hustle]

I will also add that there is a certain position in the state that will be opening for which I will likely be putting in my name.

If that happens, this account will be going dark.  This may happen very soon. 

Translation: I know you guys are going to shit all over me for my methods of "debating" this topic so I'm trying to set up a reason to flounce again that doesn't make it look like I'm just really butthurt.

[AFK]

No, because you are now conflating two issues.  One is my perception as to why the Obama administration is changing course and the other is about people selling their medical marijuana.

And I have no interest, nor time, to get steeped into another one of these pointless pissing matches.

I've got a drug collection to coordinate. 

translation: I prefer if you just take my word for it rather than making me back up my ridiculous claims with anything approaching facts or science.

I mean, really. You're starting to sound like a taped collection of urban legends stuck on repeat. I hope to god that you're actually trolling and that you don't actually believe the crap you're spewing here because if you do, I weep for the at-risk youth of Maine. Because the fact is, you're so utterly wrongheaded and full of shit about the field that you WORK in, FFS, that it's almost comical.

Almost.

Uh, no, I'm like voicing my opinion from my perspective man.  I mean, this is a discussion board right?  We're here to discuss, share opinions, right?  I'm not sure I said anywhere that I expected everyone to take my opinion as fact.  And you may have noticed that Jenne and I had a healthy, but friendly sort-of disagreement on the issue.  But, it's why I've made it very clear by using words like suspect.  I don't work for the Obama administration nor do I have any direct ties to them, so I have no way to know why they are doing this.  But I have a hunch, a gut feeling (therefore not based on facts), and so I shared it.  I could be wrong, I may very well be wrong.  Does that make you happy?

Let me make this clear, I am not out there actively advocating against medical marijuana.  Its' not part of my job.  Hell, it CAN'T be a part of my job.  I can't advocate for anything because of my funding.  My day to day job hardly involves marijuana at all.  My main focus is on alcohol, Rx drug abuse, inhalants, and now bath salts.  But, as an individual, I do have opinions on the matter.  I think there is probably a better model for medical marijuana and hope that someone out there is working on that. 

But I have to say I'm a bit surprised at how aggressive you are being.  I mean, I've not done anything or said anything personal against you or anyone else.  I'm just voicing my opinion based upon my perspective.  I don't understand the aggression.  Especially given how long I've been a part of this community.  But hopefully it is helping you vent whatever it is you've got going on there. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I suspect that a great deal of it is that you tend to present yourself as an authority due to your work, and also tend to present opinion as fact, and then will argue doggedly to defend your position after positing things that are patent misinformation, then after it is proven to be incorrect, dismiss it as a matter of "semantics".

If you are going to use the appeal to authority, you should be prepared to cite your sources. If you're going to insist that medical marijuana requires a doctor's prescription and not a doctor's recommendation, you should probably either know your material in the first place, or be prepared to concede that you were misinformed and made yourself look ridiculous.

And if you just plain don't know much about something, it might be a wise idea, for your own dignity, to not present yourself as if you are an expert.

[AFK]

Hmm, but when I say over and over again that "I suspect" something.  I guess I assume that sends the pretty clear message that I, in fact, don't know and am voicing a hunch.  If I knew what the Obama administration was up to, I'd say, "Hey, this is why Obama is doing what he's doing and here's how I know."

But, again, I don't know.  I know as much as you guys do based on what I posted.  I don't have any inside scoop or information as to why he is doing this.  This is being done out in California.  I'm in Maine.  (Though I imagine it's a matter of time before it comes this way).

Even then, I'm not in a position where I would be involved in that at all. 

I'm looking at the fact that there is now a majority of Americans who favor legalization, which means what Obama is doing is against public opinion.  that tells me, there is some other information that they have that is causing this shift in course.  I don't know what that information is.  I wish I did know.  But I don't. 

[AFK]

And if it makes everyone happy I will concede on the "prescription" thing.  Though, I will stipulate that state officials, I work with, very regularly use "prescription" as short hand and interchangeably when they talk about medical marijuana.  So it isn't officially in the language of the laws but it is the language being used by people who have authority or impact on the law.  

Can we all hug now?  

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The thing is, no one is questioning your opinion of why Obama is cracking down on dispensaries. Rather, during the course of this discussion you presented some opinions and alluded to having sources that back up those opinions, but refuse to cite the sources alluded to. You can try to divert attention back to your opinion on the crackdown, but that doesn't alter the fact that you made some assertions and then flatly refused to cite sources for your data.

[AFK]

Yes, that was about diversion of medical marijuana.  My source is a DEA agent that I obviously can't name for their protection and mine.  

Believe it or don't believe it.  Do people actually think medical marijuana isn't being diverted?  And I've said a couple times now that I'm not saying that medical marijuana is flooding the black market, I was just commenting that it is happening.  I don't have data that says what the scale is.  I've never put forth that I had data that demonstrated it happening on a big scale.  Just that I've been told it is being diverted and sold.  That's all I know and am privy to.  And so I did mention that I think it might be one thing that is causing the policy shift.  I don't know this.  I know it is being diverted, but I don't know the amount.  Given that Obama is going against public opinion, it would be the kind of data that might cause the administration to change course and go against public opinion.  It might not. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Actually, I can't speak for ECH but I am skeptical of your story about your source, because if that was the case why would you not have said so before being backed into a corner about it? Also, you do have a pretty established history of being slippery and playing fast and loose with your story, as well as making assertions about "sources" that never materialize... which makes them hearsay, and diminishes your credibility. I have more than once wondered if this whole persona is just a really, really good troll.

But I do know that marijuana grown with a medical license here in Oregon does get diverted and sold to/shared with people who don't have a license, so I agree with you on that point, though. I don't think it's a terribly widespread/pervasive issue, given that everybody and his dog seems to have a card these days... All it takes is $100 and a doctor willing to sign the form, which isn't hard to find. My doctor asked me if I would consider smoking pot in lieu of much more addictive and dangerous prescription drugs, and at times I wish I'd taken him up on it.

[deadfong]

Regarding why the crackdown is happening now when public opinion does seem to be shifting in favor of some sort of decriminalization/legalization, I wonder if part of it is simple bureaucracy.  I might not be reading this report right:

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2010justification/pdf/fy10-dea.pdf

but if I am, it looks like the annual budget for marijuana enforcement related activities is roughly $250 million.  From my experience, once there's a line item for something in your budget, the tendency is to want to maintain and defend that item, as that money might just disappear from your department altogether if the reason for it is gone.

Not saying this is the whole reason, or even a major part of the reason, but that is a significant amount of money, and cracking down on medical marijuana distributors might help pad out the annual statistics in order to justify that money to Congress.