-- Attachments:
(warning: posted attachments are not verified
or virus checked by the LPTN -- download at your own risk.)
-- /attachments/msg-6679-2.html --"Ye seldom receive that which ye don't ask for -- Speak up, lad! What is
it you want?" Dickens
To: Howard, Paul, Steve and Rob
From: Bernie Ellis, MA, MPH
Subject: We can do so much better re: med pot in Tennessee than what is
now before us
I want to thank Steve Cohen and Rob Briley for introducing medical
marijuana bills in Tennessee. (I prefer the term "cannabis" and will use
it interchangably.) Just to have an open conversation about medical
marijuana in Tennessee again is a good (and very important and very big)
step and I applaud them for that. There is much to agree on in their
bills, particularly the breadth of the eligible medical conditions that
are to be included within their medical cannabis program. However, if
you will look at my attached critique of the MPP model bill that you
used to construct your bill (that was attached to my last email and is
re-attached to this one), you will see that some of the well recognized
weaknesses and deficiencies in the proposed MPP bill still remain.
To set a plant count that is unrealistically low and that fails to
recognize basic biological issues in cannabis production (i.e., ignoring
the "sex" of plants) is not useful; nor is setting a "dry plant matter"
amount equivalent to one week's supply for someone using two to three
joints per day (not an unusual amount for several of the conditions to
be covered). Furthermore, having a bill that includes marijuana leaves
within the patient's allowable cannabis weight, when leaves are
universally discarded as medically useless by knowledgeable cannabis
users and producers, makes no sense and places almost any medical
cannabis producer (patient or caregiver) in violation of the law
immediately and unnecessarily.
Bottom line: For a supposed savvy and well-connected group like the
Marijuana Policy Project, it is astounding to still see many of the same
old blatant weaknesses and ill-informed limitations and restrictions
that have been pointed out continuously still remain within MPP's (and
thus Tennessee's) bill at this 2005 junction in the medical marijuana
movement. And these problems don't even begin to address the fundamental
problem that I will continue to raise until I can't raise it anymore.
We need to have a way to provide medical cannabis to sick people
(Howard's brother, Paul's wife) beginning in the week or so after their
initial medical diagnosis. The MPP model law you are proposing for
Tennessee makes no provision for someone in Paul's wife's shoes -- or my
father's, for that matter, who lived three months between diagnosis with
bladder cancer and death -- or the middle Tennessee woman whose doctor
shared her story with me, who was diagnosed and entered a rapid,
metastatic downward spiral -- dying within eight months of her
diagnosis. Those are the people we should be thinking about as this law
is amended -- Paul's wife, my dad and that woman (and the others) that I
helped anonymously. I support the concept of a Tennessee medical
cannabis program because I want us to set up a process whereby access to
medical cannabis by people like those three people -- like the rest of
our families and friends -- is not restricted unnecessarily.
Aside from the small (but needed) adjustments that are included in my
attached critique, this fundamental access issue is the fatal flaw that
will prevent us from ever moving medical cannabis to a place of
acceptance and appropriate medical usage. Without solving the "immediate
access to cannabis for eligible patients" challenge, our medical program
will be underutilized by those patient populations who would stand to
gain the most benefit from its usage. This challenge is solvable in this
day and age, and successful models do exist (and once again, I'm happy
to discuss them with you or facilitate your visiting these models.)
Thus, for Tennessee to strive to pass a law that reflects no awareness
of the fundamental biology of cannabis production and the pharmacology
of its use, and that fails to consider what would make the law
meaningful for truly sick people who would benefit from legal cannabis
tomorrow -- that course of action suggests that we don't know better.
Well, the fact of the matter is that we do know better -- and your bills
would be better if someone (anyone) involved in writing them knew
anything about the issues we have raised. Why, when we are finally
engaged in discussing the realities of re-establishing a medical
cannabis program in Tennessee, would we want to be less than forthcoming
about the realities of cannabis production, processing and distribution
as we know them and as the world now knows them? Why indeed? The
Washington folks may consider us backwards, but we are anything but.
Steve and Rob both know this. All I am asking is that our proposed laws
look like it -- that they pay some respect to the knowledge base around
this issue that exists worldwide instead of accepting a "cookie cutter"
piece of now outdated and insufficient piece of off-the-shelf
legislation for Tennessee.
I hear what you're saying, Howard, that anything's better than nothing.
That we need to be happy with whatever we get. Well, you know I don't
even think you believe that yourself when you triy to apply that
attitude to other issues that affect you directly. If we're finally
stepping up to the plate in Tennessee around medical cannabis, we might
as well aim for what we want and what we know is needed and not settle
for just any old uninformed, inexperienced, unrealistic and now
discredited (though still being pushed as the "model"
program that's put in front of us. I expect more creativity and critical input from a
Vanderbilt classmate of mine, which Steve was. What I am proposing is
not difficult,but it does take some thought and discussion.
I'm reattaching my critique of the MPP bill (again) so you can see the
range of my concerns about this "off the shelf" bill that Steve and Rob
have put forth. Again, some of the issues that I pointed out last June
have been addressed in their bills, but not nearly all of them. I think
there's lots that can be cleaned up and made more realistic (or at least
better informed) than the current language. But I'm about done holding
my breath. Either we have some opportunity for input on these issues on
these bills -- or we don't. If we do, then let's get on with it right
now. If we don't, then let's get off the pot (so to speak).
Again, I'm always going to be supportive of re-instituting a medical
cannabis program in Tennessee in whatever form; but I favor an informed,
reality-based, practical approach to medical cannabis legislation.
Anything short of that doesn't get me up from in front of the computer
screen to work hard for a half-assed, uninformed bill. No offense anyone
--either we talk to each other and work together, or we do not. I
believe we are the ones we have been waiting for to achieve meaningful
medical cannabis access in our lifetimes. I haven't got time for the
pain or the displeasure of a less-than-worthwhile approach. We can do
better.
As ole Miz Kelley used to say to me on her (now my) farm, "If you're
waitin' on me, you're backin' up!!" I've about stopped asking to have a
meaningful conversation on these issues, but I've not stopped being
willing to have a conversation aboutthem sometime soon. Good luck to
all of you. Bernie Ellis, MA, MPH ( http://www.bernardellis.com/ )
PS I agree, Howard, Thomas Jefferson was a phenomenal President. And an
uncompromising one on the big issues, like applying science to the
resultion of our complex problems. I wish we had Jefferson making the
decision on medical cannabis for this country. He could apply his
agricultural and medical knowledge and skills to decipher the issues I
am raising and support them. Any of you feeling Jeffersonian these days?
Howard J. Wooldridge wrote:
> "The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, and we must be
> contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally
> press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to
> do even what is for their own good." - Thomas Jefferson
>
> Bernie, TJ was our brightest president....howard
>
>
>
> Officer Howard J. Wooldridge (retired)
>
> Media Director, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (www.leap.cc)
>
> Dallas, Texas
>
>
>
> Howard J. Wooldridge
>
> 8412 Moorcroft
>
> Dallas, TX 75228
>
> 817-975-1110
>
> wooldridge@leap.cc wooldridge@leap.cc
>
>
>
> "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men,
> undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine, "The American
> Crisis," 1776
>
> The only way to predict the future, is to create it.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Ellis [ tracevu@bellsouth.net ]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 3:39 PM
> To: Rita Welch
> Cc: Paul Kuhn; Greg of Knoxville; Frank Matthews; Megan Wetzel; Howard
> J. Wooldridge; Kathye of Memphis; joel.frye@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Need for input from TAMM or individual patients/providers
> re Tennessee law
>
>
>
> Sounds like a good idea to me. Always ready for a good blues band. Let
> me know what I can do to help. Bernie
>
> Rita Welch wrote:
>
> Dear TAMM Members,
>
>
>
> I just wanted to let everyone know that I am leaving TN at the end of
> June. I am moving to Florida before the next winter hits. The
> winters here make my Fibro 10 times worse, thus the reason I haven't
> participated in many events recently. Does anyone know if Florida
> has any mmj groups?
>
>
>
> Also, I still have time before I leave to put on that benefit that I
> was talking about. It would be great publicity for TAMM, bring new
> members aboard, raise money, and generate some interest. I know I
> could get some good Southern Rock, Blues bands that draw good crowds.
> I could make this happen, if everyone is behind it and I know soon.
> It will take time to get the bands together, promote, and pick a
> date. I would handle all of this, but could use help if anyone wants
> to and of course we would all have to be in agreement. With my
> moving, I have a lot on my plate, so I would need to know ASAP.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Ellis [ tracevu@bellsouth.net ]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 9:16 AM
> To: Paul Kuhn; Greg of Knoxville; Frank Matthews; Rita Welch;
> Megan Wetzel; Howard J. Wooldridge; Kathye of Memphis;
> joel.frye@gmail.com joel.frye@gmail.com
> Subject: Need for input from TAMM or individual patients/providers
> re Tennessee law
>
> As all of you saw from my earlier post to the Greens, I am
> disappointed that Steve Cohen and Rob Briley went the MPP "model"
> bill route. That was certainly the easy way to go but that bill
> doesn't work in practice, as those states that have tried to
> implement it know. Paul, I presume that you're in contact with
> Steve, because he has not responded to any of my recent emails. If
> he believes that he doesn't need any input from more knowledgable
> TN patients and providers, so be it. But even some MPP staff will
> acknowledge that their "model" bill is not functional in practice.
> I thought that's what we were trying to accomplish in Tennessee --
> a workable program that would serve the maximum number of eligible
> patients. The bill submitted does not do that and instead
> increases the risk of patients and providers who are courageous
> enough to sign up for the program because they can not serve the
> pressing needs of a seriously ill patient and follow the law at
> the same time.
>
> I have attached my edited critique of the MPP "model" bill, in MS
> Word. While a few changes have been made in the "model" bill
> since, the critical and most naive problems with the bill remain
> (e.g., counting male and female plants the same, including leaves
> in the calculation of useable medicine, an allowable dried
> medicine amount that would last most patients one week and a plant
> count so low that it would provide no more than 2-3 months worth
> of medicine at most and most problematic, delaying access to
> medicine for 5-7 months after diagnosis with an eligible
> condiction) These are but a few of the problems included in my
> critique that make the "model" bill look like a cruel joke written
> by people who've never grown a cannabis plant.
>
> We can do better. It's not about creating the perfect bill -- it's
> about passing legislation that has a chance of helping sick folks.
>
>
> Bernie
-- (html alternate email has been deleted) --
-- /attachments/MPP medical marijuana bill edited by Bernie Ellis.0615.doc --
-- /attachments/SB1944 Steve Cohen's med pot bill.pdf --