On August 29, 2013, the Federal Department of Justice issued a memorandum saying |it's going to continue to rely on local and state governments to deal with marijuana action by way of enforcement of state narcotics legislation. But in light of new state legislation allowing for ownership of some tiny quantities of marijuana and regulating manufacturing, processing and sale of marijuana, the Department designated eight standards to direct law enforcement.States need to (1) forbid the supply of marijuana to minors; (2) prevent earnings from the sale of marijuana by flowing to criminal ventures; (3) prevent the diversion of marijuana from nations where it's legal to nations where it's prohibited; (4) stop bud action from serving as a cover for the trafficking of other prohibited drugs; (5) prevent violence and using firearms from the cultivation and distribution of marijuana; (6) prevent drugged driving and the exacerbation of additional negative public health effects related to marijuana use; (7) stop the increase of marijuana on public lands; also (8) stop marijuana possession or use on federal property. In the event the Federal Government decides that States aren't adhering to these standards, the Federal Government reserves its right to challenge State legislation. The Feds did not state how any of this was done. They just said the nations should do this. However, Florida has seemingly been searching another way.
The New Law
In departure CS/CS/SB 1030, Florida has missed a few essential problems. Consider, for Example, the new legislation, that has the next attributes:
It creates"low-THC cannabis" authorized when prescribed by a medical doctor or osteopathic doctor for a patient that has specific medical problems. What states? Cancer, seizures, persistent or severe muscle spasms. Sounds clear enough. Here is where the Florida Legislature chose to go off course -
An individual is considered capable to obtain this therapy if (among other items ), the individual is a permanent resident of Florida and the physician decides that the dangers of ordering the marijuana are reasonable. How does a doctor determine whether the individual is a permanent resident? Is there any security for making that choice in good faith? Nope. How can a doctor make the reasonableness decision? Is the analysis of marijuana usage even portion of their medical school program? No.
The way the Legislature made a decision to perpetrate that purpose into the FMA and FOMA, why they want to have that job (beyond amassing non dues earnings ) and the way the drafters came up with eight hours (does this include water and toilet breaks?) Is a miracle. And such training pertains whatsoever to the daily medical care of the doctors taking such a program can be absent. Can an orthopedist take action? Sure. You bet. A dermatologist? No issue. What's that the"best and highest use" to get a trained cardiologist, family practitioner or anesthesiologist? Assessing a patient with cancer or who's awful seizures that may benefit from medical marijuana demands no more than the eight hour program? Thus, is this type of clinically, clinically driven law intended to help people in need or you which just makes sure everybody gets their piece of this pie?
Florida has allegedly had a very long and lingering issue with the dilemma of drug diversion. Has this issue been licked? Were law enforcement consulted any of those public security issues involved with law? Were they at the drafting room once the invoice was made? I really don't understand, but it's tough to find some of the fingerprints on the law. It appears we've just dumped this dilemma on these! It does not exist! There's not any way to guard the general public from this however. The best they could do is to ship it off to some confirmation laboratory and wait for a day or so (in a massive expense the taxpayers will bear). It's a law without significant effects, and all physician training charges and licensure fees will do is put money in the pockets of their authorities and companies waiting to pounce on the chance.
1 bright spot... that the Legislature has made a decision to examine using medical marijuana. Yep. They've put aside one BILLION... I mean thousand bucks (about the expense of a site ) for the Department of Health Biomedical Research Program to research cannabidol and its impact on childhood epilepsy, a very laudable appearing idea. Where will the remainder of the cash come from to perform exactly what the legislation mandates-the Department of Health is to produce a Compassionate Use Registry that (among other matters ) prevents a patient looking for prescribed marijuana from several doctors; determines dispensing organizations throughout Florida; polices the trained doctors, the dispensing patients and organizations who might be abusing regulations? Who knows. Query: why not research this BEFORE green light the entire idea? Colorado and Washington have led the way about the problem, so why don't you study the public medical and health issues prior to passing a law with numerous open problems?
The Proposed Amendment
The suggested Florida constitutional amendment makes the legislation passed by the Legislature appear meticulous. It makes the entire issue resemble a façade for the schedule of waltzing into the large business and recreational usage. As an example, the amendment permits the use of marijuana (not only the very low THC number ) for an assortment of ills, such as"other ailments for which a doctor thinks that the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the possible health risks for a patient" I am able to interpret that since I am a lawyer. Oh, and even better, the man or woman who makes such a decision? The fantastic thing about the suggested change: It clearly prohibits using marijuana at any college, place of employment or smoking it at a public location. [The Florida law says using a vaporizer is not"smoking."] . Great. Now, how can people be analyzed? There's presently no rapid on-the-spot evaluation for blood amount.
So... let's be fair here: the suggested amendment is only a means to produce a new business, one which actually can not be controlled, one which has no agreed on mathematics behind it, one which doctors haven't had the opportunity to digest or conceive of. Shouldn't this type of matter come from the doctors and scientists that can direct the legislative procedure?
Soback into the Justice Department standards. Does the Florida legislation or suggested amendment accomplish some of these? Nope. On the contrary, it requires the entire issue and just dumps it in an already overburdened law enforcement program. Can they stop the supply of marijuana to minors? In word just. Where's the funding for it? Can they stop earnings from the sale of marijuana from flowing into criminal enterprises? No. Can they stop the diversion of marijuana from nations where it's lawful to countries where it's prohibited? No. Huh? Can they stop violence and using guns at the cultivation and distribution of marijuana? Not a reference. The application does not exist yet! Can they stop the increase of marijuana on public lands or protect against marijuana possession or use federal property? Please.
What about the impact of medical marijuana to the Americans with Disabilities Act? Imagine if it is used to deal with pain? Can a pain clinic permit be required? Can Florida enter into a agreement with the national authorities or are we currently only on course to take that there are national laws (criminal ones) that we just need to assume will not be enforced?
Conclusion
The most cynical people will see the legislation and the proposed modification as a fiscally motivated dashboard by the authorities to increase funds and from business people to earn money. The more pragmatic of people believe there could be significance to medical marijuana and the problem needs research and careful attention since there are private and public health dangers which need to be thought about. However, how in which the problem has been treated in this state does not appear at all like a critical evaluation of the worth of medical marijuana.