CA NORML Medical Marijuana Information
A Federal Court decision establishes that California physicians who follow certain guidelines in recommending or approving the medical use of marijuana are immune from sanction or criminal prosecution.
There has been much conjecture and confusion regarding the implementation of Proposition 215, "The Compassionate Use Act of 1996". The federal government initally took the controversial public stance of threatening to target physicians with warnings of potential criminal prosecution and/or civil sanction. Numerous doctors have been understandably concerned about possible liability when questioned by a patient regarding the medicinal use of cannabis. The following is an attempt to illuminate the relevant issues and answer most questions a physician will likely consider when faced with this issue.
BACKGROUND
Proposition 215 was approved
by the voters on November 5, 1996. Pursuant to the Proposition, Health
& Safety Code Sec. 11362.5 was added to California law to effectively legalize
the medicinal use of cannabis by seriously ill Californians.
On April 30, 1997, United States District Judge Fern M. Smith issued a preliminary injunction barring the federal government from taking any action against physicians who recommend or approve the medical use of cannabis for treatment of "HIV/AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, and/or seizures or muscle spasms associated with a chronic, debilitating condition." The ruling was subsequently upheld by an injunction from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in its ruling Conant v McCaffrey (2002). The Supreme Court refused to reconsider the decision, leaving it as binding federal law in the Ninth Circuit (including all West Coast states plus Nevada and Montana).
WHAT DID THE COURT RULE?
IT DOES NOT protect physicians who provide
marijuana to patients, or direct patients where to procure marijuana.
Specifically, Judge Smith ruled:
The court's injunction protects California
physicians from civil sanction or criminal prosecution for recommending
or approving the medicinal use of cannabis in the treatment of the conditions
listed above.
"The Court PRELIMINARILY ENJOINS defendants [the United States]
... from threatening or prosecuting physicians, revoking their licenses,
or excluding them from Medicare/Medicaid participation based upon conduct
relating to medical marijuana that does not rise to the level of a criminal
offense.... this preliminary injunction is also intended to cover non-criminal
activity related to those recommendations, such as providing a copy of
a patient's medical chart to that patient or testifying in court regarding
a recommendation that a patient use marijuana to treat an illness. These
activities implicate the same legal issues and harms as physician recommendations."
WHAT IS A PHYSICIAN LAWFULLY ALLOWED TO DO?
Under Proposition 215 and the Conant injunction, a physician can freely and openly discuss the medical use of cannabis
with a patient. Should the physician believe that such use is appropriate
treatment or beneficial to the patient's health, the physician may recommend
or approve the use of medicinal cannabis and should note such in the patient's
medical records. When a patient requests a copy of their medical records,
the physician may safely provide the copy. Should a patient ask his or
her physician to testify in court regarding the recommendation or approval,
the physician can safely do so without fear of government reprisal.
Pursuant to the passage of Proposition 215, thousands of
California physicians have provided letters to patients confirming the recommendation
or approval of medical cannabis use. To date (2007), not a single physician has been federally charged or sanctioned for doing so.
WHAT ABOUT STATE LAW? The California Medical Board oversees the practice of medicine in the state. In 2004, the Board issued a policy statement outlining standards of good practice for cannabis medicine. A few specialists with large numbers of medical cannabis patients have been investigated by the Board pursuant to complaints from law enforcement. Most of the complaints have been dismissed, though a handful have resulted in disciplinary action for failure to maintain good standards of practice.
For more information contact:
California NORML
2215-R Market St #278
San Francisco, CA 94114
(415) 563-5858
canorml@igc.apc.org