Due Process; #1501; Pot, Now Medicine in NJ

You Do process winner of 14 New York and Mid-Atlantic Emmys, including the 2009 awards for Best Interview Program and Best Discussion Series. But it's not about getting high.

Diane Ripertella has agonizing terminal ALS medical marijuana soon to be legal here in New Jersey, the pros, the cons and the how up next on due process. Major funding for due process provided by the New Jersey State Farm Foundation committed to educating the public about the law and by the fun for New Jersey supporting informed citizens for an effective democracy. So it's finally done, marijuana for medicinal use has the green light here in New Jersey.

But is it a way to ease the agony of the desperately ill or just the first step towards full legalization? I'm Raymond Brown and on this edition of due process we look at what's next. Will it go too far? Will the arguments from both sides, but first as always, Sandy King sets the stage. Raymond the players have been fighting it out here in New Jersey for well over a decade. Many of the early advocates whose stories we told didn't live to see the battle won. And 13 other states got here before us, but each state's law is a little bit different from the loose and liberal California approach to the tighter controls in states like Nevada. But proponents say our new law is the strictest in the country and they sold it at the end of a tumultuous final session with pleas from patients who are suffering more than most

of us can even imagine. And legalize they finally did, at least for medical use. On the last day of a lame duck session, maybe because of heartbreaking testimonies like this in the committee months before. It also causes crippling and excruciating pain, symptoms she says which are only eased by the contents of a pipe.

She can no longer hold. And just hours before the final critical vote, Diane Ripertella was back at the state house with one final tearful appeal. And under the new law, her marijuana will finally be legal. Just months from now, but too late for some of the people we've met in the years since the fight for pot estherapy first began. You know, make brownies because I can't smoke it, but I can eat it. It was 13 years ago that Cheryl Miller told us that pot made her MS more bearable. She's been dead for six and a half years, but her husband Jim kept funny. And five years ago, the parents of Sean McGrath shared their story with us.

Their fear of being busted for supplying their son with the one thing that eased the agony of his cancer. Here's someone dying in the process of dying and we're trying to think that maybe a last drag might ease his pain of suffering, anxiety, whatever, and yet it's illegal. And when the crucial votes were cast, they too were there. A lot of other people will not have to go through the stigma that we had to go through of using illegal substance just to help our son feel better. It's what this assemblyman's been preaching since he first introduced a bill from a medicinal partner. The compassionate use of marijuana and allowing medical advocates and physicians who prescribe such treatment, they'll be able to do that in this state. It was one of the few times that Goosiora and this conservative colleague, what doctors prescribe a product that they think is helpful to their patients.

We're on the same side, answering charges like this from opponents. Look at California. It's a nightmare. If you talk to anybody out there in law enforcement, the problems of enforcement, the problems of control, the degradation of neighborhoods. We are not adopting a California medical marijuana bill. This is for patients who truly need it. It's like I can feel the burning in the leg, it's almost like a vise is clamped around it. Grandma, they got cancer. The painkillers they give are included cocaine. So now if they could give her cocaine to kill that pain in a form of a cocktail that would knock your socks off, why can't they give her marijuana as well? But it took plenty of trading and tightening up to sell their bill to majorities in both chambers. It's a great fear that it would lead to the uses that have been documented in California. So I look at this as a start. The result. No homegrown pot. No more than two ounces a month.

No California-like flexibility when it comes to who's eligible and who's not. This country has an appetite for illegal drugs and nothing in this bill is going to change that. It's just going to allow people that are at their sickest to be able to utilize this medicine. A like, Diane Ripertella. I want to live in a diagnosed only six months after we are married. So nobody's going to stop me from doing what I need to do to have my normal life. This bill is going to take me away from the criminal status and my daughter who is my primary caregiver. There's a single mom with two kids and can't go to jail. And now she won't have to worry about that. Thank you.

But legalization for our restricted group of patients won't take effect until June. By that time, there are supposed to be state dispensaries providing limited quantities of marijuana by prescription to only some severely ill patients. But Raymond, neither side is entirely satisfied. And you didn't medical marijuana advocates prevail? Yes. They got a bill. And that was an enormous victory. But they didn't get quite the bill. They wanted patients like Diane, whom we met in my report, say two ounces is less than they need in a month. Others say it will be too expensive, especially since you can't legally grow your own. But the other side says two ounces is too much that it will wind up on the street Raymond and they point to what they say is a potentially dangerous loophole in the law. And that's precisely where we'll pick up our discussion here in the studio. After we hear what then-candidate Chris Christie had to say when the question came up during the campaign. Mr. Christie.

Now listen, I want to do whatever we can do legally and responsibly to alleviate the awful suffering from people who have awful diseases that are causing them great pain. But given my law enforcement background, I also have to say that I agree with Mr. Dagger that devil and this is going to be in the details. We do know on people who have a headache to be able to go and get medical marijuana. Where there is true pain and suffering that can be helped by this, I would be in favor of it. But there has to be sufficient legal safeguards to make sure we don't turn into California and everybody with a headache is going out and getting high. So the new governor is not exactly an opponent, but he has been complaining about a loophole in the law that some fear could open the door to casual use and abuse of medicinal pot. Powell Stevenson from the partnership for a drug-free New Jersey says the governor is right to be worried. We'll hear why. Rosanne Scottie, executive director of the New Jersey, drug policy alliance insists that the naysayers have it all wrong. Welcome. Powell, let me start with you. What's the loophole about which the governor and some critics are concerned? Well, there's a line in there that says, and I'm going to give you a liberal translation,

obstinate, muscular, spasms. And why is that viewed as a loophole? Because a doctor can interpret that to mean a kid 18 years old, can have a muscle spasm from playing sports and say that he can't treat it with normal methods and issue marijuana to him. Okay. Now let me ask you this. I'm going to come to you, Rosanne, I can feel you bribing that the provision of the bill that permits the Department of Health to expand the diseases that might be covered. Are you concerned about that as a loophole as well? So there's a loophole in terms of one definition currently there and the possibility that the Department of Health might expand into areas where it should not. Rosanne, what's the response to that? Well, neither of those are loopholes at all. In terms of the muscular spasticity, it's defined as a medical condition, a doctor knows what it means, and it also has to be resistant to currently available treatments. So that's hardly a loophole.

In terms of adding conditions that we are in the 14th state to have this kind of a law, and ten of those states have that provision. All it does is allow the Department of Health and Senior Services to take testimony, let out petitions and doctors, you know, petition to add something down the road, and the Commissioner of Health and Senior Services is perfectly capable of doing that, and they're certainly not going to be adding headaches like Governor Christie. Well, if the Commissioner's service essentially at the pleasure of the Governor, is there some view that there'd be a Commissioner so irresponsible as to willy-nilly add diseases that are minor or that don't fit within the scope of what the legislature intended, especially after he rings held by the Department? That's certainly a possibility. What experience anywhere has suggested that possibility, because you keep hearing about California, which is a totally different experience? Well, California has been the leader in the whole thing. That's true. But California led down a different path, which isn't as tight as the New Jersey statute. Yes. But that one phrase in there and the potential.

But has there been a state where a designated official has abused the power to take a look at new possible diseases, which would make us say, why that's really a shocking abuse of power that makes us look at any such provision? Well, quite frankly, it hasn't been around long enough in the other states to even really judge that. Rosenthal, let me ask you this. In the process of bringing this to fruition, and this has been a long, long fight, there were some things that were given up by advocates. What's the most significant thing that you had to give up? Most significant provision that you had to abandon in order to make this, push this bill through the mail. Well, one quick thing, just to respond to the previous comment, I mean, certainly these bills have been around in 13 other states for long enough that we certainly know that there is no health commissioner, so irresponsible that they're okaying diseases for okaying medical marijuana for, you know, frivolous conditions. So we do have an answer to that. In terms of what we gave up, we certainly would have liked to have seen doctors have more discretion.

The original bill really made it a situation where it was between a doctor and a patient and doctors who were able to prescribe all sorts of powerful drugs like morphine and acid content. But was it given the fact that- Don't have that leeway for medical marijuana. Two factors we have to throw in. One is that California, which is kind of an outlier, has been probably a bad example of what can happen if you don't have a tight regulation. But on the other hand, it seems to me that if opponents are saying giving the Department of Health discretion to old hearings to expand it, that you certainly would have had a much greater rebellion if you had given doctors broader discretion in terms of making the judgment. Well, absolutely. I think it was, you know, giving that up was what we needed to make enough legislators comfortable to pass the bill. We thought it was an acceptable compromise. We think it leaves a lot of seriously old patients out in the cold. And we certainly don't want to leave people like Diane Repertella out in the cold. This should be a decision between doctors and patients. Now Rosanna has told us what she and her allies did to make the legislators legislator was comfortable.

Do you feel that you were abandoned by some members who had been opponents but who would ultimately agree to this bill? Is there any configuration of provisions that would cause you to permit medicinal use of marijuana? Yes. If you get rid of that one loophole, I do not oppose medical marijuana for the truly sick. So you were compassionate portion of it? So you're concerned about one designated disease and the power of the commissioner. What do you want me to do is, given the controversy that preceded this on decade, 15 years of controversy, if you had to go back to the legislature every time the medical community reached a consensus about a new possible use within the framework of serious disease, don't you think I'd be a pretty awkward and if not difficult, if not impossible, way to operate? It could be difficult, but I think in order to control things, it has to happen. You know, again, I think it would be absurd to go back to the legislature every time you needed to add a condition. Every time you had a new condition, I mean, you know, 20 years ago, we didn't know about

HIV-AIDS. Now, it's, you know, one of the, you know, most serious problems we face in terms of health in this country and have to go back every time would be awkward. It would be, you know, take up the legislature's time, the commissioner of health and senior services is perfectly capable of doing what needs to get done to make sure conditions are added in a responsible manner. Now that we're, let me go to another aspect of what looks like the regulatory part of this process, but could have deeper implications. There are dispensaries. Do we know very much from the legislation about what those dispensaries are going to look like or how they're going to operate? Yeah, the legislation is actually very detailed. I mean, people who want to have a dispensary have to go through very, very thorough background checks. The commissioner of health and senior services is involved. The attorney general's office is involved. They cannot have any criminal history in terms of drug possession or sales. They are limited in how much marijuana they can, you know, give to people. But are you going to be ready in June? Well, the bill becomes effective in June and then there's three months for regulations

to be promulgated. We may not be ready in June. So when do you see the first dispensary? We would hope certainly within a year if you look at what's going on in other states, it took the state of New Mexico who passed their law about two years ago, it took them about a year altogether to get their system up and running. So I think a year is going to be involved. And do we see a cottage industry ahead of dispensaries set up wherever there are clusters of people who are going to be found under the legislation to be in need? I think that's a possibility because they haven't gone beyond the original six locations. Now, what is your thought about the symbolic nature of this? I think you get the sense from hearing the opposition that while there is strong opposition, it isn't rooted so much in the details of this bill or any other bill. But a broad concern that we're sending the wrong signal that marijuana is not something to be labeled as bad and cast aside, but something more complex that has some positive uses although it's not recreationally proper. Yeah, I think there really is in terms of New Jersey doing this now, huge symbolic significance. And I think you're seeing even people who technically have concerns about medical

marijuana actually support allowing seriously ill people. This is an issue that has overwhelming support from people here in New Jersey and actually across the country. We wouldn't have gotten a bill in New Jersey unless a whole lot of legislators were getting a whole lot of pressure from lots of constituents. And it's, I think we've reached a big point on this. I think maybe you'd have a different view about the symbolism of it. Is that part of what disturbs you that there is no matter how you structure this, a message that says, especially to young folks, marijuana is not something to be consigned to the garbage bin. It does potentially have use. Absolutely. I work with SaverFriend, which is a group of concerned parents that are working with our local high school on substance abuse. And it's absolutely the wrong message to send to the kids that marijuana is fine. I mean, they're using oxocotin, they're using marijuana, they're using everything now. Is it possible to send them the message that life's more complicated than black and white and that there are some substances that are generally not to be used for recreation,

but have some value? Well. The Sevenman Carroll kind of made that argument about cocaine in the clip we saw in Sandy's package. Yeah. I think that most kids will interpret, oh, good, it's a medicine and now it's fine and I'm going to use it. So do you believe that it's likely that the passage of this bill and the establishment of dispensaries is likely to set up a general view among kids that it's more property is marijuana? Yes. I really do. Do you see this as a step in the direction of legalization? Yes. Absolutely. You look at the chronologic steps, needle exchange, medical marijuana, legalized marijuana, legalized drugs. You mean across the board, legalization? Across the board. It's the overall goal. Yeah. I know you want to respond to that, but let me ask you a different question and then you can roll your answers together. Imagine this hypothetical, really the legislation goes into effect without a hitch. It's all set up and then some outrageous thing occurs.

Some person licensed to use or a caregiver licensed to use it sells it in a school zone or something that gets huge publicity around the state. One or two bad cases that suggest that this is really subject to abuse, but not statistically meaningful. Do you think that would be enough to have the legislature quickly revisit the statute? I don't think so. I think there's such, again, overwhelming support among people in New Jersey and among the legislature that one or two incidents aren't going to be a problem. And I think, again, to go back to what message it sends, you know, allowing seriously people access to medical marijuana, it doesn't send any different message than allowing people seriously access to morphine or oxycontin or other things. You're not saying street use of heroin is okay because you allow seriously ill people access to morphine. How do you respond to serious people who say, as Paul just said, but I see in my lifetime a movement that's sort of the domino falling, that for its needle exchange in medical

marijuana, that your real agenda, the agenda of you and your allies is to have a full range of decriminalization or legalization of a number of drugs that are harmful. I think, you know, what we're seeing in terms of changes in the law are the legislature, not just in New Jersey, but around the country revisiting the mistakes of the past. You know, we did not allow access to clean needles 20 years ago. We ended up with a horrific HIV epidemic and losing lives. But there are still people who linger. There are still people who linger. There are still people who linger. There are still people who linger. There are still people who linger. There are still people who linger. People who in good faith, as Paul is in good faith, and I think there are others, really believe that legalization, that the use of needles and the legalization of medicinal marijuana are really just tactical maneuvers that are part of a broader effort for those who honestly believe that there should be a broader range of decriminalizing drugs, not all drugs, but a broader range of drugs.

And how do you respond to that belief? Because I think that belief exists in some people of good will who look at this and say, we see the erosion of what was once a clear, unequivocal position. I think that there are some people of good will who believe this. I also think that it's a bit of a red herring for people who like to look at changes that are being made, whether it's needle exchange, whether it's medical marijuana, whether it's sentencing reform. These are common sense. These are evidence-based practices. Look, there are also people with good will. We want for legalization. And they can't find an answer to these, you know, evidence-based practices. And so what they do is they raise the specter of drug legalization and chaos and all these things. And I don't know that that's actually a good will argument on the part of some of these people. But there are people in the country who argue for decriminalization. There are a number of organizations. Oh, there are. Absolutely. So, I mean, you could have good will on both sides. And I guess my question was, given the fact that you seem to be making at least some steps that are leading to some legislative victories, are there conscious efforts to reassure those who believe in good faith that this is just the stalking horse for a full decriminalization

of a broad spectrum of drugs? I am not exactly sure what would give them that level of comfort. I think you have to look at each of these issues on its own. You know, we certainly believe that we should have a more common sense approach to drugs in terms of how we treat them and whether or not we do not believe people should be punished for what they put into their own bodies, that's certainly a principle of ours. And so whether or not that would give them a level of comfort, I mean, we believe in policies that are based on evidence, we believe it, looking at things in a holistic way and looking at the harms that come from our current policies. Two more quick questions in here. One is there were a couple of people in that package who would testify to the legislature that they need really three, four or five ounces in order to get the relief they need. What do you think is going to happen to them under a statute that's pretty clear that you can only get two ounces a month. What's your speculation and how do you feel about it? They probably will try to get more. Does that trouble you?

Do you think that should have given the legislature pause to have greater discretion and how much could be dispensed to give it to doctors or to the health department? I think there needs to be some safeguards in there. And truly if a patient that's suffering and not somebody that just twisted their back, if they through their doctor know that they need more, that's fine. Do you see any likelihood that the legislature what might revisit this? For people like some of the folks who saw in the package who were testified, they need more than the two ounces. Absolutely. I mean, they're going to be back on the black market when can assume and they're very sympathetic case. We hope that eventually the legislature will revisit this because certainly we don't want people like Diane Ripettella or actually in this case our husband going to the black market if two ounces isn't enough and if it's less than what their doctor would like. Are you predicting it if you went back to the legislature in the short term you could get that? I don't know in the short term. I think if you look at what's going on in some other states, the state of Washington originally allowed a smaller amount of marijuana and a couple years ago their department

of health and seniors. I take that as guarded optimism and a requirement that you both have to come back and see us again because we're out of time. Absolutely. My thanks to Roseanne Scotty and Powell Stevenson. That's it for this edition of due process. The medicinal marijuana story is just one of many. We'll continue to follow through this season and beyond for now for Sandi Kain, all of us here at due process. Well I think just from medicinal purposes it's not a problem, long as it's controlled and maybe we can even tax it, get some revenue. Cancer patients, yes, terminally ill, yes. There will be people who don't have any kind of medical problem that they have to use it for.

From the time it's prescribed to the time it's delivered to the person home, it should be monitored. There are other options out there, you know, as a family, you let everything actually legalize it. We can't control some of their violence and some of the main harm that goes on in the streets. Well if they're going to label it, medicinal purposes, then that's where the line should be drawn, it should be given to you by a doctor I suppose. The growth naturally, I have absolutely no problems with it for medicinal purposes. Major funding for due process provided by the New Jersey State Farm Foundation committed to educating the public about the law and by the fund for New Jersey supporting informed

citizens for an effective democracy.