Pot law passes muster, but doctors risk
all
Denver Post
Friday, June 1, 2001
By Karen Auge
Denver Post Medical Writer
Friday, June 01, 2001 - Colorado doctors who recommend medical marijuana
for their patients could risk federal prosecution, Attorney General Ken Salazar warned
Thursday.
However, after more than two weeks of review, Salazar said that a recent
U.S. Supreme Court ruling does not invalidate Colorado's medical marijuana law.
"The ruling does not prevent the state from moving forward" to
implement the amendment allowing use of medical marijuana, Salazar wrote in a prepared
statement.
Amendment 20, which voters approved in November, is set to take effect
today. The new state law does not establish any legal means to obtain marijuana.
Salazar, along with Gov. Bill Owens, opposed the amendment.
The amendment allows patients who suffer from certain debilitatpetition
the state for permission to possess and use small amounts of the drug.
For that permission to be granted, a physician must sign a form verifying
an applicant suffers from one of several specific medical conditions and that
"marijuana may mitigate the symptoms of the patient's condition."
Salazar's statement said he and Owens wrote Dr. Richard Allen, president
of the Colorado Medical Society, warning that "physicians face the risk of potential
federal prosecution if they participate in the program."
Allen said Thursday that he had not yet received the letter.
But, he said, "it sounds like there are some issues here that
physicians need to be concerned about. And nobody has any answers yet."
Rich Caschette, a former federal prosecutor in Denver, said federal law
prohibiting sale and use of marijuana should cause concern.
"I certainly would be wary if I were a physician," he said.
Luther Symons, spokesman for Coloradans for Medical Rights, which backed
Amendment 20, said he was disappointed that Salazar included what Symons termed a threat
in his statement.
"He is attempting to scare and frighten Colorado doctors. It's
unfortunate that they're resorting to fear tactics."
But Symons said he didn't think the warning would effectively derail
Amendment 20. "I think once everyone steps back and sees that federal courts were
really quick and really decisive in California, it's going to give doctors here a level of
comfort that these threats won't be carried out," Symons said.
Last September, a federal district judge in California ruled that federal
efforts to bar physicians from discussing medical marijuana with patients violated the
doctors' First Amendment right to free speech.
Alan Gilbert, Colorado's solicitor general, said courts could interpret a
doctor's signature on the application as merely offering an opinion and therefore not a
violation of drug laws.
Salazar's opinion on Amendment 20 comes in the wake of a May 14 U.S.
Supreme Court ruling that said cannabis buyers clubs, which provide medical marijuana for
people in California, are illegal. In its ruling, the court said there is no scientific
basis for the medical use of marijuana. But while it outlawed the buyers' clubs, the high
court did not specifically overturn California's Proposition 215, the 1996 law that
legalized the use of medical marijuana in that state.
The ruling prompted questions about whether Colorado's Amendment 20 would
be pre-empted by federal laws barring marijuana use.
In his statement Thursday, Salazar said he and Owens had sent a letter to
acting U.S. Attorney Richard Spriggs asking him to "enforce federal law."
A spokesman for Spriggs said the office hadn't yet received the letter
Thursday afternoon.
###
Denver Post
1560 Broadway
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 820-1010
Fax: (303) 820-1369
Email: letters@denverpost.com
Web: http://www.denverpost.com
|
