Summary of Concerns
about Proposed AMR Initiatives and Campaigns
Compiled by the Colorado Hemp Initiative Project
with input from patients, their family, friends and caregivers, medical professionals,
attorneys, public officials, drug policy reform professionals,
and other concerned citizens in Colorado and nationwide.
November 21, 1997

    These concerns have been presented to Americans for Medical Rights.  AMR has declined to make any changes in their initiative based on these concerns.  AMR has admitted that their initiative may not work for patients, but they believe it will win.  CO-HIP has not taken an official position on the initiative yet.  However, several patient groups nationwide are forming to oppose it on the grounds that it will endanger them.

I.  Medical marijuana program would be controlled by state bureaucrats.
    We have suggested the idea of an independent commission whose qualifications, terms, and powers would be defined in the initiative.  Our concern is that you do not put your opponents in charge of the law you are trying to see enacted.
    In addition, no initiative will ever address all the problems that may occur in a medical marijuana program.  Thousands of decisions will have to be made, each one causing a political fight with the legislature, unless there is an intervening commission.

Benefits of an independent commission:
- Gives the citizens of Colorado control over policy-making through appointments to the commission.
- Less expensive than appointing a board through a state health agency.
- Takes the implementation of the law out of the hands of the legislature and the Governor.
- Will not be subject to the political pressures within state government.
- Will not be as subject to pressure from the federal government
- Ensures that the program will not be taken over by law enforcement.
- Provides for at least one physician to be included in the implementation of the program.
- Does not have to rely on the governor or general assembly for its powers
- Has the power to subpoena and investigate.

II.  Disease decisions made by bureaucrats, not physicians.
The following medical conditions are not covered by the AMR initiative:

 
    A patient would have to petition a state agency to have these types of conditions listed, with no guarantee that even one physician would be a part of that decision. A recommendation from one or two physicians should be adequate justification for any medical condition. This provision de-values the physician/patient relationship by stating that a government bureaucracy has more power over a patient’s care than his/her physician.

III. Sets arbitrary and unworkable limits on cultivation and possession (3 plants/2 ounces)
    A physician, not the government, should not be able to decide how much medicine a patient needs.  In addition, these limits are completely unrealistic and unworkable.
    Many patients require one to two ounces per week.  The federal government sends its IND patients about 8 ounces per month.  The proposed Colorado law would limit the amount a patient could possess to only 2 ounces. This will endanger patients by forcing them to re-supply frequently.  In addition, under current Colorado law, one to eight ounces is only a misdemeanor.  Patients are already at low-risk for punishment.

    A three plant limit will:
1) Effectively prohibit growing outdoors.  Since a patient would be lucky to produce 0.5 ounces per plant, s/he would not even come close to achieving a yearly supply in one outdoor growing cycle.
2) Force patients to build expensive indoor grow rooms.  Assuming they can afford it and can master the technology, they would still not be able to produce an adequate supply.
3) Reduce the likelihood that buyer’s clubs could form to adequately supply the needs of patients.

    We suggest that the independent Commission, under the recommendation of the physician, should determine limits, if any, on a case by case basis if necessary.  This decision should not be written into our constitution.  We believe a patient’s physician is the most qualified person to determine the treatment type and dosage for his/her patient.
 
IV. Makes marijuana appear to be a dangerous drug.
    No other medication:

V. Tacitly endorses asset forfeiture.
     The initiative outlines conditions under which a patient’s property may be seized.

VI. May hinder industrial hemp efforts in the state legislature.
    The initiative defines marijuana but does not exclude industrial hemp from the definition.  Sponsors of state legislation concerning industrial hemp are concerned that a constitutional standard stating that hemp and marijuana are the same will undermine their efforts in the state legislature to differentiate the two.

VII. Written by outsiders.
    Despite repeated requests, AMR refused to involve local drug policy reform professionals in the writing of the initiative.

VIII. The AMR-led campaign has been divisive and disruptive.
    AMR should be seeking to gain supporters, not alienate them.

In Colorado, AMR:

Nationwide, AMR has:
 Back to the Top