On 29 August 2013, the Federal Ministry of Justice issued a memorandum stating that it will continue to rely on state and local authorities to review the activities of marijuana through the application of laws on state narcotic drugs. However, in light of the state's new laws that hold a small amount of marijuana and regulate the production, processing and sale of marijuana, the Department has identified eight criteria for the management of state law enforcement. States should (1) prevent the spread of marijuana to minors; (2) to discourage proceeds from the sale of marijuana to criminal enterprises; (3) to prevent the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal to indicate where it is illegal; (4) to prevent the use of marijuana as a cover for trafficking in other illegal drugs; (5) prevent violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana; (6) to prevent drug driving and exacerbation of other adverse health effects associated with the use of marijuana; (7) prevent the growth of marijuana on public lands; and (8) prevent the possession or use of marijuana on federal property. In the event that the federal government determines that states do not adhere to such criteria, the federal government reserves the right to challenge state laws. The feds did not say how it should have been done. They simply said that states should do this. But Florida, apparently, looked the other way.
New law
Missing CS / CS / SB 1030, Florida missed some key issues. Consider, for example, a new law that has the following features:
This makes “low-THC cannabis” legal when it is prescribed by a doctor or osteopathic doctor for a patient with certain medical conditions. What conditions? Cancer, convulsions, severe or persistent muscle spasms. It seems clear enough. Here, where the Florida legislature decided to go out of the way,
A patient is considered qualified to receive this treatment if (among other things) the patient is a permanent resident of Florida, and the doctor determines that the risks when ordering a bank are reasonable. How does the doctor determine if a patient is a permanent resident? Is there any protection for making this decision in good faith? Nope How does the doctor make the definition of rationality? Does marijuana study at least part of the medical school curriculum? No.
Surprisingly, the Florida Medical Association and the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association, since October 1, 2014, are responsible for training physicians who prescribe a doctor through an eight-hour course of study. How did the legislature decide to allocate this function to FMA and FOMA, why do they even want this task (besides collecting revenues from unauthorized fees) and how the compilers came up with eight hours (does this concern water and breaks in the bathroom?) Interesting. And the way such training generally relates to the daily medical practice of doctors taking such a course is also absent. Can an orthopedist? Of course. What about the pathologist? You bet. Dermatologist? No problems. Why did a successful medical practitioner decide to continue this new direction? How is this “highest and best use” for a well-trained cardiologist, family doctor, or anesthesiologist? Evaluating a patient with cancer or having serious seizures that can benefit from medical marijuana requires no more than an eight-hour course? I thought that this required training in internal medicine, neurology and ... cancer. So, is this a medical, clinically controlled law designed to help people in need, or one that simply ensures that everyone gets their cake? It seems this does not match the value.
It is reported that Florida had a long and protracted problem with the drug diversion problem. People from all over the world came to Florida not only for the sun, but also for hydroxy, rosi and many other controlled substances. Was this a problem lizan? Was the sentence imposed by law enforcement on any public security issues related to the law? Were they in the editorial room when the account was created? I do not know, but it is difficult to notice any fingerprints under the new law. It seems we just threw this problem on them! Where, for example, is it a test on the roads to test people using vehicles under the influence of a pot, medical marijuana, or otherwise? This does not exist! It is not yet possible to protect the public from this. The best thing they can do is send it to the laboratory for confirmation and wait about one day (at high costs incurred by taxpayers). This is a law with no significant consequences, and all the costs of training a doctor and licensing fees will be to put money in the pockets of the government and businesses awaiting the opportunity to take advantage of this opportunity.
One bright spot ... The legislature decided to study the use of medical marijuana. Yeah. They installed one BN. ... I mean a million dollars (about the cost of the website) for the Biomedical Research Program of the Department of Health to study cannabidol and its effect on intractable childhood epilepsy, a truly meritorious, seeming idea. Therefore, when the rest of the money comes from what the law requires, the Department of Health must create a registry of compassionate use that (among other things) prevails in a patient who is looking for a prescribed pot from several doctors; Establishes dispensing organizations throughout Florida; supervises trained doctors, handout organizations and patients who may abuse the law? Who knows. Question: why not explore this before green lighting the whole idea? Colorado and Washington both led the way to this question, so why not study public health and clinical problems before passing a law with so many open questions?
Proposed amendment
Florida’s proposed constitutional amendment makes the law passed by the legislature look meticulous. This makes the whole issue look like a façade for a waltzing agenda in both big business and recreational use. For example, the amendment makes it possible to use marijuana (and not only a low diversity of THC) for various diseases, including “other conditions under which the physician believes that the medical use of marijuana reasonably outweighs the potential risks to the patient's health. “I can translate this because I am a lawyer. It means "NOTHING." Oh, and even better, the person who makes such a definition? “Physician” is a definition in which the law of Florida includes not only MD and TO, but also dentists, orthopedists, chiropractors and optometrists. Good thing about the proposed amendment: it explicitly prohibits the use of marijuana in any school, place of work or smoking in a public place. [The Florida law states that using a vaporizer is not "smoking."], Good. Now, how will people be tested? There is currently no rapid rapid test for blood levels.
So ... let me be honest here: the proposed amendment is just a way to create a new industry that really cannot be regulated, which does not agree with the science behind it, and that the doctors did not have time to seriously digest or to think about. This mud bogging is simple and simple. Shouldn't such a thing come from doctors and scientists who can lead the legislative process?
So back to the criteria of the Ministry of Justice. Does Florida law or proposed amendment fit any of them? Nope Instead, he takes the whole problem and simply dumps it onto the already overloaded law enforcement system. Do they prevent the spread of marijuana to minors? Only in words. Where is the funding for this? Do they prevent the proceeds from the sale of marijuana from criminal enterprises? No. They prevent the leakage of marijuana from the states where it is legal to declare where it is illegal? No. Do they discourage the use of marijuana as a cover for trafficking in other illegal drugs? A? Do they prevent violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana? Not to mention. How about preventing the driving of drugs and exacerbating other adverse health effects associated with the use of marijuana? The tool does not exist yet! Do they prevent the growth of marijuana on public lands or prevent the possession or use of marijuana in federal ownership? You are welcome.
How about the effect of medical marijuana on Americans with Disabilities Act? Do people with cancer have the right to receive a prescription in accordance with this federal law? Will doctors be legally responsible for the inability to prescribe it? What if it is used to treat pain? Will you need a license for a pain clinic? Where is the immunity for assigning him in a legal way (suppose it could be), in light of the fact that federal law prohibits it! Has Florida entered into some kind of agreement with the federal government, or are we just now ready to admit that there are federal laws (criminal) that we just have to pass, will not be respected? How is it expected that someone will navigate?
Conclusion
The most cynical of us will view both the law and the proposed amendment as the financially motivated power of the government to raise funds and business people to make money. More pragmatic of us think that it can be useful for medical marijuana, and that the problem needs research and careful attention, because there are personal and public health risks that need to be taken into account. Many very sick people claim that medical marijuana is a game changer for them. But how the problem is handled in this state is not at all like a serious study of the cost of medical marijuana. It just seems like the rage of hope or greed.
