1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP
  1. chillinwill
    The Iowa Board of Pharmacy sidestepped a court ruling this week, which had ordered it to consider whether the state should reclassify marijuana as having medical value.

    The Iowa board was ordered by a district court judge to consider whether "marijuana has accepted medical use in the United States." Thirteen states have deemed that marijuana has accepted medical use and have legalized it with doctor approval. Those thirteen states, of course, are "in the United States," which would appear to make for an open and shut case for the Iowa board.

    The effort to reclassify marijuana in Iowa is led by the American Civil Liberties Union and local medical marijuana users. One such user, George McMahon, receives 300 joints monthly from the federal government. He's one of four patients grandfathered into the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program ended by President George H.W. Bush in 1991.

    Advocates included a Drug Enforcement Administration ruling that determined marijuana did have accepted medical use. (That ruling was rejected by political appointees in the federal government.)

    The pharmacy board was fully informed by assistant attorney general and counsel to the board Scott Galenbeck of its job. "Judge Novak's ruling states," Galenbeck read to the board, "'The board must determine whether the evidence presented by petitioner is sufficient to support a finding that marijuana has accepted medical use in the United States and does not lack accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.' A couple sentences before that the judge stated if the board believes that evidence presented by petitioner was insufficient to support such a finding it should have stated such in its order."

    The board had previously rejected the ACLU effort. The civil liberties group appealed to the district court, setting up this week's rematch.

    Yet the Iowa board, instead of asking whether it has "accepted medical use in the United States," asked whether Iowa should approve of it, which is not a question for the board but for the Iowa legislature.

    The meeting was held in downtown Des Moines with only a handful of the public in attendance. "I was going to ask maybe if we could have this gentleman sit rather than walk through the room taking pictures," Galenbeck said of a Huffington Post reporter at the meeting.
    Story continues below

    The board was unanimous. Board Member Margaret Whitworth complained of "a lack of science and any up-to-date more recent information."

    "I have a very difficult time saying that there was any type of scientific evidence-based type of evidence given to us that day. The fact that the other states have done this does not mean that Iowa has to follow suit. We need to have a lot of evidence," said board member Ed Maier.

    "I would agree with that," said board member DeeAnn Wedemeyer-Oleson, who then launched into a story about how she had told her father when she was in high school that everybody else was allowed to stay out late at night so she should have the privilege, too.

    "And he said, 'Well, if all your friends jumped off the bridge, does that mean you should jump off the bridge?' So, to me this whole other 12, what is now 13 states, allowing medical marijuana use is not at all sufficient to allow the Board of Pharmacy to make a decision," she determined.

    "I'd have to agree," said Ann Diehl, a board member. "I don't have anything else to add but I didn't see any, what I would call, scientific based evidence."

    Board member Susan Frey went as far as to blame the board's own counsel for not properly explaining to the court why they had rejected reclassifying pot in the first place.

    "When controlled substances are classified, it's classified on the eight criteria that Scott [Galenbeck] presented in our legal brief to the court. And I think that that was not addressed appropriately to the court and not all of those counts were presented and also certainly not here at our hearing. So I would say that, again, I would back the comments that we need science-based evidence, that there are acceptable uses and that those uses are within the realm of safety for the public," she analyzed.

    She moved to reject the request and the motion carried without objection.

    Randall Wilson, the ACLU attorney, told the Huffington Post that the point of the court's order "was lost on the board." He'll now return to the court and note that the board once again ignored the law.

    "It was not surprising, but it was disappointing. I felt the board could have been better briefed," said Wilson, who noted the members "entered into value judgments" instead following the letter of the law.

    McMahon has been in the federal pot program for 19 years. He testified at the first hearing but health problem kept him from the second. The attorneys briefed him on the result, however. "I thought it was wonderful and horrible. The wonderful thing was for everyone to get an insight into what that bunch of men is like -- or those men and women. They just bald-faced stood up and told the judge to forget what he said, they were going to do what they wanted anyway," McMahon told the Huffington Post.

    If McMahon and his attorneys succeed in forcing the pharmacy board to reschedule marijuana into a class that admits its medical value, they hope it'll get a boost in the legislature. The drug is now contradictorily listed in two separate categories, one which says it has medical value and one which says it has none. With the board's decision, that situation continues for the time being.

    "I hoped they would do the right thing, but I really didn't have much confidence in them," said Carl Olsen, a lead attorney on the case. "They were pissed off because I got the ruling against them. So they just denied it again and basically did pretty much the same thing they did the first time, which isn't going to make the judge very happy."

    Max Knaur III
    June 5, 2009
    Huffington Post
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/05/iowa-pharmacy-board-rejec_n_211876.html

Comments

  1. chillinwill
    Iowa (ChattahBox) – In a stunningly illegal move on the part of the Iowa Board of Pharmacy, board members have apparently decided that their esteemed positions within the medical community gives them the power to totally ignore court orders.

    According to a report by the Huffington Post, a court ruling this week ordered the Iowa Board of Pharmacy to consider whether to reclassify marijuana as having medical value.

    It seems like a simple enough request, given that they are the head of pharmaceuticals within the states. However, they do not appear to agree.

    Rather then doing their jobs, the board sidestepped the order, claiming that the court had been wrong for not providing scientific proof about medical marijuana in the court order. There was no specification as to what the proof should be relating to, only that it should have been there.

    Now, correct me if I am wrong, folks, but isn’t the the job of the Iowa Board Of Pharmacy to generate the proof, more than the courts? As far as I am aware, the court system is there to rule based on evidence that they have seen, not the other way around.

    Besides, the question to the board was not ‘What will you need to be happy about medical marijuana?’ It was a fairly abstract query as to the potential medical use based on evidence from the mass amount of science that already exists.

    Here are a few choice quotes provided in the Huffington Post article that shows the massive backtracking, and transparent attempt to avoid the court order given to them:

    “I have a very difficult time saying that there was any type of scientific evidence-based type of evidence given to us that day. The fact that the other states have done this does not mean that Iowa has to follow suit. We need to have a lot of evidence.”

    Ed Maier, commenting to the lack of evidence in the court order, but ignoring the evidence that has been provided in about a hundred studies just in the last few years done on the subject.

    “And he said, ‘Well, if all your friends jumped off the bridge, does that mean you should jump off the bridge?’ So, to me this whole other 12, what is now 13 states, allowing medical marijuana use is not at all sufficient to allow the Board of Pharmacy to make a decision.”

    DeeAnn Wedemeyer-Oleson said, first in describing a story of a confrontation in her youth with her father, and then of why precedence apparently has no place in medicine.

    In the end, I am not angry about this from the perspective of a medical marijuana advocate. To be perfectly honest while I see the benefits of legalization, I don’t have a very strong opinion either way on the issue.

    No, what I am furious about is that this was an order, handed down from a ruling by the court. The arrogance in thinking that they can just decide they don’t want to do what they are told is stunning, because it seems to imply that these glorified pharmacists believe they are somehow above the law.

    A case was created. A ruling was made. A court order was given. The board is obligated, by law, to follow it, whether they like it or not. Period.

    June 6, 2009
    Chattahbox
    http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/06/06...wa-board-of-pharmacy-ignores-marijuana-order/
  2. Alicia In Wonderland
    Honestly? I think this is a load of crap. There is most definitely scientific evidence.
    It is absolutely infuriating.
  3. pinksox
    Once again we have pharmacists taking a moral stance and thinking they have the right to practice medicine.

    It's analogous to the whole birth control/morning-after debacle that's been going on with holier-than-tho pharmacists for some time now.

    Frankly, it's a field that need be put back in its place and has been given too much leeway by ins co
    s looking to save a buck and questioning the orders of MD's.

    Boot.

    Ass.

    Sideways.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!