COMPROMISE NEEDED ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

THE LEGISLATURE recently invoked a rarely used constitutional power
to require the Christie administration to go back to the drawing
board to rewrite the rules governing the state's medical marijuana
law. We are now on the verge of an unprecedented move to overturn the
regulations, with agreement by both houses that the governor has
overstepped his constitutional bounds.

As sponsor of the law, it was an extraordinarily difficult decision
to move forward with this, as I knew it would further delay a program
that has already been held up for far too long. But it was critical
to ensuring that people with debilitating conditions and patients
dying of cancer, HIV and AIDS receive proper care.

The Department of Health and Senior Services' guidelines sought to
alter key areas of the law, limiting the number of growers and
distributors and requiring that conventional methods of treatment be
exhausted for every patient before they were prescribed the drug.

They limited marijuana to 10 percent THC, a product that would be
half as potent as the marijuana sold on the street, and prevented the
treatment of new conditions for at least two years.

This virtual overhaul of the law posed significant barriers to the
program, setting up a scheme that would make it impossible for
chronic and terminal patients to get relief. And the regulations
flat-out ignored the Legislature's intent.

We challenged the rules with a formal resolution in both houses, and
the governor decided to relent on the first two points. But the
regulations - even as revised - still would not work.

Limiting marijuana to an arbitrary 10 percent THC all but ensures
that some patients won't get adequate relief and others will get
their medicine from the streets, where the THC level is upwards of 15
percent to 20 percent. Paired with the low cost of illegally sold
marijuana, it is inevitable that patients will retreat to the black market.

This is unfortunate, and I know the governor would agree that we
should do everything possible to keep chronic and terminal patients
from resorting to such means for relief.

Undue Restrictions

With regard to the marijuana product, the state rules would also
impose a restriction on the number of strains to be sold and, by
doing so, patients will be limited in their ability to find the most
effective medicine for the treatment of their condition. This is a
matter that must be addressed.

Further, the governor recently eliminated a critical part of the
program, removing the home delivery system, which is the only way
some of the sickest patients would be able to access the drug.

These are some of the problems I've identified with the regulations -
but I've also spoken with patients, advocates and potential investors
who have expressed concerns about other aspects of the program that
are worthy of consideration before the final rules are approved.

The Board of Medical Examiners' regulations, for example, require
doctors to counsel patients on the so-called addictive qualities of
marijuana and to make an attempt every three months to wean them off
the drug. No other drug - not morphine nor oxycodone, both with more
severe side effects than marijuana - is treated this way.

Doctors should have the ability to prescribe marijuana and counsel
patients as they see fit, just as they do other medications.

This counseling requirement is extremely burdensome and, quite
frankly, interferes with patient-doctor relationships.

The additional obligation that doctors treating minors obtain
confirmation from a pediatrician and from a psychiatrist - in
addition to getting parental permission - that the child is likely to
benefit from the medical use of marijuana is unconscionable.

Heaven forbid that a child has a terminal illness; ushering him
around to additional doctors for unnecessary approvals will further
erode his quality of life.

Some of the requirements for businesses also seem onerous, and run
the risk of limiting interest in the program, which is good for no
one - not the patients, nor the state.

There are other areas of the rules that I disagree with, but I am not
looking for a political fight. My focus has always been solely on
ensuring we have a functioning program that actually provides patients relief.

For an Effective Program

To that end, I believe an open and honest discussion about the
real-life implications of the proposed regulations is in order,
before we inadvertently adopt arbitrary rules that prevent any chance
of implementing an effective program in New Jersey.

I am more than willing to work with the governor. I know we can find
some middle ground, and come up with a model that addresses his
concerns, but also one that is functional, so that patients who have
waited out this already too lengthy process can finally get relief.

It is incumbent upon us to reach a true compromise, to ensure that
our most vulnerable residents are afforded dignified care.