PATIENT SAFETY IS PRIORITY IN MEDICAL POT POLICY

Recently, the California Medical Association, representing more than
35,000 physicians, the largest statewide physician organization in
America, boldly decided to adopt a different, more pragmatic approach
to the polarizing issue of marijuana decriminalization. The decision
the result of a carefully considered process, painstakingly
researched and debated for more than one year is centered on one
concern above all others: patient safety.

To be clear: this was a purely medical decision.

Our individual members come from every corner of California and
represent every possible political philosophy and partisan leaning.
But the one thing we all share is a common commitment to putting
patients first. By that standard, we believe that the present system
of medical cannabis is flawed, contradictory and dangerously detached
from scientific evidence and that a new approach to legalization,
regulation, research and enforcement is needed to protect physicians
and patients alike.

Under current law, medical cannabis has been decriminalized in
California, but is still illegal on a federal level. This puts
physicians in an untenable, impractical position as the ultimate
gatekeeper of the substance. As physicians, we want to do what's best
for our patients but, in California, it's tough to do that without
comprehensive scientific and medical research and with the fear of
federal prosecution.

The goal of our call for legalization is not to make the drug more
available, but rather to create a strict regulatory system,
ultimately limiting distribution and standardizing medical cannabis.

While it's currently legal in California for a physician to recommend
medical cannabis for treatments such as neuropathic pain, dosage is
not well standardized nor is it regulated for purity and safety. How
are we, as health care providers, supposed to accurately recommend a
product to a patient when the only information we have now is that
"one lollipop is equivalent to two doses?"

Our extensive medical education, combined with pharmaceutical data on
other drugs, keeps us knowledgeable about the composition and
strength of everything else we prescribe to our patients. Why should
there be an exception with medical cannabis? Until the substance is
legalized, we cannot regulate it in a way that's safe for patient use.

As a community of physicians, we feel we're making the most
responsible recommendation for public health. As it stands now, we
simply don't know enough about medical cannabis to understand the
benefits or risks that use could have for patients. There have been
limited reports stating medical cannabis may be suitable for some
cases of chronic pain and there have been similar reports associating
use with both short- and long-term health risks.

The fact is we don't know what the real effects are. By changing
cannabis from a Schedule I drug, which the federal government states
has "no accepted medical use" and allowing for better research and
strict regulation, we're watching out for the good of the public
health and the safety of our patients.

Despite prohibition-related efforts, unregulated cannabis is easily
accessible, often at a low cost. CMA recognizes the current structure
as a failed health policy that has been unsuccessful in keeping
patients safe. While we're glad to be part of the 15 other states
that have decriminalized the use of medical cannabis, it simply isn't
enough. We must create a structure that allows for serious research
and controlled distribution.

The bottom line is that patient safety and good public health are the
ultimate goals. Not until we've gathered sound scientific evidence,
and created a robust regulatory structure for medical cannabis, can
we achieve those goals.