LEGAL DISINFORMATION

There was a tense, unpleasant scene at the Nov. 7 meeting of the Medical
Board's Division of Medical Quality, which was held in downtown San Diego
at a chintzy Sheraton located on the 12th floor of a parking garage. Three
cannabis-approving physicians had come to monitor the proceedings: Frank
Lucido from Berkeley, R. Stephen Ellis from San Francisco, and David
Bearman from Santa Barbara.

The agenda item of special interest was a report from Enforcement Division
Chief Joan Jerzak on how many of the Board's marijuana-related
investigations had been triggered by complaints from law enforcement. An
assertion had been made by Lucido and others at the Board's May meeting
that none of the complaints had come from patients or their loved ones or
from other caregivers -implying that the docs had been targeted by
vindictive cops and DAs. Jerzak's predecessor, Dave Thornton, responded at
the time that there were only nine such investigations and that not all the
complaints had come from law enforcement. The Board asked him to confirm
the facts.

Six months pass and here's Jerzak handing the Board members a page headed
"Medical Marijuana Investigations" with three columns: "Source," "No. of
Patients," and "Status." According to this skimpy list, which Jerzak
described as "data," four of the nine sources were "LE," three were
"Non-LE" and two were "Non-LE and LE." The list contained no specifics and
no documentation whatsoever, yet the Board members perused it without
comment; evidently they don't hold their Chief Investigator to the same
standards as California physicians.

"Just to kind of give you a nutshell of what the source column is," Jerzak
explained, "The first case was a non-law-enforcement source. Those tend to
be a school principal, a mother, a spouse, those kind of sources..." Can
you get any vaguer, Chief?

Jerzak said that her staff's review of the files showed that there might be
"another half a dozen or so cases that might have been tagged as quality of
care" involving medical marijuana recommendations. "I'm estimating that
there may be six to 10 other cases that might not be on this list. And I'll
tell you that since 1997, if we're talking about nine or 19 cases out of 50
or 60,000 complaints that came in, I think that's what Dave was trying to
say, when you take 12,000 complaints a year, we're talking about a very
small number of cases."

Jerzak had invited a young, self-assured attorney, Mary Agnes Matyszewski
to explain the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision not
to review the Conant v. Walters case. Matyszewski explained -not quite
accurately-that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had "issued an injunction
permanently stopping the federal government from automatically suspending
or revoking a doctor's DEA license merely because he was talking to his
patient about medical marijuana. When the Supreme Court refused to hear the
case, the 9th circuit ruling became the law of the area."

The inaccuracy is that the 9th circuit didn't issue the permanent
injunction, it upheld one issued by U.S. District Court Judge William
Alsup. This may seem like a minor quibble given the disinformation to that
was to come from this source.

"But one thing I want to make you aware of," Matyszewski went on, as
Jerzak, seated alongside her, nodded her head emphatically, "the holding is
very limited. It's only for a doctor's ability to discuss marijuana with
his patient as an option. In fact. What the court specifically held in its
language is that if in making a recommendation the doctor intends the
patient to use it as a means of obtaining marijuana, as a prescription is
used as a means for a patient to obtain a controlled substance, then the
doctor would be guilty of aiding and abetting the violation of federal law
and he would be subject to federal prosecution and possible surrender of
his license. So the holding that is allowed right now is very narrow.
Merely, a doctor is allowed to discuss it with his patients, nothing more.

A Board Member asked, "So you can't give them the--"

"No," declared Matyszewski, "because you do run the risk of violating
federal law... All that decision said was you can talk to your patient
about it. But once you get over into the area of recommending, writing a
prescription, you do run afoul of the federal policy."

Jerzak continued to nod agreement.

Med Board to Dr. Bearman: Shut up!

The public comment session began and David Bearman's name was called. The
Med Board investigation of Bearman was triggered by a park ranger who was
convinced that a young man he had caught smoking marijuana was not a bona
fide patient (despite a letter from Bearman). Bearman, who is
semi-retired, has defied a subpoena to hand over the patient's records,
citing doctor-patient confidentiality. He is confident that the records
would exonerate his approval of the young man's cannabis use.

No sooner had Bearman given his prepared statement to the chairman, Ronald
Wender, MD, than Senior Assistant Attorney General Carlos Ramirez
announced, "There is an an ongoing case against this doctor."

Bearman: I don't intend to talk about the case.

Wender: Is there anything in your handout that deals with your case?

Bearman: Maybe

Weender: I would ask that Mr. Ramirez look at it to make sure that it doesn't.

Bearman took a seat at the table facing the Board members and began
recounting his impressive resume. "I have a unique combination of
experience in the area of substance abuse treatment and prevention and
quality assurance. I have worked for the US Public Health Service. I ran
the student health service here at San Diego State for a number of
years. I was a health officer -director of a county health department.
Most important, I have a long history in quality assurance. I was the
medical director and director of the health services department of the
oldest Medi-Cal managed care program in the state, the Santa Barbara
Regional Health Authority. And for 14 years I ran the quality assurance
program and the peer review program, which has received accolades and
recently won a national award...

"I'm here to talk to you about medicinal cannabis and one thing that is
related to my case, is that when you assess people for quality assurance,
there ought to be a quality problem -it shouldn't just be because a
recommendation was made for the medicinal use of cannabis... it seems a
waste of tight state resources for the Medical Board to initiate physician
investigations which are non-quality-based fishing expeditions. An
investigation of quality of care triggered by things like complaints from a
forest ranger that a doctor has talked to a patient about cannabis do not
seem to be appropriate."

By this point both Ramirez and an attorney named Beth Faber Jacobs were
hovering over Bearman like bailiffs. "You're getting into issues of your
case," Wender warned.

Bearman responded, "Well, let me just say when the complaint is from a law
enforcement official. Okay? It doesn't make any difference what that law
enforcement official is. When an investigation is done under color of
quality issues when there's no real reason to do so, it uses up the medical
board's credibility and it deters you from your bona fide quality-assurance
role. You may be having a credibility problem of inconsistency between your
staff's words and their actions. On the one hand there was a quote in the
paper from the AG's office that the medicinal-cannabis-related physician
investigations were not about cannabis but about quality.

Jacobs: Okay, you have a pending case before the board. We cannot have you
address the panel.

Bearman: Excuse me, but I'm quoting a statement that was in the newspaper.
Isn't that a matter of public record? What does a quote from the newspaper
have to do with my case?

Wender: We will have to keep you within the confines of what our legal
counsel says is legitimate for you to do... I'm not trying to cut you off,
because we want public comment. But there are very specific rules which
pertain to what can be discussed when there is someone with a case pending
before the board because, again, members of this particular group will be
on a panel that will...

Bearman: But I'm not discussing my case.

Jacobs: You'll have the opportunity to put on your defense at the hearing
on your case.

Bearman: I strongly object to this being characterized as my talking about
my case. I am not talking about my case.

Jacobs: You're talking about an investigation.

Bearman: No, I'm talking about the Board's staff, and I'm sorry if that
upsets you.

Wender then granted Bearman "a couple of more minutes... as long as it
doesn't have any inkling as to a case that is before the Board."

Bearman: It's really hard for me to understand how... discussing a quote in
a newspaper from your staff which, as far as I know, had nothing to do with
me, how that has to do with my case?...

Ramirez: Again, your honor -I mean, Dr. Wender-there is an ongoing
investigation in this matter and I'm concerned that the comments that are
made here will compromise the Board's ability to in the future deliberate
on the doctor's case if it gets this far.

Wender: We have to abide by our legal counsel's advice...

Bearman: I have the distinct feeling that I am making both the Board and
your staff uncomfortable, and that was not my intention. Nor was it my
intention to discuss the specifics of my case... Maybe I shouldn't have
come in the first place. Believe me I would not have driven five and a
half hours through rush hour traffic in Los Angeles to come here. I have
lots of other things in my life to keep me occupied.

Alsup Is The Law

Your correspondent had not intended to speak during the public comment
session but decided to challenge Matyszewski's interpretation of the Conant
ruling. "My understanding," I said with real humility, not being a lawyer,
"is that the act of approving a patient's cannabis use in writing or
verbally does not, in and of itself, violate federal law. Only if the
doctor took additional steps, such as telling the patient where s/he could
obtain the herb, would there be any question of aiding and abetting."

I was not allowed to share my observations about the Mikuriya case. Jacobs
and Ramirez both jumped to their feet at the mention of his name. "You
don't have to get the hook," I told them.

As I was leaving and Frank Lucido was advancing to speak, Matyszewski
reiterated her reading of the Conant ruling -not in my shuffling,
apologetic way, but firmly and without leaving any room for doubt. But
Lucido wasn't intimidated. "I didn't think I would have to set you straight
on this, but let me tell you what the Alsup decision did say... The federal
government had said that writing a recommendation is allowing patients to
break federal law. Judge Alsup said that was not true, there are any number
of reasons that a doctor could write that recommendation, only one of which
would be to obtain it. He listed several other reasons. Even if a doctor
suspects that they may use it to obtain marijuana, there are other uses.
They may use it to redress their government for grievances; they can use it
to go to another country where it's legal; they can use it to apply to the
federal compassionate use program...

"Alsup is the law of the land," Lucido concluded.

Lucido also took on Jerzak: "I know most of the 15 to 20 California doctors
who are most knowledgable and outspoken about medical cannabis, who in
spite of legal threats, continue to perform medical cannabis evaluations. I
find that they compare favorably in safety and caring for patients as to
California physyicians in general. As you know, at least nine of these 15
to 20 doctors have had investigations begun into their practice. So I want
to put this in context: it's not nine complaints out of 60,000, it's nine
investigations of the 15 or 20 most outspoken. I still contend that almost
all of these investigations were initiated by law enforcement, and almost
none by complaints from patients or family members. I think a review of
Miss Jerzak's audit should be done by somebody independent of the law
enforcement part. Some of the physicians should look at that.

"Will medical practice be determined by doctors or the police? Law
enforcement has their cultural bias. As I mentioned in my previous
testimony, and I checked again yesterday, the website of the CNOA continues
to have this untruth, quote: 'There is no justification for using marijuana
as a medicine.' This lie is thoroughly contradicted by the federal
government's own 1999 Institute of Medicine report. I have seen some of the
hearings that have gone on and the disingenuousness of the prosecution was
embarrassing to watch. [As the lawyers stir] That's all I'm going to say
about that."

Graham Boyd, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs in Conant v. McCaffrey,
confirms Frank Lucido's interpretation of the legal situation. The
permanent injunction issued by Judge Alsup is the law of the land. Contrary
to Mary Agnes Matyszewski's assertions, the 9th Circuit discussion did not
create "governing language" that weakens it. The 9th Circuit could have
modified the permanent injunction granted by Alsup, or undone it as
requested by the federal government, but instead chose to affirm it. The
question now is: what will the doctors on the Medical Board do in response
to being systematically misinformed by their lawyers?