MEDICAL POT DOCTOR MAY LOSE LICENSE

Lawyers For Berkeley Psychiatrist Say Client Target

OAKLAND -- Lawyers argued Friday over whether the state should be allowed
to continue its attempt to revoke the medical license of a Berkeley
psychiatrist who has recommended marijuana to thousands of patients.
Administrative Law Judge Jonathan Lew said he'll issue a written proposed
ruling within about three weeks, which will then be submitted for the
Medical Board of California's consideration.

Lawyers for Dr. Tod Mikuriya, 70, say the state is on an anti-marijuana

witch hunt against him, but he's protected by broad immunity granted to
physicians by the state's medical marijuana law. They want Lew to dismiss
the case before it goes to a full hearing in September.

Lawyers for the state claim marijuana has nothing to do with this case --
they claim Mikuriya should be disciplined because he has advised patients
on treatment without properly examining them, reviewing their histories and
adhering to other basic standards of care that all doctors must honor.

Mikuriya has researched and advocated medical marijuana use for decades,
and has served in various local and state advisory posts, including that of
medical coordinator for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative.

He says he has given more than7,300 patients his written approval to use
marijuana as medicine. He claims about a quarter of those patients suffer
chronic pain, about a quarter suffer spasticity -- muscle contraction
caused by spinal or brain injuries, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy or
other ailments -- and about a quarter suffer various mental disorders. He
says he has recommended marijuana to other patients as a substitute for
alcohol, as an appetite stimulant or to reduce body temperature.

The state wants his license revoked because of his alleged failure in 16
medical marijuana cases "to examine the patient, to obtain a history, to
perform an appropriate workup of the patient's symptoms and findings, or to
follow up with or monitor the patients," according to a brief the Attorney
General's office filed July 3.

"The accusation in no way seeks to punish or otherwise sanction Dr.
Mikuriya for having recommended marijuana," the brief said. "The fact that
marijuana happened to be the drug in question is quite irrelevant to the
charges."

California's medical marijuana law offers no immunity to the standards and
regulations generally applied to all doctors, the brief argued.

"If a physician abdicates these fundamental responsibilities, he becomes
nothing more than a shady businessman with a prescription pad," it said.

But Mikuriya's motion to dismiss the case argues the law grants broad
immunity, stating "no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied
any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for
medical purposes." And because marijuana isn't "prescribed" like federally
permitted drugs, other standards don't apply to its recommendation.

Mikuriya's hearing capped a busy eight days on the medical marijuana front.

Federal prosecutors filed notice July 3 that they'll appeal a judge's
sentencing of Ed Rosenthal -- a noted marijuana activist and author from
Oakland who was convicted in January of three marijuana cultivation
felonies -- to only one day of jail time he'd already served. Prosecutors
wanted him put behind bars for about six and a half years. Rosenthal plans
to appeal, too, wanting his convictions overturned.

On Monday, the White House drug czar's office petitioned the U.S. Supreme
Court to review and overturn a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling
supporting doctors' right to openly discuss or recommend marijuana as
treatment without facing federal investigation and action to revoke their
licenses.

Also Monday, a federal judge in San Jose held a hearing on a lawsuit filed
by the city and county of Santa Cruz and patients from the Wo/Men's
Alliance for Medical Marijuana seeking to stop federal raids on medical
marijuana cooperatives. WAMM, near Davenport, was raided last September;
its plants were destroyed, but no criminal charges were filed. The judge
has not yet ruled on the plaintiffs' request for an injunction to halt such
raids.