STATE GOES AFTER LICENSE OF POT DOCTOR

Berkeley psychiatrist's defense cries witch hunt; AG's office says drug

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 mari-juana 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 than 7,300 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 noth-ing
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 61/2 years. Rosenthal plans to appeal, too,
want-ing 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 fac-ing 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.