Medical marijuana rules go too far, critics say

MDCH Departmental Analyst Desmond Mitchell and MDCH employee Laurie VanBeelen, listening to public testimony about medical marijuana rules (photo: Todd A. Heywood)

The Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) is one step closer to finalizing rules for a state medical marijuana registry.

Officials held a hearing Monday on proposed rules for administering the new list. But critics say the rules violate the spirit and letter of the voter-approved medical marijuana law and raise civil rights concerns.

“The [voter-approved] act gives the [Community Health] department a very limited role to perform very limited functions: simply to take applications, process them and issue or deny the cards,” said Greg Francisco, executive director of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association.

“Instead [the proposed] rules seem to have taken on this role of investigatory or law-enforcement duty for the department, which is inappropriate and not consistent with the law itself.”

The registry is part of a law passed by voters in November making the use of marijuana legal in Michigan for certain medical conditions, like HIV infection, AIDS, glaucoma and others. The law mandates that MDCH create identification cards for qualified users and growers, to be implemented by April 4.

Among the rules contested at the Monday meeting were a mandate that medical marijuana be kept locked up and accessible only to qualified patients. Advocates say this rule would interfere with the seriously disabled and the dying, and keep them from having access to the marijuana, because their caregivers would not legally be allowed to access the drug. The law passed in November only mandates that plants being grown be kept under lock and key, advocates point out.

Also disputed was a rule that would make it improper to smoke marijuana in “any place visible to the public.” Critics say this wording could be taken to mean that a person who fires up a joint in front of a living room window, for example, would be liable for charges and have his or her ID card revoked.

In addition, patients and advocates expressed concern about patients’ privacy. Rules mandate that patients identify the other patients of a caregiver licensed under the act, thus forcing caregivers to violate the confidentiality of their clients. Under the current proposal, advocates believe patients would be required to ask for patient lists from their caregivers. It would also mandate the identification of doctors who are prescribing the marijuana.

The rules also include a verification process that would allow the Medical Marijuana Program to contact the Social Security Administration to verify if a low-income patient was on Medicaid or receiving Social Security benefits.

The Michigan State Police (MSP) appeared at the hearing Monday to register its own concerns about another rule that would require unused marijuana left over after a patient was cured or passed away to be turned over to law enforcement.

“Our department doesn’t want anything to do with taking medical marijuana from anyone,” MSP Inspector Greg Zarotney told the hearing. “It is burdensome on law enforcement.”

Zarotney also asked that information from the registry be accessible through the Law Enforcement Information Network, which would allow officers to identify the name, address and date of birth of those who were legally in possession of a valid ID card. Advocates said that goes too far, arguing that the law only allows law enforcement to verify the validity of the card, which has a unique number assigned to it.

Advocates expressed frustration with the proposed rules Monday.

Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies for the nonprofit Marijuana Policy Project, submitted a lengthy written testimony with 22 proposed changes to the rules. O’Keefe was also the principal drafter of the law, which appeared on the November ballot as Proposition 1. In her written testimony, she said:

“Voters enacted Proposal 1 as written. They were satisfied with its safeguards, which were carefully considered and are working well in other states, like Rhode Island. The department’s role now is to implement the law, not to rewrite it.”

Francisco said the MDCH proposals suggest an apprehension and uncertainty on the state’s part as to how to implement the new law.

“I believe it is fear. The department is afraid of the unknown,” said Francisco. “I don’t believe they are acting out of malice. I don’t believe they are trying to stifle the program, but I believe that they just don’t know and they are trying to cover the worst-case scenario.”

James McCurtis, spokesperson for the MDCH, said the department would carefully consider all the testimony and plans to issue final rules by April 4.