I’ll start by saying that I am an active member of the LDS Church, I believe in and practice the Word of Wisdom, and that I am not directly involved with the Utah Patients Coalition.

My Church requested the law office of Kirton McConkie to perform a legal analysis of the “Marijuana Initiative” that will be presented to voters in November’s ballot. This “analysis” was released to the public on May 11th.

I was taken aback by the way the information was presented. I don’t think they could have been any more skewed, even if they wanted to. It was such a biased document that I felt that I couldn’t, not say something about it.

I don’t know how I feel about what, in my opinion, is a clear intent to present just part of the information, a fraction of the whole in a narrative that fits an agenda. It is like if someone wants to prevent you from reaching your goal by sharing doctored information about you. Hang on… isn’t that what fake news is? Or better yet, could this be considered ‘the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture’?

Right off the bat, they title their “analysis”: “Utah Medical Marijuana Initiative” instead of calling it by its real name: The Utah Medical Cannabis Act. The mention of the name marijuana, seems intentional, so people can immediately associate the proposal with something that is illegal and bad for you. They might as well have called it the Utah ‘Doobie’ Initiative.

Their preamble mentions that “negative effects and consequences of marijuana use on individuals, families and society at large are well-known” but so are the side effects of hundreds of sanctioned medicines currently available on the market.

For example:

Ibuprofen’s side effects: Upset stomach, nausea, vomiting, headache, diarrhea, constipation, dizziness, or drowsiness may occur. This medication may raise your blood pressure. Easy bruising/bleeding, hearing changes (such as ringing in the ears), mental/mood changes, unexplained stiff neck, signs of kidney problems (such as change in the amount of urine), vision changes, symptoms of heart failure (such as swelling ankles/feet, unusual tiredness, unusual/sudden weight gain). This drug may rarely cause serious (possibly fatal) liver disease. Get medical help right away if you have any symptoms of liver damage, including: dark urine, persistent nausea/vomiting/loss of appetite, stomach/abdominal pain, yellowing eyes/skin. Allergic reaction, including: rash, itching/swelling (especially of the face/tongue/throat), severe dizziness, trouble breathing.

Prozac’s side effects: Nausea, drowsiness, dizziness, anxiety, trouble sleeping, loss of appetite, tiredness, sweating, or yawning may occur. Unusual or severe mental/mood changes (such as agitation, unusual high energy/excitement, thoughts of suicide), easy bruising/bleeding, muscle weakness/spasm, shakiness (tremor), decreased interest in sex, changes in sexual ability, unusual weight loss. Bloody/black/tarry stools, vomit that looks like coffee grounds, fast/irregular heartbeat, fainting, seizures, signs of kidney problems (such as change in the amount of urine), eye pain/swelling/redness, widened pupils, vision changes (such as seeing rainbows around lights at night, blurred vision). If you have diabetes, fluoxetine may affect your blood sugar levels. This medication may increase serotonin and rarely cause a very serious condition called serotonin syndrome/toxicity. Fast heartbeat, hallucinations, loss of coordination, severe dizziness, severe nausea/vomiting/diarrhea, twitching muscles, unexplained fever, unusual agitation/restlessness. Painful or prolonged erection lasting 4 or more hours. Allergic reaction, including: rash, itching/swelling (especially of the face/tongue/throat), severe dizziness, trouble breathing.

These are lists of potential side effects for these medications regardless of the probability of side effect manifestation. In the description of these medications I noticed that both stated that:

“This is not a complete list of possible side effects. If you notice other effects not listed above, contact your doctor or pharmacist”, and

“Remember that your doctor has prescribed this medication because he or she has judged that the benefit to you is greater than the risk of side effects. Many people using this medication do not have serious side effects.” So it is more than fair to understand that many other people suffer from the side effects of these medications.

Their last statement is particularly interesting because it is a universal truth. Almost any “good” thing may provide you with benefits that are greater than its side effects. You may die from a car accident, and yet, you drive a car. More importantly, you are allowed to either drive or not drive a car if that’s what you want.

Let’s discuss the “analysis”, point by point:

“The Marijuana Initiative Will Allow Some People to Grow Their Own Marijuana”

The wording in their “analysis” make you believe that if you are a cardholder, you’ll be able to grow cannabis anywhere. What they are not telling you is that if you’re eligible, Section 26-60b-201 (d) places restrictions on how to go about growing your cannabis. If you are eligible to grow your own cannabis plant it must not be seen from a public place, or within 600 feet of a community location, or 300 feet of a residential area. In other words if there is a school, or a library, or a rec center, or houses nearby, you won’t be able to grow anything there.

“The Marijuana Initiative Will Allow People Who Grow Their Own Marijuana to Evade Purchase and Use Limits.”

Wrong. The cannabis act provides an alternative that allows individuals who live too far from a dispensary to obtain the medicine they need. Let’s think about this differently. Let’s imagine you need to fulfill your prescription medicine, but you do not have a pharmacy nearby. What would you do? With today’s technology, you could go to the internet and fulfill your prescription online. In other words, you have an alternative so you don’t have to choose between not having your medicine or driving for hours to the nearest pharmacy. Section 26-60b-201.6 (d) of the cannabis act provides the option for you to grow an extremely limited amount of cannabis (up to six cannabis plants) only if a licensed cannabis dispensary is not operating within 100 miles of the medical cannabis card holder’s primary residence. They didn’t tell you this, did they?

“The Marijuana Initiative Will Create Significant Challenges for Law Enforcement.”

Currently law enforcement has no way of distinguishing between legally purchased Prozac and illegally purchased Prozac. Should we ban the sale of Prozac because of that?

“The Marijuana Initiative Requires Medical Marijuana to Be Sold Through Marijuana Dispensaries, Not Licensed Pharmacies.”

Because heaven’s forbid a commercial establishment that operates without the government licensure stamp of approval. You can easily see in the examples here, here, here, and here (links), which shows that being a licensed establishment does guarantee you anything.

“The Marijuana Initiative Requires the State to Destroy Records of Cannabis Sales after 60 Days, which Will Hamper Law Enforcement.”

Why would keep records for a shorter period of time, hamper the abilities of law enforcement? Why does the police need to know that I was prescribed medication a, b, or c five years ago? The answer is simple: they don’t. Another fact to consider in regard to the length in which records are kept is that amount of time is completely arbitrary. There is no set standard to make the assumption that a 60-days record keeping is too short or that 5 years is too long. In Utah, we may keep records for 5 years, but at the federal level, records are only kept for 2 years. Nevada’s board of Pharmacy will also keep records for 2 years, but North Carolina’s record keeping is 3 years and their Medicaid contract requires records to be kept for 5 years.

The question you may want to ask is: “do they want your records so they can sell them to the drug companies?” Read about it here, here, here, and here (links), or check this video from John Oliver (please be aware of a couple quick slightly crude comments).

“The Marijuana Initiative Allows Dispensaries to Give Free Samples to Medical Cannabis Cardholders.”

This is an example of double standards. Why is it not ok for a medical cannabis cardholder to receive a sample yet it is ok for patients to receive samples of other medicine at the doctor’s office?

“Under the Marijuana Initiative, Large Numbers of Utahans Will Likely Qualify for Medical Cannabis Cards.”

If the medical cannabis will help these large numbers of Utahans, isn’t that a good thing? The “analysis” indicates that an illness such as chronic pain is a condition that is difficult to diagnose. What I wonder is, how are doctors currently diagnosing such conditions in a matter to be dispensing opioids like they currently are?

The “analysis” fails to tell you that the proposal defines who can qualify to be a cardholder because of chronic pain. To qualify in that criteria a patient must have (i) a physician [that] determines that the individual is at risk of becoming chemically dependent on, or overdosing on, opiate-based pain medication; or (ii) a physician [that] determines that the individual is allergic to opiates or is otherwise medically unable to use opiates.

“The Marijuana Initiative Allows a Person With a Criminal Background, Including Drug Convictions, to Get a Medical Cannabis Card.”

Are they really suggesting that an individual with a criminal background should not be treated for his or her illnesses? Aren’t individuals with criminal background prescribed medicine?

“The Marijuana Initiative Allows Marijuana Use for Conditions That Are Common but Difficult to Verify and Diagnose.”

How are doctors currently diagnosing such conditions in a matter to be dispensing opioids like they currently are? The “analysis” fails to tell you that the proposal defines who can qualify to be a cardholder because of chronic pain. To qualify in that criteria a patient must have (i) a physician [that] determines that the individual is at risk of becoming chemically dependent on, or overdosing on, opiate-based pain medication; or (ii) a physician [that] determines that the individual is allergic to opiates or is otherwise medically unable to use opiates.

Here is the double standard again. It is ok for a “physician [to] accept, chronic pain as a qualifying condition when” prescribing, say, oxycodone but not medical cannabis?

“The Marijuana Initiative Allows Patients to Get a Recommendation from a Physician Based on a One-time Visit.”

Again, double standard. Let’s use their sentence and just change some words:

Nothing currently requires the physician who prescribes a patient a prescription medicine to have a prior relationship with the patient, to review the patient’s medical records, or to schedule a follow-up visit to see how the treatment is working. The physician is required to do “a full assessment of the patient’s condition and medical history,” but this can presumably be done through patient reporting during a single visit.”

I have, for example, been prescribed medicine during a single visit to an instacare, from a doctor that I had never seen or seen ever since. On top of it, with the use of more technology in the medical field, I don’t even have to go to the doctor’s office to be prescribed medicine. I can now simply, do an online visit and be “seen” via the intrawebs, such as with the University of Utah Health Care‘s virtual visits.

“The Marijuana Initiative Will Allow a Small Number of Physicians to Give a Large Number of Recommendations.”

First, let’s note that this is an assumption, but with that said, isn’t that better than what we currently have, which is a large number of physicians giving out a large number of prescription medicine to patients?

“The Marijuana Initiative Does Not Require Physicians Providing a Recommendation to Have Any Training or Experience with the Effects of Marijuana or Even the Illness Being Treated.

New drugs, new discoveries, new techniques, new approaches, are frequently introduced in the medical field. I hope the “analysis” is not suggesting that physicians aren’t capable of continuous education. I believe these professionals dedicate a great deal of time on their own professional education by becoming familiar with the new discoveries and advancements in their respective fields. So becoming familiar with and understanding the benefits of medical cannabis wouldn’t be any different than becoming familiar with and understanding the benefits of a new acid reflux medicine.

I am scratching my head though, trying to understand why they air-quoted (“ “) the word physician. I sure hope they are not suggesting that these medical professionals (such as optometrists, podiatrists, dentists, physician’s assistants, and certified nurse midwives) are some sort of second-class professionals, incapable of professionally recommending a patient to be a medical cannabis cardholder. I wonder if they are saying: They are “just” an optometrist. Or she is “just” a nurse midwife. She is “just” a dentist…

“The Marijuana Initiative Does Not Require a Prescription.”

Now they are playing with words to see if you’re paying attention. Patients may not need a prescription, but they need to be a cardholder and to be a cardholder you must be eligible. In fact the process of obtaining a medical cannabis card is more stringent than the process to obtain a prescription medicine from your local neighborhood doctor.

For a patient to obtain a medical cannabis card, he or she needs:

Be 18 years old (unless if the individual is a minor under the custody of their guardian); Be a Utah resident; Be recommended by the individual’s physician; Submit an application for a medical cannabis card to the department via an electronic application connected to the electronic verification system, with the recommending physician while in the recommending physician’s office, and that includes the individual’s name, gender, age, and address; Look up the individual in the controlled substance database; Be in needed to be treated for one or more of the following conditions: HIV, acquired immune deficiency syndrome or an autoimmune disorder; Alzheimer’s disease; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; cancer, cachexia, or a condition manifest by physical wasting, nausea, or malnutrition associated with chronic disease; Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, or a similar gastrointestinal disorder; epilepsy or a similar condition that causes debilitating seizures; multiple sclerosis or a similar condition that causes persistent and debilitating muscle spasms; post-traumatic stress disorder; autism; a rare condition or disease that affects less than 200,000 persons in the United States; chronic or debilitating pain in an individual (upon certain criteria).

Most of the words in this block of text are not my words, they were directly extracted from the proposal itself. As you can see, it is not easy as they want you to believe.

“The Marijuana Initiative Does Not Require Monitoring of the Medical Effects of Marijuana Usage on Particular Patients.”

Once again they want you believe in something that is not true. The proposal addresses monitoring of medical cannabis. So the question I have is, did they even read the proposal?

Their “analysis” doesn’t explain the role of the Cannabinoid Product Board, which is a state-appointed board, tasked with looking into existing cannabis research. They will review many aspects in this proposal.

This board shall review any available research related to the human use of cannabis, a cannabinoid product, or an expanded cannabinoid product that: (i) was conducted under a study approved by an IRB; or (ii) was conducted or approved by the federal government. The board shall evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis, cannabinoid products, and expanded cannabinoid products, including: (i) medical conditions that respond to cannabis, cannabinoid products, and expanded cannabinoid products; (ii) [cannabinoid] dosage amounts and medical dosage forms; and (iii) interaction of cannabis, cannabinoid products, and expanded cannabinoid products with other treatments. Based on the board’s evaluation, they shall develop guidelines for [a physician recommending] treatment with cannabis, a cannabinoid product, and an expanded cannabinoid product that include[s] a list of medical conditions, if any, that the board determines are appropriate for treatment with cannabis, a cannabinoid product, or an expanded cannabinoid product. The board shall submit these guidelines to: (i) the director of the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing; and (ii) the Health and Human Services Interim Committee.

In regard to the operation of production establishments of dispensaries it is worth mentioning that Cannabis production establishment or cannabis dispensary must be inspected. They have to have to be associated with an independent cannabis testing laboratory that does not have any conflict of interest (such as the same person owning a testing laboratory and a dispensary, for example). A cannabis cultivation facility’s operating plan shall include the cannabis cultivation facility’s intended cannabis cultivation practices, including the cannabis cultivation facility’s intended pesticide use, fertilizer use, square footage under cultivation, and anticipated cannabis yield. A cannabis processing facility’s operating plan shall include the cannabis processing facility’s intended cannabis processing practices, including the cannabis processing facility’s intended offered variety of cannabis product, cannabinoid extraction method, cannabinoid extraction equipment, processing equipment, processing techniques, and sanitation and food safety procedures. A cannabis production establishment agent shall comply with a certification standard developed by the department or with a third party certification standard designated by the department by rule made in accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act. This certification standard shall include training: (i) in Utah medical cannabis law; (ii) for a cannabis cultivation facility agent, in cannabis cultivation best practices; (iii) for a cannabis processing facility agent, in cannabis processing, food safety, and sanitation best practices; and (iv) for an independent cannabis testing laboratory agent, in cannabis testing best practices. No cannabis or cannabis product may be offered for sale at a cannabis dispensary unless a representative sample of the cannabis or cannabis product has been tested by an independent cannabis testing laboratory to determine: (i) the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol in the cannabis or cannabis product; (ii) that the presence of contaminants, including mold, fungus, pesticides, microbial contaminants, or foreign material, does not exceed an amount that is safe for human consumption; and (iii) for a cannabis product that is manufactured using a process that involves extraction using hydrocarbons, that the cannabis product does not contain an unhealthy level of a residual solvent.

Again, most of the words in these blocks of text are not my words, they were directly extracted from the proposal itself.

“The Marijuana Initiative Prohibits Accountability for Physicians.”

Here is another example of biased word trickery and half information. They present the information as if this is some new practice that is being introduced with this proposal. All the section states is that the physicians who make medical cannabis recommendations are protected by the same provisions that protect other physicians under Utah law.

Section 26-60b-108 reads: “A physician who recommends treatment with cannabis or a cannabis product to an individual in accordance with this chapter may not, based on the recommendation, be subject to civil liability, criminal liability, or licensure sanctions under Title 58, Chapter 67, Utah Medical Practice Act or Title 58, Chapter 68, Utah Osteopathic Medical Practice Act.”

In other words, the act proposes physicians to continue to be protected under the law.

“The Marijuana Initiative Allows Minors to Use Medical Marijuana.”

Only with the approval of the parent or legal guardian of the minor. Are they trying to reinvent the wheel? Isn’t the process identical for doctors to prescribe any other medicine to a minor?

“The Marijuana Initiative Will Make Marijuana More Accessible to Minors.”

But no more accessible than prescription opioid medicines already are for minors in the state of Utah.

“If the Marijuana Initiative Passes, Most Users of Medical Marijuana Will Likely Be Younger People.”

Does it matter the age of a patient who can be helped by the use of medical cannabis? Are they implying that we should only assist and ease the suffering of “old” people?

“The Marijuana Initiative Immediately Legalizes Marijuana Possession Before Medical Cannabis Cards are Distributed.”

It absolutely does not. We already know about how not easy it is to obtain a medical cannabis card, so this provision only provides the possibility of a defense argument if an individual were to fit the criteria needed to qualify for a medical cannabis card. If anyone if caught with 100lbs of marijuana, he or she is out of luck.

“The Marijuana Initiative Immediately Legalizes Possession By a Person With a Medical Marijuana Card from Another State.”

This is such a ludicrous point. We honor other states driver’s licenses. We honor other countries driver’s licenses. We honor other states concealed carry permits. C’mon!!! Why wouldn’t we honor a medical cannabis cardholder from another state?

“The Marijuana Initiative Prohibits Landlords from Refusing to Rent to Medical Marijuana Users.”

Why are we even talking about this? Should landlords prohibit or refuse rent to, for example, an oxycodone patient?

The language of the section is pretty plain and simple: “…the use of cannabis by a patient who holds a medical cannabis card in accordance with this chapter is considered the equivalent of the authorized use of any other medication used at the discretion of a physician and does not constitute the use of an illicit substance or otherwise disqualify an individual from needed medical care. No landlord may refuse to lease to and may not otherwise penalize a person solely for the person’s status as a medical cannabis card holder, unless failing to do so would cause the landlord to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under federal law.”

“The Marijuana Initiative Prohibits Local Zoning Ordinances Targeted at Marijuana Dispensaries.”

I am all for consistency. If the government allows a Walgreens, or a CVS, or a Costco Pharmacy, or a Smith’s Pharmacy, to operate then it should also allow a cannabis dispensary to operate. The opposite is equally true. If a cannabis dispensary is prohibited from operating, so should these other businesses.

“The Marijuana Initiative Prohibits Local Law Enforcement from Cooperating With Federal Authorities Enforcing Federal Laws that Are Violated by Legal Use of Cannabis in Utah.”

And rightfully so. This assertion is based on a non-existing authority of the federal government on matters that are under the jurisdiction of the State of Utah.

“The Marijuana Initiative Only Requires Cannabis Dispensaries to Be 300 feet (One Football Field) from Residential Neighborhoods and Only 600 Feet from Schools, Churches, Libraries, Parks, and Playgrounds.”

In my opinion, the proposal provides this provision so dispensaries are accessible to patients but not too accessible to children, unlike cigarettes or alcoholic beverages that are available at most corners.

“The Marijuana Initiative Could Weaken Penalties for Causing Serious Bodily Injury while Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of Marijuana.”

In my opinion the language in section 58-37-3.6b(b) is not extensive. The section specifically mentions that individuals who ingest cannabis or a cannabis product while operating a motor vehicle are not free from liability. By association, the proposal also does not say that individuals who use cannabis by other means are excluded from liability. I believe that negligence is the key to ground decisions on liability in this matter. The reason for negligence is irrelevant when assessing liability. A person who is involved in a car accident is not less liable because he or she was using a cell phone, than a person who is involves in a car accident because they were eating a burger.

“The Marijuana Initiative Requires Science to Be Ignored.”

Untrue. While I imagine that recommendations from the Cannabinoid Product Board should and will definitely be considered, the well-being of Utahans is what should drive decisions on this matter.

Science, in my opinion is what is driving this initiative. Do your own research and see for yourself the health miracles that medical cannabis is capable of producing. Once you do that you’ll have the chance to recognize the science behind the method.

To begin to understand a bit more about the science behind the cannabis movement, I would recommend you to take the time and watch this 4-part CNN documentary on the topic. The documentary is hosted by Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who is CNN’s chief medical correspondent and a practicing neurosurgeon.

Below are parts 1-3

Below is part 4.

“The Legislature May Choose Not to Remedy Unintended Consequences.”

On the contrary. When this proposal passes in November, the will of the people (as it should) will be fixing the law’s “unknown or unintended consequences” of allowing Utahans to suffer because they don’t have the option of using medical cannabis.

“Marijuana Cultivation, Distribution, and Possession are Federal Crimes with Stern Penalties.”

So it may be, but it only is because of government’s encroachment, which violates the principles of limited government embodied in the Constitution. We need to understand that it is not the job of the federal government to control such things. These decisions must be made at the state level.

“The Marijuana Initiative Will Put Utahans at Serious Risk of Federal Prosecution.”

Please see previous point’s rebuttal.

“Gun Owners Who Rely on the Marijuana Initiative May Face Severe Federal Sentences.”

Gun owners tend to take the responsible path when carrying. Normally a gun owner who is carrying will not drink or initiate a disturbance. Gun owners normally know the responsibility that comes along with owning and carrying a firearm. I don’t think that will change. I imagine that under normal circumstances, a gun owner who is a medical cannabis cardholder would behave similarly to a gun owner who is prescribed Prozac.

“Immigrants Who Rely on the Marijuana Initiative Could Harm Their Immigration Status.”

While that may be true, it is only true because of government’s encroachment, which violates the principles of limited government embodied in the Constitution. We need to understand that it is not the job of the federal government to control such things. These decisions must be made at the state level.

It has been said that insanity is when you do the same things but expect different results. What some fail to understand is that we won’t be able to stop the pain and suffering of Utahans by maintaining the current status quo system where opioid addiction is more widespread than ever before.

One of the common arguments in the legislature is that a proposed bill has already been (or not) adopted by x number of states. Presenting this data shows a nationwide trend in favor or against the proposed bill. As of the writing of this article, 46 states in the union allow the use of medical cannabis one way or another.

Shouldn’t we heed to the admonishment of the 13th article of faith when it tells us that “…If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.”? I say we must.