Says Dr. Lou: “It’s Good for What Ails Me!”
Before we give Senator Lou Correa his regularly-deserved shellacking, let’s take a few moments to grant him kudos for his fine transparency bill, popularly known as the “DISCLOSE Act,” which just passed out of the full Assembly. Let’s go ahead and print his press release, which I see no problems with:
ASSEMBLY APPROVES BILL TO CAST SUNSHINE ON CAMPAIGN MONEY
February 20, 2014
Sacramento, CA – Senator Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), announced that, Senate Bill (SB) 27, legislation he introduced to close the loophole whereby campaign contributors can hide their true identity by laundering their money through nonprofit groups was approved by the state Assembly.
“I am pleased with the broad bipartisan support that SB 27 has received, which reinforces the notion that California voters want to know who is funding the campaigns for and against these important ballot measures. They rely on this information to help them decide how to vote. I will make sure the voters get the whole story no matter who these funders turn out to be,” said Correa.
The impetus for Senator Correa’s bill, SB 27, was Americans for Responsible Leadership, an Arizona non-profit corporation that made an anonymous $11 million donation to a California campaign committee involved with the Proposition 30 and Proposition 32 initiative campaigns. Americans for Responsible Leadership eventually admitted that it was an intermediary and identified the true source of the contribution as Americans for Job Security, through a second intermediary, The Center to Protect Patient Rights, both of which are also non-profits. An investigation into the matter by the Fair Political Practices Commission resulted in record fines.
“I have worked closely with the FPPC to fashion a bill that will close this loophole once and for all. Laundering campaign cash through nonprofits to hide your true identity will no longer be possible in California after my bill is enacted,” said Correa.
SB 27 was approved by the Assembly with 58 aye votes and now must be voted on by the Senate for concurrence.
# # #
Okay, that out of the way, we started our morning today with a report from Nick Schou that Lou has authored a “pot bill.” First off, we think, has THAT ever been good? The answer is a resounding NOT, but the smart Nick seems open-minded. Next we read that this new bill, SB 1262, is backed by both law enforcement and the virulently anti-marijuana California League of Cities. And this is masquerading as a positive pro-reform bill. At this point we are sporting a serious “What’s the Catch?” face.
And here’s the catch. Buried within this bill’s constructive-sounding dispensary licensing scheme is the poison pill we were all expecting: Recommendations for medical marijuana can now only be given by doctors who “have a bona fide doctor-patient relationship, with medical marijuana recommendations to be made by a patient’s primary care physician or by a physician and surgeon to whom the patient is referred by their primary care physician.”
This would in effect cut off medical marijuana for the VAST majority of patients who need it and are currently (with any luck) getting it: Most primary care doctors are ignorant, indifferent, or hostile to medical marijuana, and for various good reasons are fearful of unpredictable, draconian Federal law. Orange County MMJ activist Paul Lucas points out that:
“This bill eliminates those doctors who are brave enough to recommend the use of cannabis to seriously ill patients. It legally puts them out of business by “Specific Exclusion,” and relegates that duty ONLY to people’s PRIMARY physicians. This is bad because those who are truly in need of cannabis for medical reasons are usually on Medicare or Medicaid due to severe disabilities and illness. And the doctors who treat these seriously ill patients accept federal funds from Medicare and Medicaid etc, to treat their patients, and are forbidden by federal law to recommend the use of cannabis.”
I would add that the vast majority of primary care physicians have a deep and symbiotic relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, motivating them to prescribe the usual synthetic medications rather than the natural herb. AND the bill furthermore requires AUDITS of any physician who recommends MMJ more than 100 times in one year.
NORML spokesman Dale Gierenger, with charming naivete, lauds the bill’s reasonable components and law enforcement’s supposed newfound reasonableness, and expresses hope that the anti-doctor strictures can be stripped out of the bill at some point. But, as Paul points out, these strictures are the essence, the heart of the bill. “SB 1262 is like a Hot Pocket, with some good-looking stuff on the outside, but a piece of dog shit at the core.”
Without the bill’s evisceration of patients’ ability to obtain their medicine, the ballyhooed support of law enforcement and the League of Cities would evaporate – the evisceration IS the whole point. And sure enough, the Police Chief Association’s letter of support begins: “Among the most troublesome issues with [the Compassionate Use Act] includes the ability of virtually anyone to obtain a medical marijuana recommendation from a compliant doctor…”
We see this once a year from Senator Correa – what he’ll present as a bill making things better for medical marijuana users on closer inspection would make things much worse … and then, thankfully it never passes. Lou’s bill seems to be a drug warrior’s alternative to Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s far better MMJ regulation bill AB 604, which is pending hearings in the State Senate later this spring. When Lou comes around saying he’s got a great new pot bill, you should “beware of Greeks bearing gifts,” and also shun the Moose Turd Pie:
And there are pot docs who make a business out of charging stoners $100.00 for a bogus recommendation for an ingrown toenail.
Yeah, no doubt.
So the solution to THAT terrible tragedy should be to deny medical marijuana to nearly everyone who really needs it? (Read the story? Find anything wrong?)
Has any MMJ doc ever been busted by the Feds for recommending?
I think the answer is NO!
Yes but not feds, but State agencies.
State agencies?????
I doubt it – MMJ is legal in California – didn’t you know?
Why do you specify “by the Feds”?
And do you assert that, if the answer is “no,” docs can simply ignore the law?
If so, it seems like you’re too willing to place bets using other people’s butts.
What law? – Point out the federal law that docs cannot give MMJ recommendations ….
“Why do you specify “by the Feds”?”
Because MMJ is legal in California counselor. However, I will restate the question.
Has any MMJ doc ever been busted by the Feds, State or Local agency for recommending?
I think the answer is still NO!
Skally the answer is yes by the state medical board. Not the feds. Bit as for your question below about what law prevents doctors form doing this its called the controlled substances act in which cannabis is listed as a schedule 1 drug at the same level as heroine cocaine and PCP. No medical benefit or value. but that is trumped by the US patent the federal government holds on the medical benefits of cannabis.
Skally,
Dr David Alan was recently taken in front f the California medical Licensing review board. A state agency to have a trial on whether or not to remove his license for recommending cannabis to patients. Im not sure of all the details but yes that is one example.
Skally,
The average price of a rec is about 35 dollars. The more reputable and compliant doctors who write recs are charging about 50 dollars max. It used ot be up to 150 dollars. The Counties under the MMPA program make you get one of these first then issue you an MMPA card via the Compassionate use Act Amendment of 2003 for 150 dollars. So your criticism is moot.
The State makes you pay a higher premium for this card that is supposed to exempt the holder from any form of Prosecution, once the card has been verified. However, the LEO agencies and the Court systems purposely will not verify this card, prior to trial and will drag you out in pre-trials for up to 4 years just to beat the crap out of you so they can avoid granting you your rights under this act as a citizen in the state of California.
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/MMP/Pages/default.aspx
If you pay attention, Lou is also running for BOE in this region. the BOE is in charge of collecting sales and use taxes from the sales of cannabis in dispensaries. If he ascends to that seat, he will use that data to send the cops to your local dispensary with the expressed aim to destroy this industry instead of reaping the benefits like they are doing in Colorado and Washington.
Wow, another catch-22.
what IS NEEDED IS TO GET THE us congress TO PASS A BILL to take MJ off the list. Anything else is just a waste of air.
It’s not that everything else is a waste of air — but you’re right that that is the #1 thing that should happen. And it’s so easy, given the will.
Robin,
see my response to Tracie below for more clarification.
That is more Lucas crapola – Lou would have no interest in doing that even if he could – tin foil hat time – not surprising for Lucas.
First, is this Senator a Physician? Does he have a background in the medical field? Why are these Senators in charge of writing bills that ultimately become laws? There needs to be a team of Physicians and attorneys that put together something that will sort out the mess in California. I am all for the patients having a better relationship with the physician. I believe the records would assist in showing the “value” in medical marijuana, how it is used, and for what illnesses. However, the State should assign a team to write the law.
Second, BOE if that is not a conflict of interest I don’t know what is? AND….. The BOE should not be able to tax “MEDICAL” Marijuana. Prescriptions are not taxed. Great Story.
Tracie,
The reason that medical cannabis is taxed under the scheme in CA is because it is considered to be an “over The Counter Suppliment” just like Vitamins and other dietary suppliments. This is detailed in a 2007 memo on the topic and re-iterated in 2010. See the links below.
http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/173.pdf
http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/l245.pdf
The reason Lou Correa is doing this is because his only interest in this area is to scuttle the process of legalization and ending prohibition at he behest of his paymasters the Police unions and Prison Guard Unions.
The lack of a legitimate “Prescription” leads the BOE in this policy. Only a Recommendation can be obtained. Thus the designation of cannabis as an over the counter medication on par with Tylenol or Gincko Biloba.
Lou’s ascension to the BOE in tis region is not a conflict of interest. Its a targeted position in order to aid him in his zeal to cause more arrests, more prisoners, more asset forfeitures more probationers, more return customers for the drug testing industry. These are all areas of Public Employee Unions that view their foray into legislation as nothing more than a revenue generator and a manner in which to create more return customers. Thus job security and high pensions to which you pay into on their behalf.
There have been rumors, but do we have any real indication at this point that Correa plans to run for BOE this year? He’s got about a week left to make his move, if so.
Lou has formed a committee to take in donations for this seat specifically. He also has formed a committee to take donations for a run at AG as well. The BOE is a traditionally holding pattern so to speak for legislators who have to wait out a cycle til one term ends for the sitting representative for a specific seat and then they run with the ballot designation of BOE member. It is also a fiat in which they use to develop ties with the business community and donors etc.
Greg,
I think it would be wise for at the central committee to speak about censuring Lou Correa and pre-emptively denying him any endorsement for any office any longer from our central committee. We cannot sit idly and allow this man to represent us when he dos not share our values at all.
As someone going through four years of prosecution by the O.C.D.A.’s office for obeying the Laws of California regarding Medical Marijuana. It is about time we get some clarification and regulations, but not with these types of loopholes.
Like Paul Lucas said, how many Dr.s in California will prescribe it? 0 for fear of loosing the ability to write prescriptions for pharmaceuticals. As long as we have no input from actual patients and caregivers on writing regulations, we will continue to have Law enforcement help come up with new Regulations that are detrimental to us. CCHI2014 would of fixed all this, but because of lack of funding it most likely won’t make the ballot….
We need clarification and Regulations.. Who better to help write these types of Bills or give input then the Patients and Caregivers on the front lines…. Until this is sorted out, People like myself will be fighting for our Freedoms and rights as well as yours. I have a Dr.s Recommendation, State I.D. , State Caregiver Card a sellers permit and 501 C-3..
My wife had a Dr.s Rec and State I.D. Yet I have been prosecuted and denied a fair trial and hd Federal Law read at my State Trial.. 11-1 Hung Jury…. No Affirmative defense allowed….tell me Medical is Legal in California….. Oh yea I took Paul Lucas to the Buena Park California Police department last Friday to get his 12 Oz of medical marijuana back… While I am being charged for two 8 Oz bags… #Califuckme
Allow me to introduce my good friend Jason D Andrews to the OC’s Political Moshpit. Jason has ben a god friend to me through all this. His being a fellow defendant he knows what its like. He has provided me with the cannabis to keep me well and help me out through this whole thing after the Buena Park PD took my cannabis from me.
Without Jason I don’t know what I would have done. When the time comes Jason will have my endorsement for the preferred provider of medical cannabis to the OC democratic Community. He has my full endorsement now and I hope you all check out his collective Pro215.com for all your medical cannabis needs.
I’ve never heard of anyone being prosecuted for obeying the law.
I beg to differ with you Jason. Have you asked ALL the doctors in California ? I know for a fact that there are doctors at UCI Medical that do write prescriptions for medical marijuana.
Recently a patient whom I visit was denied medical marijuana by a dispensary in Long Beach because the prescription for it did not come from a “medical marijuana doctor”… it was written by an oncologist. This person then had to pay extra money to get a medical marijuana card to get his cannabis. The prescription written by his oncologist was free of charge and part of his doctor visit. The patient told me he felt ripped off and that the dispensary and medical marijuana doctor they sent him too… were only interested in sending “money” to each other.
I am no fan of Correa, so don’t get me wrong… I have my own issues with him and his staff. He only does what is best for “Lou.” Law enforcement wants the laws against marijuana to stay on the books… they need and want the $$$$$
Well, a good law would take care of THAT problem, instead of making it worse.
Can we PLEASE cut the bullshit?
From the Medical Board of California:
“(the) ..Health & Safety Code section 11362.5(c) provides strong protection for physicians who choose to participate in the implementation of the (Compassionate Use) Act. – “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.”
“The Medical Board wants to assure physicians who choose to recommend medical marijuana to their patients, as part of their regular practice of medicine, that they WILL NOT be subject to investigation or disciplinary action by the MBC if they arrive at the decision to make this recommendation in accordance with accepted standards of medical responsibility.”
http://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensees/Prescribing/Medical_Marijuana.aspx
hey skally,
If you cant tell your ignorance is clear indication of the outright unjustified prosecution of patients and doctors ins spite of the ;published protections.
Yeah right …. sure Paul – give me cases, facts and details – you won’t.
Dr. David Alan. Look it up. That’s the only one I can think of off the top of my head regarding rec for cannabis. But there are tons of doctors in jail for over prescribing oxycontin. But this is usually after several people have died as a result. So whats with your attitude dude?
“What’s with my attitude?”
My attitude is that I want you to back up the shit you are saying with facts – so far you haven’t. That’s my attitude dude.
It’s doesn’t matter who says that Dr’s aren’t going to be prosecuted, unless it’s the DEA it’s BS.
They are the holders of record, of the ability to write a Rx and everyone else can pound sand. The state can say, the AMA could say, the President could say, but none of them are the agency that holds the power to take a Dr’s ability to prescribe or not away.
So how many Dr’s have been prosecuted by anyone for recommendations? -0-
Lucas gave a name – but there isn’t shit anywhere on that guy.
I will look it up. I admit that only a few doctors have been prosecuted but what does that have to do with anything? And what’s with the hostility dude? Seriously slow your roll.
It has to do with your & Vern’s so-called “poison pill” argument against Correa’s bill. You said that Federal law forbids doctors from recommending MMJ – that is not true.
Yea. That’s true, Scally. I don’t see how (or why) you’re suggesting it doesn’t.
Cite that law to me then Ryan.
That’s an odd request. If I state that a doctor can’t prescribe a hooker to a patient, does that mean I have to cite the law for it to be true?
Anyway, here’s a freebie for you: http://www.canorml.org/prop/MDGuide.html
Note the case law supporting your point.
Great, glad to clear the air and settle that point.
“On April 30, 1997, United States District Judge Fern M. Smith issued a preliminary injunction barring the federal government from taking any action against physicians who recommend or approve the medical use of cannabis for treatment of “HIV/AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, and/or seizures or muscle spasms associated with a chronic, debilitating condition.” The ruling was subsequently upheld by an injunction from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in its ruling Conant v McCaffrey (2002). The Supreme Court refused to reconsider the decision, leaving it as binding federal law in the Ninth Circuit (including all West Coast states plus Nevada and Montana).”
*Quality Control? Quality Assuance? Knowing your connections and the reliability of any source of products is important. Chicken and Eggs are prime examples of how important it is to know what product you are really getting. This is an area that eventually might required Labeling. Without having these suppliers inspected…..there are very serious inherent dangers. If you give these undocumented products to a family member or ingest in yourself…..we simply say: Buyer Beware!
Mr. Skallywag,
Understand if you will, that sometimes people work in ways that are far subtle than you do and in far more indirect ways. Here are a few links that might help you to understand, if you want to at all, that is. At this point I wonder if you are of an open mind at all on this subject, but here are some additional things for you to consider.
Medical Marijuana Raises Fears Over Reach of Occupational Licensing Laws
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/19/occupational-licensing-laws-raise-fears
How the DEA Got Doctors Under Its Thumb Through Creeping Bureaucracy
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/20/how-the-dea-got-doctors-under-its-thumb
Docs Afraid to Prescribe Life-Saving Medical Pot, Even Though It Won’t Get Patients High
http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/02/25/docs-afraid-to-prescribe-life-saving-med
DEA Agent Joins Marijuana Industry
http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/02/26/dea-agent-joins-marijuana-industry
There’s a lot of discussion over there on the subject, if you want to look it over.
Here’s the heavy hand:
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/manuals/pract/section2.htm
The first two sections are really all you need to reach a reasonable idea of what they want.
Vern: “Most primary care doctors are ignorant, indifferent, or hostile to medical marijuana ..”
That statement does not seem to be true either:
“Why more doctors are supporting use of medical marijuana”
http://medireview.com/2013/06/why-more-doctors-are-supporting-use-of-medical-marijuana/#.UxC3-Pk9KEQ
“Survey: 76 percent of doctors approve of medical marijuana use”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/survey-76-percent-of-doctors-approve-of-medical-marijuana-use/
“A 1991 survey of doctors specializing in cancer treatment, published in the Journal of Clinical
Oncology, found that, of those with an opinion, 54% of the doctors supported access to medical marijuana and 44% had suggested the use of medical marijuana ..” –
I am certain that figure is much higher 20 plus years later.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Medical_Marijuana_Q_and_A.pdf
So Vern & Paul – when are we getting to “truthiness” on this issue?
Skally, where is all of this coming from with you? I know for a fact you are just dead set against cannabis in any way or form due to your rabid activism on the issue in Santa Ana. I can see form your vantage point, I believe that you lived around the corner form a building that house several dispensaries. But you are going out on a limb, and getting into tin foil hat territory.
If there was any truth to your position that primary care doctors are just hunky dory with recommending cannabis for their patients then why the heck would there be an established niche of doctors who write recommendations for the truly needy or just folk who wanna get high? I mean seriously Im just not going to answer or engage in or with you just because you are only looking to fight and argue. Good day Mr Tardif.
Do not feed the troll.
At least not till he concedes Paul’s most important point: “those who are truly in need of cannabis for medical reasons are usually on Medicare or Medicaid due to severe disabilities and illness. And the doctors who treat these seriously ill patients accept federal funds from Medicare and Medicaid etc, to treat their patients, and are forbidden by federal law to recommend the use of cannabis.”
Granted – that’s what the law says. However, fairness would suggest that you acknowledge that there is a permanent injunction against enforcement of that law effectuated by the SCOTUS.
And you should also acknowledge that stoners are the majority of those taking advantage of California’s MMJ law under spurious medical claims.
Not SCOTUS. it only applies to the ninth circuit.
That was also awhile back. Have things changed?
More important, does the perception match the reality? I’d suggest it doesn’t. Hopefully, you understand why that matters.
I said SCOTUS “effectuated” the permanent injunction – they effected the injunction by refusing to reconsider the 9th CC decision (injunction), leaving it as binding federal law in the Ninth Circuit (including all West Coast states plus Nevada and Montana).
I don’t think you can “effectuate” something by refusing to hear it. The “Loony” Ninth effectuated . . . SCOTUS did, well, nothing.
Did Scotus effectuate my lunch choice? They didn’t comment on that either.
I said that Im not going to acknowledge him in any way due to his toxic manner of dialogue.
Now he’s distracted by rubbing it in Diamond’s face that T-Rack is raking in record campaign donations.
I’m a little tempted to give this pain-in-the-ass a 5-comment-per-day maximum like we did to Michelle Quinn.
That reminds me, Vern: I have to work on an announcement condemning the sort of asset forfeiture that was used against Tony Jalali.
I don’t think Rackauckas had anything to do with that case – I think it was a collaboration of the Anaheim Police Department and Southern California’s US Attorneys. Although maybe Rackauckas does pursue asset forfeiture at other times? I’m sure he does if he can.
I’ll condemn it regardless. Isn’t there a saying, “condemnation is good for the soul”?
(Note to visitors: Vern and I joke around with each other sometimes.)
Lucas: “Skally, where is all of this coming from with you?”
Normally I do not respond to those who think they are being funny or are trying to annoy me by revealing what they believe is my identity. But I will make an exception for you Lucas.
This is coming from my viewpoint that honesty, not overblown rhetoric, mis-truths, and phony MMJ laws will most likely and most quickly get you where you want to be on this issue.