In states that introduced a medical marijuana program, Medicaid prescriptions for anti-depressants, pain, anti-nausea, seizure and psychosis drugs fell
A fascinating study in Health Affairs last year by a father-daughter pair of public policy researchers found that Medicare prescriptions for things like painkillers, antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications dropped sharply in states that introduced a medical marijuana program.
The implication? Offered the choice between taking medication prescribed by a doctor and self-medicating with pot, many older patients opted for the latter.
But the study left one big question unanswered: Since the study’s authors – the University of Georgia’s Ashley Bradford and W. David Bradford – only looked at Medicare data, they couldn’t say for sure whether the findings held for younger patients too.
Now, we’re getting more answers. This week, the Bradfords are back with a new study applying the same analysis to prescriptions under Medicaid, which covers low-income people of all ages. The results largely validate their previous work: Medicaid prescriptions for certain drugs fell significantly in states that adopted a medical marijuana law.
Specifically, anti-nausea drug prescriptions fell by 17 percent. Anti-depressant prescriptions fell 13 percent, while prescriptions for seizure and psychosis drugs fell 12 percent.
Not everyone who has access to medical marijuana opts for it, obviously. But enough do to make a significant dent in the prescription numbers. “Patients and physicians in the community are reacting to the availability of medical marijuana as if it were medicine,” the Bradfords conclude.
Perhaps most significantly from a public health standpoint, prescriptions for painkillers fell by 11 percent. Opiate painkillers are behind much of the current drug overdose epidemic.
Numerous studies have found that opiate abuse and overdose rates fell in states with medical marijuana laws. The Bradfords’ research describes the mechanism by which that could happen: the introduction of medical marijuana laws coincides with a drop in painkiller prescriptions.
The Bradfords’ data only include prescriptions made under Medicare and Medicaid, but given the totality of their evidence it seems reasonable to assume that similar patterns hold true for patients on private insurance plans.
In the current budgetary environment, no analysis of healthcare is complete without a discussion of costs. The Bradfords estimate that because of the drops in prescribing rates, a nationwide medical marijuana program would save taxpayers about $1.1 billion on Medicaid prescriptions annually. That’s on top of the the half a billion in Medicare savings the Bradfords estimated last year.
Those costs don’t evaporate into thin air, of course: they would simply be shifted over to seniors and low-income people who would be purchasing medical marijuana outside of their insurance programs.
There’s also the open question of how smart it is from a personal health perspective to be self-medicating with pot: “it is plausible that forgoing medications with known safety, efficacy, and dosing profiles in favor of marijuana could be harmful under some circumstances,” the Bradfords warn.
Still, the Bradfords’ research makes the gulf between our current medical understanding of marijuana and federal policy around it even wider. Last summer the DEA affirmed yet again marijuana’s status in Schedule 1 of the controlled substances act, a category reserved for the most dangerous, addictive drugs that have no medical applications.
“This decision was made despite the substantial and growing evidence that the requirements for Schedule I status involving ‘no currently accepted medical uses’ are no longer met by marijuana,” the Bradfords write.
The number of citations for driving while under the influence of marijuana dropped by 33.2 percent in the first quarter of 2017 compared with the same period last year, but the number of people using marijuana and then driving continues to be a concern for Colorado officials.
“We’re still troubled by the fact that marijuana users are still telling us they routinely drive high,” Colorado Department of Transportation spokesman Sam Cole said Monday. “We’re pleased with the awareness, but we’re not so pleased with the behaviors that are actually happening.”
Cole said that in a survey conducted by CDOT, 55 percent of marijuana users said they believed it was safe to drive while under the influence. So three years ago when recreational marijuana was legalized, according to Cole, CDOT launched the “Drive High, Get a DUI” campaign to raise awareness that driving while stoned was illegal.
“There’s a lot of troubling information we’ve collected and many marijuana users indicate they drive high and they don’t think it’s a danger,” Cole said. He added that among survey respondents who said they used marijuana within the last 30 days, “Fifty percent of marijuana users say they have driven high.”
Despite CDOT’s concerns and what marijuana users might think, the Colorado State Patrol reported that from January to March of 2017, 155 people were cited for marijuana-use-only impairment while driving, compared to 232 cited from January to March of 2016. The number of citations noting combined alcohol and marijuana use also declined, with 50 in the first quarter of 2017 compared with 69 in the first three months of 2016.
“Are the citations going down? Yeah, but is the number of people using marijuana and then driving going down? I don’t know how to quantify that,” said Nate Reid , a CSP spokesman. “This is just after the officer stop. This isn’t post-conviction or after they may have been arrested.”
Recreational marijuana use might be somewhat new, but troopers have great experience detecting impaired drivers, Reid said.
“We’ve been arresting for marijuana for a long time,” he said. “There’s no sure sign somebody is impaired by alcohol or drugs. It’s the trooper’s personal contact after a stop, along with their driving behavior. Troopers have been trained in advance for detecting alcohol and marijuana and other prescription drugs.”
During the month of March in 2016, marijuana-related citations made up 17.8 percent of 337 total DUIs. In March 2017, marijuana-related citations made up 16.4 percent of 396 total DUIs. There was a year-over-year decrease from seven to three fatal alcohol- and drug-related crashes in the same span.
With 4/20 just around the corner and thousands of marijuana users planning to commemorate the day in downtown Denver, CDOT, CSP and other organizations are encouraging people to have a fun, but safe celebration.
“Take the high road this 4/20, and don’t DUI!” a release from CSP said. “The Colorado State Patrol will be in full force this 4/20 week encouraging the public to get a safe ride home and not drive impaired.”
CDOT has partnered with ride share companies to offer discounted rides on Thursday and started the “320 Movement” with Lyft, where a fleet of 17 vehicles were wrapped in green “Plan a ride before you’re high” messaging. The goal is to encourage marijuana users to plan ahead for a safe and sober ride leading up to 4/20.
“We have a lot of opportunities this week and the next four days to introduce behavior changes to marijuana users during 4/20 so they can get in the habit of planning for a safe ride home,” Cole said. “We want 3/20 to be as synonymous with safety as 4/20 is with having a good time.”
Hayley Sanchez covers the city and metro area for The Denver Post. After tracking homicides in Washington, D.C., for D.C. Witness, she was a reporter for The Bulletin in Bend, Ore., covering Central Oregon’s breaking news, education, marijuana and more.
Posted by Michael Komorn , 12 April 2017 · 792 views
Our client, a medical marijuana patient registered with the State of Michigan, was out for a boat ride and some fishing on his friend’s boat. What started out as a glorious day with intentions of sun and fishing on the Detroit river later turned into federal charges of possession of marijuana (21 USC 844, 21 USC 844a) when a Border Patrol agent pulled up to them and wanted to search their vessel.
Related: Michigan law regarding marijuana manufacture, delivery, and possession The federal border patrol agent required that the two passengers, my client and his friend, open all the containers in the immediate area, to which they complied.
After the agent found no contraband, he demanded that the occupants of the boat hand over the marijuana because, according to the agent, it smelled like marijuana on the boat.
Additionally, the agent said that if someone did not give him the marihuana, he was going to call the K9 unit. What does the driver of a car or boat say in response to a law enforcement officer demanding that the occupants of the vehicle hand over the marijuana, or else?
For a vehicle, we know that the traffic stop can’t or shouldn’t take last for any longer that it takes to execute the traffic stop, identify and inform the driver of the violation, and issue a ticket, if appropriate.
A traffic stop is not an opportunity to gather evidence of probable cause of the vehicle to search. That basic threat, calling the dogs, would be unconstitutional. That is to say, the delay in calling the dogs to get probable cause would be a delay beyond the scope of the lawful police interaction. The delay to call the dogs is a delay for the purpose of getting probable cause to search the vehicle. Most times this decision on how to respond should be determined on a case-by-case factual basis. In other words, depending upon what is within the vehicle, the driver may or may not comply with the request of the officer.
The rule of thumb, however, is to never consent to a search, ever. Equally important is the rule that you should never talk to the police or answer questions. Specifically, in these traffic encounters, or even vessel encounters, the investigated driver is not under arrest.
The encounter is an interaction called an investigation, and anything that is said during this encounter will be used against you. Ultimately, our client handed over the marijuana cigarettes and his patient card.
As my client was reminded by the Border Patrol Agent, there is no medical marihuana on federal jurisdiction. Or said another way, it was the intent of this agent to make a federal case out of it.
After being retained by our client, and after a few pretrial conferences and conferences with the Assistant United States Attorney, we learned that it was also the intent of the United States Government to make a federal case of it. Federal jurisdiction, as mentioned above, is a very different venue to litigate a marihuana case, even if it’s just for a joint or two.
The liabilities for punishment are much greater, and in certain situations get worse, the more the accused litigates the case. That is to say, any benefits of resolving the case with a plea bargain are minimized should you force the government to litigate the case. It is under these circumstances that we needed to make our decisions on how to proceed.
As we got closer to the day of trial, the Government offered a number of different plea offers and options to resolve the case. Unfortunately, none of them contemplated the medical use of marihuana while being supervised on probation.
Similar to many of the State Courts throughout Michigan, the likelihood of any probation supervision of any kind would preclude the medical use of marihuana.
Not directly pertinent to this case either factually or due to our federal court venue, the only Michigan case law that addresses the issue is a recent case in the Court of Appeals, People v Magyari, the defendant argued that, pursuant to the MMMA, the court could not prohibit his medical marijuana use during probation because he possessed a patient card, but the court’s opinion characterized the defendant’s use of marijuana as non-medical, and did not apply their reasons for upholding the lower court decision the appeal to all cardholders.
A probation condition disallowing his medical use of marijuana was not acceptable to my client, and besides, who would want to plead guilty to something that the state government has authorized you to possess, let alone be on probation for the same behavior? So as often is the case, the choices that presented themselves compelled us to reject the offers to plead guilty and instead litigate the case.
Our response to the offer to plead guilty was to file a “Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Justice Spending Funds to Prevent Implementation of Michigan Marijuana Laws.” I think it is more than ironic that as we put together the motion challenging the federal government’s authority and jurisdiction to prosecute the matter, the issue of States’ Rights was in the forefront in a national debate. As outlined in the motion, the legal authority prohibiting the jurisdiction of the government in our matter was vitiated by the Cole memorandum – both of them.
Additionally, the Rhorabacher-Farr amendment was more than clear in its intent to preclude federal agents employed by the DOJ, including the DEA, from investigating or prosecuting medical marihuana patients that are in compliance with state law. If there was ever a case with the perfect facts to prevail upon it would be this case, and the mere two marijuana cigarettes.
In contrast, the circumstances of the case cited, US v McIntosh, dealt with dispensaries and commercial marihuana sales. Our case was as authentic patient activity as one could find. After filing the motion to dismiss, and appearing for the motion hearing, we learned that the Government had decided to dismiss the case. The AUSA indicated to me that he had “no desire to go to the mat with me on this case” and he was “not going to make bad case law with this case.” Or said another way, he knew that he was going to lose, and instead of dealing with that result which would be precedent and impact the entire Sixth Circuit Trial Court, he thought it best to dismiss the case, and let us go on our way.
The moral of this story is that when they make a federal case out of it, you should do the same.
OAKLAND COUNTY, Mich.– The owner of an Oakland County medical marijuana dispensary said he’s been unfairly targeted by police in the form of raids and civil forfeitures.
Meanwhile, police said they’re just enforcing the law.
The case sits at the forefront of the fight to legalize marijuana in Michigan.
Investigators close to the case said Donald Barnes is a marijuana dealer hiding behind medical marijuana laws, but Barnes said the dispensary raided by police is a nonprofit that he has no ownership in. The legal battle has gone on for almost three years, and Barnes’ money and property is still tied up in a forfeiture battle.
Barnes insists he is the victim of overzealous police.
“It was two days before Christmas, and we started Christmas shopping already,” Barnes said. “They seized the Christmas gifts.”
He claims officials wrongfully raided his business and seized pot, property and bank accounts.
“They seized personal assets, not just my business bank accounts, but they also seized stuff from my home and my personal properties,” Barnes said.
Barnes was eventually given criminal charges.
“They arrested me and told me I was being charged with selling marijuana because I owned a dispensary,” Barnes said.
But police told a different story. They stand behind the raids, forfeiture and criminal charges, saying it wasn’t a medical marijuana operation for the sick but a large-scale pot-for-profit operation.
The two sides ended up in the courtroom, where Barnes scored a victory.
“In this case, the Oakland County Circuit Court, I think, called the Sheriff’s Department on their tactics and pointed out that they clearly had no justification to do what they did to Mr. Barnes or his business,” attorney David Moffitt said.
Moffitt said when the judge invalidated the search by police and dismissed the criminal charges against Barnes, it sent a strong message and should convince police to give Barnes his money and property back.
“You know, if you go around and you frighten people in this fashion and take their assets and tell them (that) if they just let that go then they won’t be prosecuted,” Moffitt said. “If it weren’t being done by people with badges, it would be called extortion.”
Prosecutors and police said the judge’s ruling was wrong. They’re appealing, so the controversy is far from over.
“I mean, this is Oakland County, one of the richest counties in the country,” Barnes said. “There’s not too many people that are going to be able to push them around. They push people around.”
A judge has ruled that $10,000 seized from Barnes be returned to him. A hearing to resolve the rest of the forfeited property was adjourned Wednesday and moved to August.
In some states, property cannot be forfeited until a person is convicted, but in Michigan, the property is taken and returned if a person is found not guilty.
Copyright 2017 by WDIV ClickOnDetroit – All rights reserved.
Donald Barnes says police unfairly seized assets
By Kevin Dietz – Reporter , Derick Hutchinson Posted: 6:01 PM, April 05, 2017Updated: 6:01 PM, April 05, 2017
In the annals of wrongful convictions, there is nothing that comes close in size to the epic drug-lab scandal that is entering its dramatic final act in Massachusetts.
About 23,000 people convicted of low-level drug crimes are expected to have their cases wiped away next month en masse, the result of a five-year court fight over the work of a rogue chemist.
Annie Dookhan was arrested outside her home in Franklin, Massachusetts, in 2012. Bizuayehu Tesfaye / AP, file
“It’s absolutely stunning. I have never seen anything like it,” said Suzanne Bell, a professor at West Virginia University who serves on the National Commission of Forensic Science. “It’s unbelievable to me that it could have even happened. And then when you look at the scope of the number of cases that may be dismissed or vacated, there are no words for it.”
The dismissals will come in the form of filings from seven district attorneys ordered by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to decide who among 24,000 people with questionable convictions they can realistically try to re-prosecute.
Their answer, due by April 18, is expected to be “in the hundreds,” a spokeswoman for Middlesex County District Attorney Marian Ryan said this week. An exact number was not available because the prosecutors are still working through the list, the spokeswoman, Meghan Kelly, said in an email.
The prosecutors didn’t want the scandal to end like this. They fought for a way to preserve the convictions, and leave it to the defendants to challenge them.
Civil rights groups and defense lawyers argued for all the cases to be dropped, saying that was the only way to ensure justice.
The state’s high court chose its own solution, ruling in January that district attorneys should focus on a small subset of cases it wanted to retry, and drop the rest.
It has taken five years to get to this point, longer than it took to discover, prosecute and punish the chemist, Annie Dookhan. She worked at the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute in Boston for nearly a decade before her misconduct was exposed in 2012. She admitted to tampering with evidence, forging test results and lying about it. She served three years in prison and was released last year.
By then, most of the people Dookhan helped convict — most of whom pleaded guilty to low-level drug offenses based on her now-discredited work — had finished their sentences.
Is not entirely clear why Dookhan, a Trinidadian immigrant mother, felt compelled to change test results on such a massive scale. She was by far the lab’s most prolific analyst, a record that impressed her supervisors but also worried her co-workers — a red flag that went overlooked for years. She seemed driven to stand out, even if it mean lying, former colleagues have said. She also maintained friendly relationships with prosecutors, even though her role was to remain objective.
Many of those convicted through Dookhan’s work likely did commit the offenses, but many did not, defense lawyers say. All of them are now burdened with dubious convictions that have made it difficult to find jobs and housing or to obtain student loans, the lawyers say. Some defendants were convicted of more serious crimes, and the drug convictions were used to stiffen their sentences. Non-citizens have been threatened with deportation.
Civil rights advocates say the case has exposed the folly of aggressive enforcement of low-rung drug offenders, many of whom are addicts in need of treatment. “It’s a soup-to-nuts indictment of the war on drugs,” said Matthew Segal, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, whose lawsuit led to the supreme court’s ruling. “These scandals happen around the country because our war on drugs is based on cutting corners.”
The reliance on forensic science in the criminal justice system has improved policing and prosecutions, but the misuse of science has also fueled wrongful convictions, researchers say. Drug labs play a distinct role in that machinery.
Lab scandals have undermined thousands of convictions in eight states in the past decade, according to data maintained by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Critics say forensic chemists feel a duty to help prosecutors rather than remain neutral. And they point out that many labs — including Hinton when Dookhan worked there — lack professional accreditation or proper protocols to prevent and detect misconduct. Some of her superiors have lost their jobs for failing to notice or report her misdeeds.
“This drug lab scandal is another example of why the criminal justice system needs to reform its approach to forensic science,” said Dan Gelb, a Boston attorney who helped write an amicus brief on the Dookhan case for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “Labs shouldn’t be an extension of law enforcement.”
Because of the system’s reliance on plea bargains to keep cases moving, defendants often don’t have a chance to challenge results from drug labs, Bell added.
That’s become a big point of discussion at the National Commission of Forensic Science, she said. But the commission, which was formed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2013, is facing an uncertain future, with no clear message from the Trump administration if its work will continue to be funded, Bell said.
The Dookhan case awakened Massachusetts to the crisis, Bell said.
But the end of the Dookhan saga will not bring the end to Massachusetts’ problems.
That’s because it is dealing with a second scandal, at a second lab, this one the result of a chemist who admitted to doing drugs — including an array of substances submitted as evidence — while on the job.
Thousands of convictions in that case are now in doubt.
