Search Counselor

Login




Banner
Banner
Banner
Marijuana Above Ground Print E-mail
Columns - From the Addiction Physician
Written by Stuart Gitlow MD, MPH, MBA   
Tuesday, 08 February 2011 15:12

I was sitting in on a hearing for disability last week when it finally happened. The claimant, who was applying on the grounds of mental impairment for disability, had positive toxicology for cannabinoids. Ordinarily, such a finding present in the medical record over an extended period of time would result in the claimant not being awarded benefits. The medical expert would argue simply that the ongoing use of marijuana was material to the claimant’s mental state. And that’s what happened on this particular day, right up to the point that the claimant pulled out a Rhode Island Medical Marijuana card.

Or maybe he didn’t. He pulled out a card with his picture, an official looking seal, an expiration date and an ID number. He indicated that his doctor had signed a statement saying that he was qualified to obtain medical marijuana. Was the ID card real? One way of checking would be to look online to see what the cards are supposed to look like, but the appearance of the Rhode Island medical marijuana ID card is not publicized online. Another would be to look in the medical record to determine where the physician documented his patient’s medical need to smoke an addictive plant. We looked, but didn’t find any documentation of either the underlying medical condition or the physician’s thought process regarding marijuana use. In fact, there was nothing in the medical record about marijuana, other than the positive toxicology. The claimant explained that the doctor had told him he wouldn’t write anything in the chart about marijuana because of the liability issues. I wonder if that’s why the ID card doesn’t indicate what doctor recommended the issuance of the card in the first place. Perhaps the real ID cards do, in fact, indicate a doctor’s name.

Their website conveniently instructs patients to explain to their doctor that they have a condition which qualifies for medical marijuana

In Rhode Island, the application fee to receive a medical marijuana registry ID card is $75. For those on Medicaid, SSDI or SSI, the fee is reduced to $10. That’s good. I wouldn’t want my 65 extra tax dollars being used as a barrier to prevent the individual from spending hundreds more of my tax dollars on their addiction. Interestingly, once an individual has one of these cards, he is eligible to possess 2.5 ounces of marijuana, which is the equivalent of about 70 grams. A joint might contain anywhere from ½ to 1 gram of marijuana. These individuals are therefore able to possess a significant supply of marijuana; once they have used up the 2.5 ounces, they can buy more. There is no limitation within a specific time period so if an individual uses up his 2.5 ounces in a week, he can return to the dealer for another 2.5 ounces. The more he uses, the more frequently he can return to the dealer for, under the law, an infinite supply of marijuana.

Under Rhode Island law, patients can obtain an ID if they have a debilitating medical condition for which a doctor provides written certification that marijuana may alleviate that condition. The wording is fascinating, specifically the word “may.” The doctor would hardly be going out on a limb to say that: “Sure, marijuana MAY alleviate acne, frozen shoulder and scurvy.” Rhode Island covers the following debilitating conditions: cancer, glaucoma, hepatitis C, HIV or any condition that causes nausea, pain, cachexia, seizures or muscle spasms. It would have been easier if the Rhode Island legislature simply wrote exceptions to exclude the 73 people in the state who are in perfect health and therefore ineligible. The Rhode Island Patient Advocacy Coalition exists in part to help patients obtain their medical marijuana card. Their website conveniently instructs patients to explain to their doctor that they have a condition which qualifies for medical marijuana, that they have used conventional medicine without help, and that they would like a recommendation for medical marijuana. I have many patients who, over the years, have told me that they have anxiety for which they need diazepam, or pain for which they need oxycodone. If I simply handed out prescriptions to all of them without further documenting the need, discussing with them the potential risks, ruling out addictive disease as an underlying diagnosis, my license would be at risk. What should we do about the clinicians who are recommending patients for medical marijuana? Shouldn’t they be required to properly document their decision-making process? Shouldn’t the record clearly indicate the failure of traditional treatment? Shouldn’t the record clearly indicate the presence of a condition for which marijuana is known through double-blind placebo-controlled trials to be an effective treatment (I’m ignoring, for the moment, the fact that there is as yet no such condition)? Shouldn’t the record demonstrate that the patient is closely followed through quantitative toxicology as to the amount of marijuana being used? And without all that, shouldn’t each of these clinicians be reported to their state medical boards with an appropriate complaint that their patients are not receiving the appropriate standard of care or that the clinicians are not following recommended treatment guidelines?Only a few doctors seeing 100 patients a day – each being certified as having an eligible and debilitating medical condition, and therefore, eligible for medical marijuana – would result in tens of thousands of dollars spent on a useless and addictive drug. Those are largely our dollars, as most such individuals, if not disabled by virtue of their underlying disease, will soon be disabled by their use of marijuana over an extended period of time. But we could stop all this in its tracks by throwing the book at the clinicians signing off on the eligibility paperwork.

Should we just watch all this happen? Or should we do more to stop it? Please send me your solutions at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Stuart Gitlow, MD, MPH, MBA, a psychiatrist, is a member of the American Medical Association’s Council on Science & Public Health, and an officer of the American Society of Addiction Medicine. This column represents his personal opinion and does not imply any position or policy taken by either the AMA or ASAM.

Comments
Add New Search RSS
mcdonaldjs  - addiction therapist   |152.133.7.xxx |2011-03-31 02:58:17
The only solution is to legalize marijuana. This would solve the burden on both
the medical community and the legal system. People that want to use pot are
going to use pot regardless of what the government says. Have we not learned
anything? I hear want you are saying about government money being used to
purchase pot. Isn't alcohol and tobacco already being purchased by the same
population of people? Face it, it cost much more money to keep pot illegal and
in the long run people are going to do what they want to do. Another problem
with pot being illegal is that the legal system often turns a regular Joe pot
user into a criminal. This is done in the states that carry stiff penalties for
it. Think about it; a pothead is arrested and jailed. While in jail the pothead
befriends the other people in jail, often time criminal type people. He begins
learning new behaviors. He is released from jail. Now we give the pothead a
felon...
Primum non nocere  - Tired of Medical Arrogance   |98.189.71.xxx |2011-03-21 12:41:15
WE NO LONGER BELIEVE IN THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY, THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY'S ANSWERS TO BEHAVIORAL ISSUES.

YOU HAVE BEEN LYING TO
US ABOUT "DRUGS" FOR FIFTY YEARS. YOU TRIED TO CONVINCE US THAT
MARIJUANA WAS AS DANGEROUS AS HEROIN.

YOU REFUSE TO SEE THAT SOME HUMANS LIKE
INTOXICATION AND WE SEE THAT YOU ARE JUST LIKE ALL OF THE REST...
ttanks  - Marijuana above ground   |74.215.210.xxx |2011-03-06 06:44:08
It is illegal and an no doctor has the right to perscribe it when it is illegal
bottom line. When did become ok to break the law license or not.
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Title:
 
:):grin;)8):p:roll:eek:upset:zzz:sigh:?:cry:(:x
 

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."