How to kill a medical marijuana system, Part II
It's a little late, I know, but the following article, published July 13, continues to illustrate the point I made earlier. New Jersey Governor Christie's proposal to revise the medical marijuana system devised by the legislature is in essence a plan to kill the system through federalism.
According to this article, the association of teaching hospitals in New Jersey has expressed a strong desire that its members should be the sole dispensers of cannabis to patients - as Christie proposed. Leaving aside the question of whether or not that characterization is true, the most fascinating aspect of this article is the assertion, about three quarters of the way down the article, that the statement by the association in favor of this arrangement admits that the association has not fully analyzed the potential problems with the federal government that the arrangement could cause.
What? No analysis as to the problems this arrangement could cause with federal regulators? Like - the DEA? Like - the Department of Health and Human Services? How could the association possibly make a statement that it would like to participate in this program without conducting such a legal analysis? Is that - what? - gross dereliction of duty by the legal counsel, officers, and directors of the association?
If this statement is true, it tells us that the State of New Jersey has no real concern with creating a functional medical marijuana program - it is proceeding without having conducted the most fundamental consideration in marijuana law: what can the federal government do to you? It instead contemplates allowing the creation of a program that could very well be inoperable from the outset - a program that cannot function since the state government has run its program right back into the grip of the federal government, a sovereign that tolerates no medical use of cannabis. Christie's plan negates the entire logic of a state medical marijuana system, which is that medical marijuana can only function when pried loose from federal control - due to the refusal of the federal government to allow it out of Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.
Am I missing something?