I want to offer my appreciation to everyone involved in holding and showing up to this protest/meeting. ORNORML, MAMA, ACLU, and so many others. Especially the patients who came to express their views. How anyone can look a sick person in the eye and say, “no, you can’t have that plant to treat your condition, or we’ll lock you up” is beyond my understanding. It’s as ludicrous to me as someone telling me I can’t pick a wild blackberry off a bush and eat it or break off a leaf of an aloe vera plant and rub it on my sunburn. Insanity!

I was appreciative of everyone’s patience, consideration, and professionalism. I know how emotional we can get about this issue, and we need to realize that Dr. Higginson was very gracious in meeting with us and hearing our concerns. A few people got a little grumpy, but that’s to be understood, too. They do need to know we’re angry, but they also need to see we’re not raving lunatics.

I was sad to hear about patients who were frightened by the OMMP’s suspension of the new cards and some irresponsible journalists who printed post-Raich headlines like “Supreme Court Outlaws Medical Marijuana”, so frightened that they destroyed their crops. Raich didn’t change a thing about the federal-state relationship on medical marijuana, it merely said “the way things currently are is okay, the DEA can bust you like they always could, talk to the Congress if you want it changed.” That’s pretty much where we’ve always been, isn’t it?

We are making real progress on these issues, but remember that our system of checks and balances is purposefully designed to move slower than any of us would like. But think back to the 80’s, back to Nancy Reagan and “Just Say No”, back to “this is your brain on drugs”. Try and imagine me walking up to you in 1985 and saying, “you know, 20 years from now, eleven states will legalize marijuana for medical purposes and 75% of the US public will support medicinal use of marijuana.” You’d probably ask me what I’d been smoking. (Nothing!… in 1985.)

I asked the question:

“Following the Raich Supreme Court decision, the Rhode Island house approved medical marijuana by a veto-proof margin with only two dissenters. Connecticut is going ahead with its medical marijuana bill. Nine other states’ Attorneys General have continued on with their medical marijuana programs, and California’s AG Bill Lockyer has said that the ruling doesn’t really change his state’s law one bit. What effect or implication of the Raich decision does our state seem to notice that nine other state Attorneys General and two state legislatures are missing?”

I got the answer I expected, something along the lines of, “well, those states can do what they want, I can’t speak to their decision-making process, but we wanted to proceed with caution…” yada yada yada. I expected that answer because our state’s halting of the issuance of new OMMP cards is pretty well indefensible. Our state is in violation of the law. Period. The people voted for this program, and nothing about the Raich decision invalidated that law. My reply was, “so, if I’m understanding you correctly, Doctor, Oregon is just more timid when it comes to protecting patients than the other states?”

However, that’s not the important part of the proceeding. The important part is to reassure current patients that they are still protected under state law, they’re still subject to federal prosecution (which they were pre-Raich anyway, but since feds only account for 1% of marijuana prosecutions, your risk is the same as it was before – negligible), this is only a temporary halt to new cards, and that applications are still being processed, and your receipt of application will still protect you from state prosecution.

One questioner hit to the heart of the matter, though. The legislature just took $900,000 of OMMP money to fund DHS. So it’s obvious the program works and there’s no moral qualms about reaping (raping?) its benefits. The OMMP is still taking applications and fee money and issuing receipts that protect patients like a card. So what’s the difference? Why not issue the card, if the receipt and the taking of the fee equals the same level of liability to the state program?

Dr. Higginson’s answer was that the OMMP card is an official state document, so that creates a higher level of liability than a receipt and application alone. Of course, that’s mighty shaky ground to stand on. How was that liability any different before Raich? Two lawyers for our cause, one from ACLU and the other whose affiliation I’m unaware of (and dang me for not bringing a notepad to get their names!) both told us that they expect the Oregon AG’s office to advise us to continue the program as is, because no other opinion would make any legal sense, and any other ruling would be facing swift lawsuits.

Good work, everybody, and keep on fighting! We have truth, popular support, and morality on our side, and an energized community and leadership willing to do whatever it takes. I’m proud to have moved to Oregon from Idaho! You people make me proud!