Tougher Standard Ahead For Adding Illnesses To Mmma

[bobandtorey]

LANSING- On Wednesday the Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA), in conjunction with the Office of regulatory Reinvention (ORR), will roll out to the public their proposed

 

reinvention of the Medical Marihuana Program (MMP). One of the proposed changes involve an overhaul of the procedure to add new illnesses and ailments to the list of conditions that qualify one to use marijuana as medicine.

 

The current Administrative Rules require LARA to forward all complete petitions directly to a panel of experts (the Panel), which is required to submit a recommendation on the petition

 

within 60 days, during which time a public hearing ont eh petition is to be held. That hearing must be posted at least ten days prior on LARA’s website. The comments gathered from

 

the two months on the website and at the public hearing are returned to the Panel; if the information brought forth by the citizens convinces them to change or alter their

 

recommendation they can do so. The final Panel decision is then submitted to the Director of the Department for final approval or denial.

 

 

The application process is loosely defined in the language of the Act itself. The MMP’s Administrative Rules were adopted in April of 2009, a few scant months after the Act was

 

passed. Although legislation and court decisions have changed the letter of the law and the intent of the words since then, the Panel has been frequently reinvented and reconvened. The proposed changes include:

1. New Form- LARA will create a standardized form to ensure all petitions are uniform and complete.

 

2. Three-Tiered Standard of Evidence- The application must include current Medical, Empirical and Evidence-Based data in support of the addition of the illness. These phrases are not further defined, and should a Panel determine that the application fails any one of the standards they could reject the application entirely.

 

3. Peer-Reviewed and Published Studies Are A Must- The new rules include the definitive phrase “the petition shall include… Articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals reporting the results of research on the effects of marihuana on the medical condition or treatment of the medical condition.” This is a standard that marijuana rights opponents believe cannot be met. Prof. Gerald Fisher made that claim during a broadcast in a town-hall style debate and this supposed lack of scientific validity was a central element in the statewide anti-marijuana tour initiated by Attorney General Bill Schuette after the Court of Appeals decision in the McQueen/Taylor case.

 

4. Minimize Citizen Input-  Under the current rules, the Panel makes a preliminary recommendation, the public comments on it, then the panel considers all the public’s evidence before making a final decision and sending a recommendation to the Director. The citizen input period is 60 days long and must include a public hearing.  The proposed rules eliminate all references to a two month long comment period and instead cram all citizen input into a 5 business-day period which begins on the day of the hearing and not before. This removal of the preliminary recommendation would confound citizens who wish to deliver targeted testimony to the Panel during the lone public hearing.

 

5. Same Time, Different Work-  The entire process is mandated to be finished within 180 days of the filing of a completed petition; that is identical in both the current and proposed rules. All that will change is how LARA spends the 180 day period.

 

 

6. Change in Membership- The Administrative Rules contain specifics about the composition of the Panel that is not found in the language of the Act. The proposed change would roll back the Panel’s membership to the bare-bones level of detail found in the MMA itself.

7. New Job Description- In a revision meant to cut out unnecessary language, any language

 

added to the Rules must be meaningful. The Panel is currently charged with the job of “review petitions,” but the proposed new rules would add “to address the palliative and therapeutic benefits that use of medical marihuana will provide for the medical condition or the treatment of the medical conditions.” This isn’t a restate of the original wording of the Act, it proposes a new responsibility.

8.  Long Term Care- Under the new proposal each member of the Panel would be selected for a 4-year term. There is currently no minimum or maximum time articulated for service

 

on the Panel, nor has there been any evidence that there is a need for one.

 

9. Quorum Schmorum- The new rules create a different definition of the number of Panel members needed to get anything done at meetings. In the past there have been differing

 

viewpoints on the issue and entire sessions have been wasted due to a re-interpretation of these same rules after the MMP came under new direction. This clarification should prevent wasted effort in the future.

 

The full language of the proposed changes can be found in this document from May 2014.

PUBLIC HEARING on the proposed rule changes:

Wednesday, July 16, 2pm G. Mennen Williams Building 

525 W Ottawa Street (at Pine), Lansing Michigan

 

http://thecompassionchronicles.com/2014/07/14/tougher-standard-ahead-for-adding-illnesses-to-mmma/

Edited July 15, 2014 by bobandtorey

[Norby]

Don't they have to allow research to require it?

[imiubu]

Exactly ^^

[Willy]

notice that this is on the same day that the other bills are in discussion..If im not wrong its is also on the 16th,, hmm divide and conquer ???

[bobandtorey]

YUP!

[t-pain]

3. Peer-Reviewed and Published Studies Are A Must- The new rules include the definitive phrase “the petition shall include… Articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals reporting the results of research on the effects of marihuana on the medical condition or treatment of the medical condition.”

 

pretty sure the review panel rejected a petition that lacked this info anyways.

was it asthma or insomnia ? maybe autism?

 

 

 

Rule 33. (1) The department shall accept a written petition on a form prescribed by the

department from any person requesting that a particular medical condition or treatment be

included in the list of debilitating medical conditions under R 333.101 section 3(b) of the act,

MCL 333.26423(b). The petition shall include current medical, empirical, and evidence-

based data, including both of the following:

(a) A summary of the evidence that the use of marihuana will provide palliative or

therapeutic benefit for the medical condition or a treatment of the medical condition.

(b) Articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals reporting the results of research

on the effects of marihuana on the medical condition or treatment of the medical condition

and supporting why the medical condition should be added to the list of debilitating

medical conditions under section 3(b) of the act, MCL 333.26423(b).

 

 

If the petition does not contain current medical, empirical,

and evidence-based data as described in subrule (1) of this rule, the department shall

return the petition to the petitioner as incomplete.

 

 

 

(3) Upon receipt of a petition that meets the

requirements in subrule (1) of this rule, the department shall do all of the following:

Transmit the petition to the review panel.

 

 

 

it is a hard rule excluding all petitions that dont have peer-reviewed studies.

so that sucks.

 

but fortunately, marijuana is one of the most studied plants on earth and finding peer reviewed research on it for any number of ailments is easy.

insomnia:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17712817

 

 

Experience to date with Sativex in numerous Phase I-III studies in 2000 subjects with 1000 patient years of exposure demonstrate marked improvement in subjective sleep parameters in patients with a wide variety of pain conditions including multiple sclerosis, peripheral neuropathic pain, intractable cancer pain, and rheumatoid arthritis, with an acceptable adverse event profile. No tolerance to the benefit of Sativex on pain or sleep, nor need for dosage increases have been noted in safety extension studies of up to four years, wherein 40-50% of subjects attained good or very good sleep quality, a key source of disability in chronic pain syndromes that may contribute to patients' quality of life.

 

there, thats human insomnia marijuana research, peer reviewed.

 

 

asthma:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490047/

and marijuana smokers may have used marijuana to treat or control their asthma.

 

interesting tidbit. its common knowledge.

 

then a bunch of research saying how marijuana works longer than the isoproterenol as a broncodialator:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1429361/

http://www.ukcia.org/research/SmokedAndOralInAsthmatic.php ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4816823 )

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/319717

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/797044

The mode of action of THC differs from that of sympathomimetic drugs, and it or a derivative may make a suitable adjuvant in the treatment of selected asthmatics.

 

 

ok, so you're upset that research is a requirement. i get that.

why not a concerted effort to add every single already-studied marijuana treatment into the act?

lets make petitions for it all. and then by the time we're done , many of people who suffer probably will qualify under another disease instead of whatever un-studied treatment you want to add.

 

its just an idea.

 

lets start with cholestatic pruritus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12190187

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol may be an effective alternative in patients with intractable cholestatic pruritus.

Cholestatic pruritus is the sensation of itch due to nearly any liver disease

Edited July 15, 2014 by t-pain

[t-pain]

i think we all agree we should fight that rule as a requirement.

 

i'm just thinking up backup ideas in case we fail to axe the rule.

[jointedone]

Think I'll send my useless card to schutte and tell him to shove it where the sun don't shine.Still wonder where all the revenue went that we paid to the State.

[bobandtorey]

Think I'll send my useless card to schutte and tell him to shove it where the sun don't shine.Still wonder where all the revenue went that we paid to the State.

 

 

I would like to know also where is that Money ?

[t-pain]

its still in the medical marihuana fund. which the law says lara may use it for administration of the program.

also the legislature made a 3mil appropriations for training.

 

by law the mmmp money cant be used for anything except administration and that 3mil appropriation.

[Restorium2]

its still in the medical marihuana fund. which the law says lara may use it for administration of the program.

also the legislature made a 3mil appropriations for training.

 

by law the mmmp money cant be used for anything except administration and that 3mil appropriation.

I don't think the Michigan constitution allows that the money stays in the program. The DNR had to get an amendment to have that be true for their funds collected. I think it's just a matter of time before we get robbed.

[t-pain]

mmma takes precedence over all other laws and acts.

[Restorium2]

mmma takes precedence over all other laws and acts.

That's a very broad claim to say that the MMMA trumps the Michigan Constitution. I think that would make the law unconstitutional.

[t-pain]

That's a very broad claim to say that the MMMA trumps the Michigan Constitution. I think that would make the law unconstitutional.

 

you have provided no proof the constitution trumps the MMMA.

[Restorium2]

LARA did get an amendment called HB 4834 in 2012 that expressly creates the fund.

 

From section 6(l):

That clashes with the Michigan Constitution. It will be seen that way by the Michigan Supreme Court. That's why the DNR asked to have the constitution amended rather than writing law that clashes with it. Edited July 16, 2014 by Restorium2

[Restorium2]

you have provided no proof the constitution trumps the MMMA.

Nope. Just common sense.

[jointedone]

A well attended protest at the Capital where we burn our cards.......... like when our friends burned their draft cards before they were sent to die for nothing and to this day still suffer. And are STILL ignored.

[cheapshades]

A well attended protest at the Capital where we burn our cards.......... like when our friends burned their draft cards before they were sent to die for nothing and to this day still suffer. And are STILL ignored.

 

I saved a match and didn't burn my draft card.  Just turned it in when I volunteered.