FRANK LUCIDO: Members of the Medical Board of California, the Division of Medical Quality, I’m going to make some of the points I made before, but I’ll be brief. Number one, medical cannabis is safe and effective.  There have been no reported deaths.  I’ve given you ample evidence of the effectiveness of it at previous times.  Number two, law enforcement’s cultural bias that I’ve mentioned before. I’ve checked again on the website, and have told you this each time, the website of the California Narcotics Officers Association as of yesterday still says, ‘There is no justification for using marijuana as medicine.’  This lie is clearly contradicted by the Institute of Medicine’s own 1999 report, the federal government’s report.  So, again, just be aware of law enforcement’s institutional bias. I still make the case that the legal staff has been ignorant of the law.  There’s been no apology to-date for this, and for the inappropriate targeting of doctors for having recommended medical cannabis.  I and other doctors still do not feel safe from further harassment, nor do other doctors in California. 

Let’s see…  I actually want to… and I’m going to commend the working group on medical cannabis.  I like the document, a lot of the document.  The main… I’m going to look over it sentence by sentence and come up with more comments.  But one of the…

MAN:  I’m going to ask to submit those to this Board in writing.

Dr. Lucido:  I will submit them.  But one important thing is when you’re talking… if you mention prescription drug, you need to say ‘prescription or non-prescription drugs.’  The point I want to make is this is the Physician’s Desk Reference for non-prescription drugs and now they’ve added dietary supplements to it.  But the pharmaceutical drugs in here, non-prescription, almost every one of them has caused deaths.  So if you’re going to add prescription drugs, you’ve got to say prescription or non-prescription drugs, because doctors have whatever responsibility they have.  So you’ve got to hold… whatever standards you’ve made for medical marijuana you have to make that for any therapeutic intervention.  So I’m glad it does say, ‘therapeutic intervention.’  If you’re going to say prescription drugs, you’ve got to add ‘or non-prescription drugs.’ 

And just two more… a couple more comments.  I was a little bit troubled to see the working group included this morning at breakfast, included Larry Mercer and Jane Zack Simon.  They are PROSECUTING attorneys of the District Attorney’s office.  And I’m a little dismayed that they would be on it because I think, again, law enforcement’s institutional bias has been showing throughout in the investigation of doctors. 

Also, a little bit concerned, as I mentioned the time before that, that Mr. Thornton is back, when he had made the mischaracterization a year ago of "all of these doctors are just having a cash register, charging $200, no medical equipment."  The mischaracterization was as if that was ALL doctors.  He pointed to one outlier, and that’s a misinterpretation.  When he wasn’t there for the next meeting, I assumed he had been fired.  So then at the November, the November meeting when I hear he’s a consultant, I was dismayed.  I mentioned that in the January meeting.  And now I hear he’s back as…  Anyway, I don’t want to [...unintelligible...] him, but…

MAN:  Keep it to the [...unintelligible...] medical marijuana…

Dr. Lucido  …I’m just a little bit concerned about how you get your staff.  This brings up the question I’ve been wondering about and would like to know if you have an answer for me.  I’m very concerned about how they come to be your legal staff, HOW do you chose them, DO you chose them, are they CHOSEN FOR YOU?  By WHOM?  By WHAT criteria or by what process?  Who chooses WHAT is investigated?  Who audits them, and how often? 

That’s all I need to say about that.  I just want those questions to be there.  But, again, I want to commend the working group.  I like most of this and I will give you comments in writing for further…

Two other things I’m going to just give you that you could pass out, just a… one salient page of two paragraphs from Conant v. Walters.  I gave you the entire thing last time, but I want to make sure you have that.  And I have transcripts of 50 minutes of last time’s meeting.  So I want you to have the transcripts of the salient 50 minutes, and you might want to see how much of that actually ended up in the minutes.  And are the minutes available for us too, in the public?  The minutes of last time’s meeting? 

MAN:  Yes. 

Dr. Lucido:  Great.  I would like a copy of that.

MAN:  [...unintelligible...].

Dr. Lucido:  Great.  Thank you.  That’s my comments.

Copyright pending. All rights reserved medboardwatch.com.