http://www.facebook.com/notes/minnesota-board-of-pharmacy/response-to-mr-kurt-hanna/206928895995838

Response to Mr. Kurt Hanna
by Minnesota Board of Pharmacy on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 at 09:17

Hello, this is Cody Wiberg, the Executive Director of the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy. For some reason, I can’t respond directly to a post that was placed on the Board’s Facebook page by Mr. Kurt Hanna. However, I do think it needs a response. I have communicated with Mr. Hanna by e-mail and in person about the issues of marijuana and the Board’s authority in regards to the scheduling of controlled substances. I have shared the following observations with him:

* The Board does, indeed, have the legal authority to add or delete drugs from the state’s schedules of controlled substances. (Or to move them between the schedules). In the case of marijuana, that means that the Board could either entirely remove marijuana from the schedules or it could place it in a schedule other than schedule I.
* Here is a problem associated with having the Board entirely remove marijuana from schedule I: the Board would have to find that marijuana has no potential for abuse. If the Board finds that marijuana has at least some potential for abuse, the Board can’t entirely remove it from the schedules. I really don’t believe that the Board can credibly conclude that marijuana has absolutely no abuse potential.
* Even if the Board somehow did conclude that marijuana has no abuse potential, the Board has no authority to amend the criminal portions of the statutes. That means that it would still be a crime to possess or sell marijuana – under state law. Furthermore, it remains a federal crime to possess and sell marijuana. Although Mr. Hanna quotes the dissent in Gonzalez v. Raich, the majority opinion was, essentially, that Congress has the authority under the Commerece Clause of the U.S. Constitution to regulate the distribution of marijuana and thus did not violate the federal Consitution when itcriminalized its sale and possession.
* In regards to allowing a federal agency to usurp state power, that is simply not true. A regulatory agency like the Board of Pharmacy derives its authority from enabling legislation enacted by the State’s Legislature. The Board is not asking the Legislature to enact a law that says that the State of Minnesota will strictly follow the federal schedules. The Board’s position is that it is the Legislature, not a very small state agency, that should be making the decision in regards to the scheduling of marijuana and other drugs in Schedule I. There is a good reason for that. If any drug is removed from Schedule I at the state level – but not the federal level – it will remain a federal crime to sell or possess that drug. The Board simply feels that it is the Legislature and Governor that ought to be making decisions about whether the state will defy federal law – not bureaucrats. Note that the Legislature will retain its authority to remove drugs from the schedules or to create a medical marijuana law. So the state is not giving any power away to the DEA.
* If the Board moved marijuana to a lower schedule, it would still be illegal under federal and state law to possess and sell it. However, the law says that drugs in the lower schedule may be prescribed by practitioners and dispensed by pharmacies (and only those individuals and businesses may prescribe and dispense). That means that the Board would potentially be putting practitioners and pharmacies in the position of having people demand that they prescribe and dispense a drug that other parts of the law make it illegal to sell or possess. Pharmacists could potentially be charged criminally if they stocked marijuana in order to fill prescriptions for it. (Practitioners are also allowed to dispense drugs and they, too, could be charged criminally if they possessed marijuana with the intent to dispense it to patients).

The Board will be taking up this issue at its May 11th meeting and, as staff, I am obligated to point out these issues. However, I have not discussed Mr. Hanna’s latest petition with the members and I do not know how they will respond. I would note that they did decline to reschedule marijuana when Mr. Hanna previously petitioned the Board.
UnlikeLike · · Share

*
*
You, Kurt Hanna and 2 others like this.
*
o
Ashton Ford please take a second to answer these other questions put forward by Mr. Hanna:

Does the Board accept evidence from the public to help them in their review?
Can we see the documents that the Board looks at during its annual review?
Tuesday at 15:45 · LikeUnlike · 3 peopleLoading…
o
Kurt Hanna ‎”Although cannabinoids are considered by some to be addictive drugs, their addictive potential is considerably lower than that of other prescribed agents or substances of abuse. The brain develops a tolerance to cannabinoids.” http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/Page6#Reference6.4
Tuesday at 17:42 · LikeUnlike · 3 peopleLoading…
o
Kurt Hanna
‎”Some people consider cannabinoids as addictive drugs. A withdrawal syndrome, which consists of irritability, insomnia, restlessness and a sudden, temporary sensation of heat — ‘hot flashes’— has been occasionally observed in chronic canna…bis smokers after abrupt cessation of drug use. However, this occurs rarely, and symptoms are mild and usually dissipate after a few days. Similarly, after chronic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) treatment, no somatic signs of spontaneous withdrawal appear in different animal species, even at
extremely high doses. Animal models of cannabinoid dependence have been obtained only after administration of an antagonist of cannabinoid receptor CB1 together with the cessation of chronic administration of high doses of THC to precipitate somatic manifestations of withdrawal. In the clinical context, long-term surveys of dronabinol administration at prescription doses have shown no sign of dependence. The low-addictive capacity of THC is usually ascribed to its pharmacokinetic properties as, unlike commonly used drugs, cannabinoids are stored in adipose tissue and excreted at a low rate. So, cessation of THC intake is not accompanied by rapid decreases in drug plasma concentration.” http://www.brainlife.org/reprint/2003/guzm%C3%A1n_m031000.pdf CANNABINOIDS: POTENTIAL ANTICANCER AGENTS by Manuel Guzmán – Nature Reviews Cancer 3, 745-755 (October 2003)See more
Tuesday at 18:15 · LikeUnlike · 4 peopleLoading…
o
Randy Quast
Mr. Wiberg is a staff member that reports to The Minnesota Board of Pharmacy. It appears that Mr. Wiberg, in his capacity as Executive Director, is steering the Board of Pharmacy in a manner which shirks the Board’s qualified, legislated, a…nd rightful duty. We should expect more from such a distinguished, reputable agency! To deny sick people the aid they so desperately need (based on proven scientific evidence) is just plain WRONG! Please, try to think of those in need. The Minnesota Board of Pharmacy is legislated to address this, yet they are officially trying to shirk this responsibility and hand it off to those less qualified to do so. In effect, the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy is stating that law makers are more qualified than their own Board of Pharmacy to determine the efficacy of a particular medicine. Huh?See more
Tuesday at 18:16 · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading…
o
Kurt Hanna Mr. Cody Wiberg, I want to say thanks for helping us understand where you and the Board are coming from when it comes to this issue. I may not agree with your policies, but I applaud your professionalism and transparency. I tip my hat to you.
Tuesday at 18:39 · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading…
o
Randy Quast I also “tip my hat” for the open conversation, but when one is misguided and hurting fellow citizen’s, it needs to be called-out. Thank you Mr. Wiberg for making it so obvious to call-out! Nevertheless, there are very serious medical necessities for medicinal cannabis (scientifically proven,) yet you choose to skirt your responsibilities to avoid controversy. Unconsciounable!
Tuesday at 19:20 · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading…
o
Minnesota Board of Pharmacy
A couple of points in response to the comments. The Board actually does not have a duty to remove drugs from the controlled substance schedules. Minnesota Statutes Sec. 152.02, subd. 7 does require the Board to ADD substances to the schedul…es if certain criteria are met. Subd. 8 permits, but does not require, the Board to “delete or reschedule substances listed in this section”. Also, if the Board does decline to remove marijuana from schedule I, it will not be denying “sick people the aid they desperately need”. As I mentioned in my response to Mr. Hanna, the Board has absolutely no authority to change the criminal portions of chapter 152. That means that even if the Board completely removed marijuana from the schedules, it would still be illegal under state law to possess or sell it – sick people will still not be able to legally buy or sell marijuana. Neither I nor the Board members are saying that the Legislature is more (or less) qualified to address the narrow issue of whether or not a drug is medically useful. What I have said is that only the Legislature has the authority to deal with the much broader issue of legalizing the sale and possession of marijuana. As for trying to avoid controversy – this is one of those issues that is inherently controversial. Simply by having to respond to Mr. Hanna’s petition, the Board is already in a controversy. No matter what the Board does, there are sure to be people who are upset. There are many people who would strongly agree with Mr. Hanna, Mr. Quast and Mr. Ford. There are also many people who would strongly disagree with them. (I sat through many of the medical marijuana hearings that the Legislature held a couple of years ago and listened to the testimony of people on both sides of the issue).See more
Tuesday at 21:32 · LikeUnlike
o
Ashton Ford
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Although, whether intentionally or not, you managed to dodge the two questions I had (originally from Mr. Hanna.)

So i’ll ask again:
1) Does the Board accept evidence from the public to help them in …their review?

Judging by this quote from you I believe you may,
“listened to the testimony of people on both sides of the issue.”
But I’ll wait for your answer.

2) Can we see the documents that the Board looks at during its annual review?
…I’d love to take a look at the propaganda.

I see this as a very sensitive issue that should be handled delicately..
However, someone has to take the first step no matter how small it is.
What will it take, if anything?See more
Wednesday at 00:01 · LikeUnlike · 2 people2 people like this.
o
Roy Sandy Sandström
so the prohibition debates go on..since Pawlenty veto of super restricted med mj law 3 friends have had cancer; one neck cancer; died. One neck cancer lived but suffered bad with TX at Mayo, one with pancreatic cancer, still alive but would… be better with weed. Military with PTSD, regular people with MS, Glucoma, Nerve Pain, AIDS, etc etc—- weed can not kill you with an overdose, it is safer than cigs & alcohol (remember what got the drug store chains to grow in the 1930′s- ya alcohol RXs!!!). MN BOARD should say enough is enough and do whatever it can to help end prohibition. This is about people who get benefit from weed (NOT cops/prisons/alcohol and big pharma who fight the plant), another topic is recreatiuonal use- again safer than alcohol. HOW MANY MORE FRIENDS WILL DUE W/O BENEFIT OF WEED? This old RN is sick to death of prohibition.See more
Wednesday at 00:15 · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading…
o
Minnesota Board of Pharmacy
In response to Mr. Ford. If the Board were to actually engage in the rule-making process for the purpose of rescheduling marijuana, it would appoint an advisory committee and the meetings of the advisory committee would be open to the publi…c and public testimony, including submission of written materials, would be allowed. The advisory council mentioned in M.S. 152.02, subd. 8 no longer exists – the Legislature repealed the section of the law that created it over ten years ago. Since the advisory council no longer exists, the review would be done by Board staff. It would be presented to the Board at a public meeting and the Board would most likely allow public testimony at that time. The Board might, based on public testimony, direct staff to continue the review process. The report to the Board would list all of the references used by staff to compile the report.See more
Wednesday at 07:37 · LikeUnlike
o
Ashton Ford Thank you.
Wednesday at 07:49 · LikeUnlike
o
Jason Karimi
Roy, this is not a debate. The Minnesota Board of Pharmacy is required to remove marijuana from schedule I to reflect the reality that marijuana is “accepted as medical use within the US.” The Iowa Board of Pharmacy recommended to the Iowa …Legislature to remove marijuana from Schedule I and received the Fred T. Mahaffey award from the NABP for their work.
Rescheduling marijuana does not change criminal law. This is not a legalization debate. I’m sick of prohibition as well, but at best, all rescheduling marijuana will do is open it up to further research by recognizing it’s medicinal potentiall. This is what the AMA recommended doing last year around the same time the Iowa BOP made their recommendation. I have to look up the dates when I write a response to Mr. Wiberg on WeedPress tonight.See more
Wednesday at 12:06 · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading…
o
Jason Karimi
Mr. Wiberg,

Kurt Hanna did not write this blog post. Mr. Hanna is a friend of mine and I have been following his work with you up in Minnesota. I am a 22 year old paralegal student at Des Moines Area Community College.
I will address your c…oncerns in an email later today when I get off work.

Thank you for your quick and well-thought out response. I believe that, following our discussion, you will have a better understanding of what happened here in Iowa and why the Iowa Board of Pharmacy was required to review the schedule I status of marijuana. Like I said, they received an award from the National Board of Pharmacies for their work.

Thanks.See more
Wednesday at 12:10 · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading…
o
Jason Karimi
Fellow concerned citizens or whatever in this thread or who happen to be reading this, quick response to what the MN BOP page said here (quoting):

“Also, if the Board does decline to remove marijuana from schedule I, it will not be denying …”sick people the aid they desperately need”. As I mentioned in my response to Mr. Hanna, the Board has absolutely no authority to change the criminal portions of chapter 152. “

I completely agree. Guys, this is not the place for a legalization debate. Go to the statehouse for that and get another bill passed (this time with a governor who respects limited government and Constitutional Principles rather than that hack Tim Pawlenty). The MN BOP is not responsible for prohibition. Kindly either know what you’re talking about, or keep quiet. Don’t make us all look bad.See more
Wednesday at 12:12 · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading…
o
Scott Bohler
‎”As for trying to avoid controversy… No matter what the Board does, there are sure to be people who are upset.” Mr. Wiberg, controversy is not the issue, nor is it what you have been petitioned to address. Cannabis does not qualify fo…r Schedule I and it is the Board of Pharmacy’s responsibility to amend the CSA accordingly. Please focus on the petition and task at hand rather than being distracting with side-controvercies which have nothing to do with science or professional, accurate classification of medicine.See more
Wednesday at 15:17 · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading…
o
Jason Karimi I believe this is just a matter of education. I feel confident the Board of Pharmacy will not support a bill like HF1520 once their concerns are addressed and they familiarize themselves with what happened here in Iowa with our Board of Pharmacy. From what I understand, Representative Mullery has tabled HF1520. I’m not sure if that’s true, but if it is, I hope he explains why.
Wednesday at 16:06 · LikeUnlike
o
Elise Jordan I stand by Mr. Hanna
Wednesday at 18:55 · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading…
o
Kurt Hanna
Cody, you say that, “the Board actually does not have a duty to remove drugs from the controlled substance schedules.”

It seems to me that if one adds together the fact that the Board,

“SHALL annually, on or before May 1 of each year, CONDUCT… A REVIEW of the placement of controlled substances in the various schedules.”

and the fact that it,

“SHALL place a substance in Schedule I if it FINDS that the substance has: A high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.”

the Board ends up having a duty to remove substances that it FINDS, in its annual review, to no longer fit the criteria for the schedule that it is in. My petition helped the Board FIND 15 state laws that say Cannabis is a medicine, along with other evidence, when I noticed that other annual reviews seemed to ignore that fact. Can the Board really deny this new finding? It can try, but it’ll be breaking the law as it is written now, in the way that I understand it. Please help correct me if I’m wrong. I majored in religion in college, not law. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=152.02See more
Yesterday at 06:56 · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading…
o
Kurt Hanna
A review in a law dictionary is defined as “a judicial reexamination and reconsideration of the legality or constitutionality of something”. It’s against the fifth amendment of the constitution to have laws that are unreasonable or arbitrar…y. You are the stewards of these substances. you are the modern day shamans of our tribe, Minnesota. Please don’t trick the people by saying that medicine is not medicine. Respect our constitutional rights to laws that serve a legitimate governmental purpose! Refusing to remove cannabis from Schedule I is unconstitutional. That’s the point of the review.See more
Yesterday at 07:07 · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading…
o
Kurt Hanna
Cody, I’m fairly convinced that you are worrying too much about this. The statute does not require you, as the Executive Director, or the BOP to worry about any inconsistency between what the statute requires of the BOP for rescheduling v. …the criminal laws in Minnesota. Why worry about tomorrow? Tomorrow can worry about itself! Why do you say that you must balance those two competing issues and avoid any inconsistency between criminal laws and medicinal scheduling? That is not your job, or the Board’s job. The Board’s job is to annually review substances and to make changes based on your findings in the review. It’s a lot simpler than you are making it. If other laws need changed after the Board removes Cannabis from Schedule I, then other agencies or governmental bodies will adapt and change the laws. You are afraid of the political implications, but really, the Board’s hands are tied. How can anyone get mad at the Board for following the law as it is written? Breaking the law is a serious thing. What kind of people would be mad at the Board for following the law? A friend that leaves you when you do the right thing was never a friend to begin with, that’s what I say.See more
Yesterday at 07:47 · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading…
o
Kurt Hanna
Cody, I’m fairly convinced that you are worrying too much about this. The statute does not require you, as the Executive Director, or the BOP to worry about any inconsistency between what the statute requires of the BOP for rescheduling v. …the criminal laws in Minnesota. Why worry about tomorrow? Tomorrow can worry about itself! Why do you say that you must balance those two competing issues and avoid any inconsistency between criminal laws and medicinal scheduling? That is not your job, or the Board’s job. The Board’s job is to annually review substances and to make changes based on your findings in the review. It’s a lot simpler than you are making it. If other laws need changed after the Board removes Cannabis from Schedule I, then other agencies or governmental bodies will adapt and change the laws. You are afraid of the political implications, but really, the Board’s hands are tied. How can anyone get mad at the Board for following the law as it is written? Breaking the law is a serious thing. What kind of people would be mad at the Board for following the law? A friend that leaves you when you do the right thing was never a friend to begin with, that’s what I say.See more
Yesterday at 07:47 · LikeUnlike
o
Kurt Hanna
Cody, I’m fairly convinced that you are worrying too much about this. The statute does not require you, as the Executive Director, or the BOP to worry about any inconsistency between what the statute requires of the BOP for rescheduling v. …the criminal laws in Minnesota. Why worry about tomorrow? Tomorrow can worry about itself! Why do you say that you must balance those two competing issues and avoid any inconsistency between criminal laws and medicinal scheduling? That is not your job, or the Board’s job. The Board’s job is to annually review substances and to make changes based on your findings in the review. It’s a lot simpler than you are making it. If other laws need changed after the Board removes Cannabis from Schedule I, then other agencies or governmental bodies will adapt and change the laws. You are afraid of the political implications, but really, the Board’s hands are tied. How can anyone get mad at the Board for following the law as it is written? Breaking the law is a serious thing. What kind of people would be mad at the Board for following the law? A friend that leaves you when you do the right thing was never a friend to begin with, that’s what I say.See more
Yesterday at 07:47 · LikeUnlike
o
Kurt Hanna
Cody, I’m fairly convinced that you are worrying too much about this. The statute does not require you, as the Executive Director, or the BOP to worry about any inconsistency between what the statute requires of the BOP for rescheduling v. …the criminal laws in Minnesota. Why worry about tomorrow? Tomorrow can worry about itself! Why do you say that you must balance those two competing issues and avoid any inconsistency between criminal laws and medicinal scheduling? That is not your job, or the Board’s job. The Board’s job is to annually review substances and to make changes based on your findings in the review. It’s a lot simpler than you are making it. If other laws need changed after the Board removes Cannabis from Schedule I, then other agencies or governmental bodies will adapt and change the laws. You are afraid of the political implications, but really, the Board’s hands are tied. How can anyone get mad at the Board for following the law as it is written? Breaking the law is a serious thing. What kind of people would be mad at the Board for following the law? A friend that leaves you when you do the right thing was never a friend to begin with, that’s what I say.See more
Yesterday at 07:47 · LikeUnlike
o
Minnesota Board of Pharmacy Kurt – if you are at the House Gov Ops hearing today, make sure to talk to me.
Yesterday at 08:35 · LikeUnlike
o
Kurt Hanna I’d love to. See you there.
Yesterday at 09:13 · LikeUnlike
o
Jason Karimi The Iowa Board of Pharmacy was hesitant and nervous as well. After the hearings, board member Ann Diehl had to say this:

“It’s been a really interesting experience for me because I just had a totallyone-sided view of it, and that was not good,” Diehl said. “I have
learned a lot, and I have learned a lot about the medical benefits just
from one hearing I’ve gone to.”
Yesterday at 09:18 · LikeUnlike · 3 peopleLoading…
o
Max To Senator Yvonne Prettner Solon’s husband died with a very painful disorder and it was suggested to him that he use it. But he wouldn’t use it because it wasn’t legal.

But the Senator says she thinks it would have been helpful and would have helped him to be more comfortable in his final days.
Yesterday at 14:19 · LikeUnlike
o
Max To http://www.northlandsnewscenter.com/news/local/93648894.html
Yesterday at 14:19 · LikeUnlike
o
Max To MR Cody Wiberg, This is the first step to do something right for MN. Please remove cannabis from schedule 1. Organic THC has not caused any deaths, while marinol the approved THC has caused a number of deaths. There would be no need for patients to use synthetic THC if organic THC was made available. You have the power, remove cannabis from schedule 1. You know it’s medicine.
Yesterday at 15:06 · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading…
o
Jason Karimi
Listen. Max. I don’t care if marijuana actually DOES kill people. That is a moot point. The only difference between Schedule I, and all the other Schedules, is this question: “Does marijuana have medically accepted use in the United States?…” If the answer is yes, then remove it from Schedule I. If the answer is no, according to the science of 15 state laws and the District of Columbia law accepting marijuana as medicine, then keep it in Schedule I. It doesn’t matter if marijuana is as dangerous as the coca plant in Schedule II. If it has accepted medical use, it has accepted medical use.

By the way, has someone mentioned that the coca plant is not prescribed by any doctor in the US, yet is in Schedule II? Does that mean it needs to be moved to Schedule I? Someone should really review this stuff on a regular basis. I wonder when the last time these questions were addressed?See more
20 hours ago · LikeUnlike
o
Jason Karimi Before 2009, I have no idea when the Iowa Board of Pharmacy had last reviewed marijuana’s Schedule I status. They ended up recommending that the Legislature remove marijuana from schedule I based on the science, and received the Fred T. Mahaffey award from the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy.
20 hours ago · Like