Working Group On The Utah Medical Marijuana Initiative

[johnkarls]

.
-----------------------------------------------------
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
To: ReadingLiberallyEmailList@johnkarls.com
Bcc: The Approximately 150 Recipients of Our Weekly E-mail
Subject: Short-Fuse Proposal - Working Group On The Utah Medical Marijuana Initiative – Please RSVP by This Sunday Evening
Date: To be sent pre-dawn on Sat, February 2, 2019
Attachments:

RL-f201-MedicalMarijuanLawsuitComplaintText.pdf

(294.77 KiB) Downloaded 236 times

RL-f201-Prop2-MedicalMarijuanaInitiative-OfficialBallotInfoIncludingTextOfProposedLaw-PerElections.Utah.gov.pdf

(208.78 KiB) Downloaded 270 times

RL-f201-Text-EnrolledCopyOfCannabisSubstituteBill.pdf

(932.93 KiB) Downloaded 132 times

RL-f201-UtahCodeTitle26Chapter61a.pdf

(106.01 KiB) Downloaded 200 times

RL-f201-BalletomaniaInfoOnUtahCannabisControversy.pdf

(816.67 KiB) Downloaded 358 times

-----------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends,

As you may recall, for the past 7 months I have been taking a sabbatical to write a second book, this one on the subject of “The National Audubon Society Executes Great Salt Lake Death Warrant.”

But that during the sabbatical, everyone would be free to propose Ad Hoc meetings (of which we have had several).

And that our regular “Short-Fuse Procedures” would be available for which action might be required before a regular meeting could be scheduled. [Pursuant to which our Great Salt Lake Working Group operated 2016-2017.]

*****
Proposed Medical Marijuana Working Group

It is respectfully suggested that a “Short-Fuse” Working Group be organized to monitor developments in the legal cases (PLURAL) resulting from the Utah legislature’s virtually-instantaneous amendments to the text of the 16-page Medical Marijuana Statute enacted by virtue of Proposition 2 on last November’s ballot.

And periodically to take any action that the Working Group deems appropriate, including filing Amicus Curiae briefs in the two lawsuits that already exist and any additional lawsuits that may be filed.

*****
Background Information

The second attachment to this e-mail is the official ballot information for Proposition 2, including the 16-page Medical Marijuana Statute that was enacted by virtue of the passage of Proposition 2 last November.

The third attachment to this e-mail is the official text of “The Cannabis Substitute Bill” that was passed by the Utah Legislature and Signed by Gov. Herbert as quickly as possible after the election.

The fourth attachment to this e-mail is the official text of “The Utah Medical Cannabis Act” after the changes made by “The Cannabis Substitute Bill” (which also made conforming changes to other portions of the Utah Code).

The fifth attachment to this e-mail comprises voluminous materials on the imbroglio compiled by Balletomania, a non-profit digital encyclopedia of American politics and elections. It listed several changes made by “The Cannabis Substitute Bill” including –

(1) Removing the provision allowing patients to grow their own marijuana;
(2) Reducing the number of privately-run dispensaries allowed;
(3) Requiring dispensaries to employ pharmacists to recommend dosages;
(4) While keeping many of the same qualifying conditions, making some changes regarding the list of qualifying illnesses; and
(5) Adding to the list of situations that qualify: (A) terminal illnesses involving less than 6 months to live, and (B) a patient receiving hospice care.

NB: I was particularly interested in the list of situations in which Cannabis can be prescribed because, full disclosure, my daughter Hilary Karls (who lives in California) is one of those people whom all of us know who have chronic pain that can be relieved only with Cannabis.

[She had a right femur that, from birth, was growing slower than normal and that was projected to produce by adulthood a 4.25-inch discrepancy. It was “stretched” in a one-year procedure by her Columbia Presbyterian specialists when she was about 10 by breaking the bone and attaching an external apparatus with zillions of rods that punctured the skin and muscle and embedded in the two bone fragments in order to keep them aligned and “tease” them to grow 1 millimeter/day (the rate at which bones create new bone material to heal) by stretching them apart 0.25 millimeter four times/day. However, Columbia Presbyterian botched the job completely – Hilary’s bones heal slower than normal and after waiting 3-4 times the normal 6 weeks to heal, Columbia Presbyterian disbelieved their own X-rays that showed the new material had NOT solidified and removed the external apparatus, with the result that the bone collapsed and Hilary had to spend the next 12 months in a full body cast just to salvage the leg with no additional length. Then she tried the same procedure again, this time with the specialists at Yale New Haven Hospital (there were only 3-4 groups in the country back in those days that performed the procedure). However, Yale New Haven pulled the same stunt and, over our heart-broken protests that they should consult the Columbia Presbyterian records, they removed the external apparatus with the result that the bone collapsed again. However, they were able to re-install the external apparatus and salvage 3.25 inches of additional length. So understandably, when Hilary was in her mid-teens, she decided that she wanted to get on with her life even though she would be left with a one-inch discrepancy which usually reduces life expectancy to 30 years because the discrepancy affects vital organs. She is now 36 and going strong, probably a tribute to how athletic she would have been without the disability. But she still experiences chronic pain throughout her body which only Cannabis relieves.]

[BTW, the reason for the “stretching” is that artificial material in the body, such as by breaking the femur and splicing in artificial material, should be avoided at all cost. For example, the overwhelming reason for “artificial hip replacements” is NOT that the original artificial hip has failed physically in any way – it is because you have had a serious illness and the anti-bodies created by your body to defeat it can NOT sense the germs that have invaded the artificial material, so that following your recovery and the receding of the anti-bodies, you are constantly re-infected by your artificial hip.]

The list of qualifying situations in “The Cannabis Substitute Bill” includes (Utah Code Sec. 26-61a-104(2)(o)) “pain lasting more than two weeks that is not adequately managed, in the qualified medical provider’s opinion, despite treatment attempts using: (i) conventional medications other than opioids or opiates; or (ii) physical interventions.”

So my daughter Hilary’s situation would have no trouble qualifying for Cannabis in Utah.

It would seem that the substantive objections to “The Cannabis Substitute Bill” relate to the prohibition against patients growing their own Cannabis and the tightening of the Proposition 2 restrictions on who can grow and who can prescribe Cannabis.

It would seem that the procedural objections to “The Cannabis Substitute Bill” are based on the belief that Utah statutory law enacted by referendum is NOT subject to amendment by the legislature, but can only be amended by another referendum. [Though the speed with which the Legislature and Governor amended the statutory law enacted pursuant to Proposition 2 is also featured as an argument, but that introduces a proverbial “slippery slope” regarding how much time must elapse and the conditions under which the Legislature and Governor would be permitted to make amendments.]

The first attachment to this e-mail is believed to be the Lawsuit Complaint filed on 12/5/2018 by Rocky Anderson on behalf of The Epilepsy Association of Utah and its President, and TRUCE (aka “Together for Responsible Use and Cannabis Education”) and its President.

[Apparently Rocky Anderson sent press releases to several major news outlets, but Fox News appears to be the only one to have made available the text of the Lawsuit Complaint with its news story. Access to the official documents of Utah lawsuits (called “Dockets”), unlike most other states and unlike federal courts, requires a monthly fee of $30 after a set-up fee of $25, both of which I will pay if we establish a Working Group.]

*****
Reasons for a Working Group

As mentioned above, the reasons would be to monitor developments in the legal cases (PLURAL) and periodically to take any action that the Working Group deems appropriate, including filing Amicus Curiae briefs in the two lawsuits that already exist and any additional lawsuits that may be filed.

Rocky Anderson and one of his clients, Christine Stenquist (President of TRUCE), made a presentation last Friday (Jan 25) at the meeting of Drinking Liberally.

During the Q&A period, I inquired whether he would welcome Amicus Curiae briefs, and he affirmed that they would be welcome if they presented new information or arguments.

In addition, the fifth attachment to this e-mail (the Balletomania material) indicates that a second lawsuit was filed by Steve Maxfield (leader of a group called “The People’s Right”), Bart Grant, and Daniel Newby, asking the courts to overturn “The Cannabis Substitute Bill” and reinstate Proposition 2 in its original form.

And who knows, there may yet be other lawsuits filed in this imbroglio.

BTW, it should be noted that since I am not admitted to practice law in Utah, any Amicus Curiae briefs would have to be filed by our Working Group’s individual members, pro se.

*****
RSVP’s Requested

If you are interested in joining the Working Group, please RSVP by tomorrow evening to include your availability for an organizational meeting on Wed Evening Feb 6 or 13, tentatively (since we don’t have a reservation) at the Salt Lake Public Library (210 South 400 East).

We hope to see all of you then/there.

Your friend,

John K.

[solutions]

.
To Whom It May Concern:

There was brief consideration given by the Medical Marijuana Working Group to the issue of Recreational Marijuana.

John Karls pointed out that the issue of Recreational Marijuana is outside the scope of our Medical Marijuana Working Group for two reasons.

FIRST, all of our Working Groups have operated under our “Short-Time Fuse” procedures which, as explained on the face of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org’s second section entitled “Possible Topics for Future Meetings,” involve taking action for which we already have a position approved at one of our regular meetings (no more than one dissent with a minimum quorum of six) or for which there would be universal acclaim from our membership.

The two examples given in August 2016 when we established the new “Short-Time Fuse” procedure were:

(1) Human Clone Rights which were about to be violated by N.I.H. regulations which had only a 30-day public comment period and regarding which we had had a position ever since our 4/9/2008 meeting (and which was subsequently re-affirmed at subsequent meetings).

(2) Opposing “Destroying Great Salt Lake To Grow Low-Profit Hay For China” which had at that time only a 27-day public comment period but for which we did NOT have a position BUT WHICH would have enjoyed universal acclaim from our membership.

SECONDLY, every Working Group that we have ever formed was initiated with an e-mail to all of our approximately 150 members explaining the scope of the proposed Working Group and inviting each of them to participate.

[BTW, if such a proposal had been opposed by any of our 150 members, presumably s/he would have voiced her/his opposition -- and nobody has ever opposed the formation of any of our Working Groups.]

ACCORDINGLY, NOT ONLY is Recreational Marijuana controversial (whereas it is a well-documented medical fact that many patients can have their chronic pain alleviated only with marijuana), BUT ALSO the e-mail to our membership initiating this Working Group limited its scope to Medical Marijuana.

HOWEVER, John Karls offered to send an e-mail to all of our 150 members to broaden the scope of our Working Group by providing notice so that anyone who would like to become involved in a broader-scope Working Group, can do so. John said that if a majority of the Working Group requests this to be done, it will be.

Respectfully submitted,

Solutions



From the face of the second section of http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org entitled “Possible Topics for Future Meetings” --

**********************
SHORT-FUSE NOTICE

*****
EXPLANATION

Occasionally, a Proposed Topic for Future Meetings has a SHORT-TIME FUSE because a governmental unit is soliciting PUBLIC COMMENTS for a limited time period with a SPECIFIED DEADLINE.

Exhibit A would be the 8/5/2016 Proposed Topic entitled “Clone Rights -- Involuntary Soldiers, Sex Slaves, Human Lab Rats, Etc.”

We had already focused on this topic for our 4/9/2008 meeting more than 8 years ago when the PBS Newshour interviewed a Yale U. Biology Professor who had already created a “Chimaera” with 25% Human DNA and 75% Chimp DNA (Chimps are the animals that share the most DNA with humans).

The Yale U. Biology Professor stated that he was then (2008) in the process of creating a “Chimaera” with 50% Human DNA and 50% Chimp DNA, and that he planned to create in the near future (2008 et seq.) a “Chimaera” with 75% Human DNA and 25% Chimp DNA.

As our 4/9/2008 meeting materials posted on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org disclose, Gwen Ifill who conducted the interview, was oblivious to the issue of the Nazi’s definition of a Jew based on the percentage of Jewish heritage and the Ante-Bellum American South’s definition of African-American based on the percentage of Sub-Saharan-African heritage.

But, even more appallingly, Gwen Ifill failed to ask the obvious question = What happens if the 50%-50% “Chimaera” then already being created happens to exhibit as DOMINANT TRAITS 100% Human DNA and as RECESSIVE TRAITS 100% Chimp DNA!!! Which, of course, would mean that Yale U. was treating as a lab rat a “Chimaera” that is 100% Human!!!

Unfortunately, the 8/5/2016 Proposed Topic was prompted by a Proposal from the National Institute of Health (NIH) which appeared in The Federal Register of 8/5/2016 and which had a 9/6/2016 deadline for public comments!!!

So our 9/14/2016 meeting, which was the first for which our focus had not already been determined as of 8/5/2016 under our normal rules, was too late.

So the reason for inaugurating this Short-Fuse Notice Section is to provide a Special Heads Up that a Proposed Topic has a Public-Comment Deadline that will occur before the first regular meeting date at which the topic can be discussed -- so that any of our readers who want to comply with the Public-Comment Deadline can contact the Proposer of the Topic in order to confer with anyone else who may be considering comments by the deadline.

*****
PENDING SHORT-FUSE PROPOSALS

1. Re “Clone Rights -- Involuntary Soldiers, Sex Slaves, Human Lab Rats, Etc.” (proposed 8/5/2016), although the 9/6/2016 public-comment deadline of the National Institute of Health (NIH) has passed, this Topic Proposal is still active. PLEASE NOTE ATTACHED TO THIS PROPOSAL THE 1/29/2017 UPDATE ENTITLED0 “HUMAN-PIG CHIMERAS -- DECENT BEHAVIOR DESPITE OPEN BARN DOOR.”

2. Re “Destroying Great Salt Lake To Grow Low-Profit Hay For China” (proposed 9/27/2016), there is a 10/24/2016 public-comment deadline that will occur before our first possible regular meeting (11/16/2016) at which this Proposed Topic could be considered.

[solutions]

.
---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: The Utah Supreme Court’s Aug 6 Decision
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Fri, August 9, 2019 3:52 pm MDT
To: The Working Group on the Medical Marijuana Initiative
Attachments:

RL-f806-Text-UtahSupremeCourtOpinion-MedicalCannibis-ThePeople'sRightLawsuit-InOtherWordsNOTRockyAnderson'sLawsuit.pdf

(139.59 KiB) Downloaded 98 times

RL-f503-RockyAndersonDropsClaimLDSChurchOrchestratedLegislativeReplacementOfProp2-SaltLakeTribune-5-3-2019.docx

(17.23 KiB) Downloaded 85 times

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends,

Several of you have asked about the effect of Tuesday’s Utah Supreme Court Opinion re medical marijuana.

**********
THE UTAH SUPREME COURT OPINION – THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT LAWSUIT

This lawsuit originated in the Utah Supreme Court rather than following the typical procedure of starting in a Utah District Court.

The Utah Supreme Court addressed only two arguments of the plaintiffs (the other arguments were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the dismissal is NOT precedent).

First Plaintiff Argument – that Gov. Herbert had vetoed Prop. 2 and, in so doing, had exceeded his authority (page 8 of the opinion).

The holding was easily predictable for any attorney (the plaintiffs were NOT represented by counsel) – that Gov. Herbert had merely convened a special session of the legislature.

Second Plaintiff Argument – the Utah Constitutional Requirement barring referenda that seek to overturn a law passed by a two-thirds majority in both houses should not apply (pp. 8-10 of the opinion).

The holding was also easily predictable for any attorney (the plaintiffs were NOT represented by counsel).

As you may recall, the legislature replaced Prop. 2 with H.B. 3001.

And, as you may recall, The People’s Right lawsuit was attempting to reverse that action by calling for a NEW REFERENDUM to replace H.B. 3001 with Prop. 2.

The problem for “The People” was that the Utah Constitution provision permitting referenda specifically prohibits referenda for “laws passed by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house of the Legislature.”

**********
IMPACT ON ROCKY ANDERSON’S LAWSUIT

As you may recall, Rocky’s lawsuit was filed 12/5/2018 in the Third District Court.

[A copy of the original complaint is available for download as an Adobe.pdf file at http://discussingliberally-saltlake.org ... 546&t=1777.]

As you also may recall, Rocky makes only two arguments vis-à-vis which he cited no legal authority –

(1) At p. 22 of the Complaint, a bald-faced claim that Sec. 1 of Article VI of the Utah Constitution “prohibits the Utah Legislature from materially undermining, by repeal or amendment, the core purposes of legislation passed through the initiative process.”

(2) At p. 23 of the Complaint, a claim that the LDS Church has violated Sec. 4 of Article I of the Utah Constitution which provides “there shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions.”

Observations –

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision of last Tuesday in The People’s Right case was confined to two issues THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ROCKY’S LAWSUIT.

HOWEVER, as you may recall, last May Rocky amended his complaint to delete the second claim vis-à-vis the LDS Church because ATTEMPTING TO PROVE it would be too costly for the Plaintiffs in terms of all the depositions, document production, etc.

[Apparently, Rocky was NOT representing the plaintiffs pro bono.]

[The second attachment to this e-mail is a SL Tribune article which explains the reason for the amendment to the complaint.]

It would appear that “the writing is on the wall.”

[Or more accurately as originally reported in the Biblical record of “Balshazzar’s Feast” which is illustrated in a famous Rembrandt painting, “the disembodied hand is writing on the wall”!!!]

The complaint against the LDS Church was legitimate IF IT COULD BE PROVED.

While, as we have previously discussed, the bald-faced assertion that legislation passed by referendum can NOT be amended by legislation passed by the legislature seems incredible on its face.

And although the speed with which the referendum was replaced seems a somewhat-appealing argument for the plaintiffs, it involves one of those proverbial Law School 101 “slippery slopes.”

**********
CONCLUSION

It would appear that there is nothing that we can do as Rocky’s lawsuit goes through its “death throes” because of the withdrawal of the claim against the LDS Church.

However, as always, your comments or additional questions would be welcome!!!

Your friend,

John K.