Association of Cannabinoid Specialists’ Position on Medical Use of Cannabinoids for Prisoners and Parolees

West_Virginia.jpg

A Response to Pending Hearing in the Case of State of West Virginia vs. Schober

Association of Cannabinoid Specialists (ACS) wishes to reiterate, in light of the current case, State of West Virginia vs. Schober, that all patients must have access to medical treatment, including cannabinoid medication, regardless of their status as convict or parolee.  Medical treatment is a fundamental human right that is in no way impacted by conviction or incarceration. Cannabinoid medication must be treated the same way as any other medication.  Prisoners and parolees cannot be legally denied access to their medications and this must include duly authorized medical cannabinoids. 

At present, the federal government is in the process of reviewing the status of cannabis on Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act: The DEA is in process of reviewing evidence and public commentary regarding the Health & Human Services recommendation that cannabis should be rescheduled to Schedule III because there is enough evidence that cannabis does have medical value. Many states have enacted cannabis laws and programs that are legal and valid within their state jurisdiction as interpreted from the Constitution and reinforced by the Tenth Amendment. 

Invoking the Constitutional Supremacy Clause, while a legitimate argument with regard to states’ rights more generally, calls into question the validity of the state’s entire medical and/or recreational cannabis laws. Since the federal government is not enforcing such supremacy with regard to cannabis policy, it makes no sense to invoke federal law.  Furthermore, there is little sense in invoking federal law in a state legal case.

Unless and until a state Supreme Court overturns their state medical and/or recreational cannabis laws on a state-constitutional basis, all people of the state must remain protected by those laws, again, regardless of a person’s status as convict or parolee.

Further, the assertion, as in this case particularly, that the medical cannabis authorization (card) was obtained after the defendant was charged, is irrelevant.  If a duly authorized medical practitioner felt that the patient’s care required medical use of cannabinoids, regardless of the timing of such treatment, the patient must be allowed this treatment.  Had the patient developed high blood pressure or diabetes while in prison, treatment would be provided and not even questioned. Cannabinoid treatment, under the law, must not be viewed or handled differently. 

Ultimately, while each state has been left to their own devices to enact laws concerning cannabis use, medical care answers to a higher ethical standard that requires access to care for all.  Government at all levels is responsible for enacting laws and regulation in keeping with this universal ethical standard.