Medical pot program should tighten up

RE: MEDICAL cannabis oversight editorial While I greatly appreciate most of the June 18 Journal editorial calling for greater oversight of the medical cannabis program, I would suggest several additions.

First, in resonance with the Journal’s correctly calling for better quality control, I’d suggest the inclusion of a pesticide-free standard, in agreement with a proposal I submitted to the Medical Cannabis Advisory Board on March 29 of this year, which the board approved in principle. Framed simply, a medicine should first do no harm.

Second, the Journal’s editorial board questions whether patients are receiving correct strains and dosage forms for their respective conditions. I agree wholeheartedly but feel compelled to point out that there are few, if any, situations in which patients can receive such scientifically reliable information from the so-called bud-tenders at dispensaries.

As a biologist who closely follows the research literature, I can report that although understanding has improved greatly, the perceived biological complexities are growing with each research study. Hence, most folks without the necessary biomedical training may well be unqualified to make such recommendations.

Finally, the editorial correctly raises the issue of plant numbers, but what I also find important is the sourcing of these plants. Since the potential economic benefits to growers seem obvious, it might be desirable were the state to provide more incentives favoring local rather than out-of-state growers. Keeping profits within local communities is rarely a bad idea.

VIN LOPRESTI Albuquerque