INTRODUCTION

The amici submitting this brief are concerned by the 52nd Judicial District's ("the District") probation supervision policy prohibiting medical marijuana use which is otherwise permitted by Pennsylvania law. See 52nd Judicial District of Lebanon County, The Medical Marijuana Policy, No. 5.1-2019 & 7.24-2019 (herein after "the Policy"). The Policy removes medical decisions about medical treatment options from the hands of medical professionals: doctors and the Pennsylvania Department ofHealth ("the Department").

The elected officials comprising the General Assembly used their institutional authority to review scientific evidence on the benefits of marijuana as a means of medical treatment. 35 P.S. § 10231.102(1). Relying on this research, the General Assembly authorized the use of medical marijuana in Pennsylvania through the Medical Marijuana Act ("MMA" or "the Act") and entrusted the Department to implement the Act through regulations. 35 P.S. § 10231.301(b). This judgment applies to anyone in the commonwealth who could be assisted medically by marijuana treatment. All persons with in the commonwealth are eligible for certification to use medical marijuana under the act, and no certified patient may be penalized for such use. 35 P.S. § 10231.2103(a).

The District's Policy overrides the governing standards applying to all citizens, made by the state's elected officials, allowing the Department and licensed practitioners to determine whether marijuana is an appropriate medical course of treatment for patients. The Policy, in contrast to the Act enacted by the general assembly, is not supported by scientific evidence and contradicts the research and opinions of medical experts, presented by amici in this brief.

In protecting all persons, including probationers, from penalty or punishment under the MMA, the general assembly recognized a critical truth: that when Petitioners and other similarly-situated persons enter the doctor's office they are patients first, not probationers.

Each Petitioner was certified as a medical marijuana patient by a Department-approved physician in compliance with the MMA. See Declarations ofPetitioners, pp. 3, 10, and 14. As a result, each Petitioner is authorized under Pennsylvania law to pursue the course of medical marijuana treatments as approved by their physicians. 35 P.S. § 10231.301. Despite the Petitioners' compliance with Pennsylvania law, the LCPSD informed each of the Petitioners that they would violate their court-ordered supervision if they follow the course of medical marijuana treatment approved by their physicians. See Brief of Petitioners in Support of Application for Special Relief in the Nature of a Preliminary Injunction (hereinafter "Petitioners' Brief'), pp. 2-3.

Petitioners rightfully argue that this Policy violates the rights ofindividuals under court supervision who require marijuana for medical treatment, and, alarmingly, the Policy imperils their health and lives by prohibiting those treatments. This amicus brief addresses both issues, but focuses on the health and policy implications of the District's decision to forbid the use of medical marijuana which is medically necessary, physician directed, and compliant with existing Pennsylvania law.

This brief aims to share the knowledge and concerns of the amici, by presenting the court with expert research supporting the judgment of the General Assembly and practitioners that, contrary to the concerns of the District, marijuana is a safe, effective, and-for some patients- necessary medical treatment option. The effect of the District's Policy is to impose on Petitioners a punishment that the General Assembly explicitly sought to preclude, and, as a result, the amici support the Petitioners in asking this Court to permanently enjoin its implementation.

INTRODUCTION

This brief raises concerns about the 52nd Judicial District's (the District) probation policy, which prohibits the use of medical marijuana. This policy, identified as No. 5.1-2019 & 7.24-2019, conflicts with Pennsylvania law. It removes critical medical treatment decisions from the purview of medical professionals, including doctors and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. The District's policy overrides established state standards and is not supported by scientific evidence, contradicting the research and opinions of medical experts.

The General Assembly, exercising its institutional authority, reviewed scientific evidence and authorized medical marijuana use in Pennsylvania through the Medical Marijuana Act (MMA). The Department of Health was then tasked with implementing this Act through specific regulations. This legislative decision applies to all individuals in the commonwealth who may benefit medically from marijuana treatment. The Act ensures that certified patients are not penalized for such use, recognizing that individuals seeing a doctor are primarily patients, regardless of their probation status.

Each Petitioner in this case received certification as a medical marijuana patient from a Department-approved physician, complying with the MMA. This certification legally authorizes them to pursue medical marijuana treatments as approved by their doctors. However, the Lebanon County Probation Services Department (LCPSD) informed each Petitioner that following their physician-approved medical marijuana treatment plan would constitute a violation of their court-ordered supervision.

The Petitioners contend that this policy infringes upon the rights of individuals under court supervision who require medical marijuana. Furthermore, the policy is seen as endangering their health and well-being by prohibiting medically necessary treatments. This brief addresses both these concerns, but primarily focuses on the health and policy ramifications of the District's decision to ban medical marijuana use, despite it being medically necessary, physician-directed, and compliant with Pennsylvania law.

The purpose of this brief is to present expert research supporting the judgment of the General Assembly and medical practitioners. This research demonstrates that, contrary to the District's concerns, medical marijuana is a safe, effective, and, for some patients, a necessary treatment option. The District's Policy imposes a punishment that the General Assembly explicitly sought to prevent. Consequently, the brief supports the Petitioners in requesting that this Court permanently halt the implementation of this policy.

Introduction

The organizations submitting this brief are concerned about a policy from the 52nd Judicial District. This policy prevents individuals on probation from using medical marijuana, even though Pennsylvania law permits its use. The District's policy removes decisions about medical treatment options from the hands of doctors and the Pennsylvania Department of Health, who are designated authorities. The state legislature, known as the General Assembly, thoroughly reviewed scientific evidence and authorized medical marijuana use in Pennsylvania through the Medical Marijuana Act (MMA). This Act entrusted the Department of Health to set up the rules for its use.

The District's policy goes against the standards established for all citizens by state officials. These state standards allow the Department of Health and licensed doctors to decide if medical marijuana is an appropriate treatment. Unlike the state's MMA, the District's policy is not supported by scientific evidence and contradicts research and the opinions of medical experts. In protecting all people, including those on probation, from penalties under the MMA, the General Assembly recognized a fundamental truth: when individuals see a doctor, they are patients first, not simply probationers.

Each individual involved in this case was certified as a medical marijuana patient by a state-approved physician, following the Medical Marijuana Act. This means state law authorizes them to pursue medical marijuana treatments as approved by their doctors. However, the probation department informed each of these individuals that they would violate their court-ordered supervision if they followed their doctors' approved medical marijuana treatment plan.

These individuals rightly argue that this policy violates their rights as people under court supervision who need marijuana for medical treatment. More alarmingly, the policy endangers their health and lives by prohibiting these necessary treatments. This brief addresses both these concerns, but primarily focuses on the health and policy impacts of the District's choice to forbid medically necessary and physician-directed medical marijuana use, which complies with current Pennsylvania law.

The purpose of this brief is to share the knowledge and concerns of the involved organizations by presenting the court with expert research. This research supports the judgment of the General Assembly and medical practitioners, demonstrating that medical marijuana is a safe, effective, and, for some patients, a necessary treatment option. The District's policy unfairly punishes these individuals, despite the General Assembly's clear intent to prevent such penalties. Therefore, the organizations support the Petitioners in asking this Court to permanently stop the policy's enforcement.

INTRODUCTION

Organizations submitting this brief are concerned about a policy from the 52nd Judicial District. This policy prevents people on probation from using medical marijuana, even though Pennsylvania law permits it. The District's policy takes away medical decisions from doctors and the state's Department of Health. Unlike the state law, this policy is not based on scientific evidence and goes against what medical experts believe.

Pennsylvania's General Assembly carefully reviewed scientific evidence before allowing medical marijuana use through the Medical Marijuana Act (MMA). The Assembly gave the Department of Health the power to manage this act. The MMA permits medical marijuana for anyone in the state who needs it, and no certified patient can be punished for using it. When creating this law, the General Assembly made it clear that patients, even those on probation, should be seen as patients first when seeking medical care.

Each person involved in this case was certified by a state-approved doctor to use medical marijuana, following the MMA. This means they are legally allowed to use these treatments in Pennsylvania. However, the Lebanon County Probation Services Department informed these individuals that using medical marijuana would violate their court-ordered supervision. This policy threatens their health and rights by stopping them from getting medically necessary treatment. This brief focuses on the health and policy problems created by the District's decision to ban medical marijuana that is prescribed by a doctor and allowed by state law.

This brief aims to provide the court with expert research that supports the decisions of the General Assembly and medical professionals. This research shows that, contrary to the District's concerns, medical marijuana is a safe and effective treatment, and sometimes essential for certain patients. The District's policy unfairly punishes these individuals in a way the state legislature specifically tried to prevent. Therefore, these organizations support the individuals in asking this Court to stop the policy permanently.

INTRODUCTION

The groups submitting this paper are worried about a rule made by the 52nd Judicial District. This rule stops people on probation from using medical marijuana, even though Pennsylvania law allows it. This rule takes important medical choices away from doctors and the state's Health Department. State lawmakers looked at science and agreed that medical marijuana could be a helpful treatment. They created the Medical Marijuana Act. This law lets the Health Department set up rules for medical marijuana. Anyone in Pennsylvania can be approved by a doctor to use it, and no one should be punished for doing so.

The District's rule goes against state law and the decisions made by state lawmakers. It is not based on scientific facts and does not agree with what medical experts say.

State lawmakers understood a key point: when people see a doctor, they are patients first, not just people on probation. Each person involved in this case was approved by a doctor to use medical marijuana, following state law. This means they are allowed to use this treatment. However, their probation officers told them they would break their probation rules if they followed their doctors' advice.

These people correctly say that this rule takes away their rights and puts their health at risk by stopping their medical treatments. This paper will focus on the health and policy problems caused by the District's decision to ban medical marijuana that is needed, approved by doctors, and legal under Pennsylvania law.

This paper aims to share expert knowledge and concerns. It will show the court research that supports state lawmakers and doctors. This research proves that medical marijuana is safe, works well, and for some patients, is a necessary treatment option. The District's rule punishes people in a way that state lawmakers clearly wanted to prevent. Because of this, the groups submitting this paper support asking the court to permanently stop the rule.