Susan Chandler

Susan Chandler says she had no particular opinions about medical marijuana before she agreed to be facilitator for Hawaii’s Medical Marijuana Dispensary Task force — and as a formal matter she still is neutral when conducting the business of the legislatively created body.

But being on the task force did make her aware of the many Hawaii residents who apparently benefit medically from the use of marijuana but have been having great difficulty obtaining it.

Hence the relatively urgency of the mission of the all-volunteer task force, which was created last year to make recommendations on how to set up an official medical marijuana dispensary system that balances the needs of medical marijuana users with those worried about the social impact of making marijuana more easily available, even as a medicine. On Monday, Chandler said the task force will be presenting its recommendations before the Legislature begins its 2015 session on Jan. 21.

Hawaii, in fact, was one of the first states in the nation to legalize medical marijuana, in 2000, and yet, almost 15 years later, there still is no convenient, practical, quality-controlled way for the state’s 13,000 certified medical marijuana patients to obtain it.

Chandler, 69, knows a bit about state government: From 1994 to 2002 she was director of the state Department of Human Services in the Cayetano administration.

These days she is a public administration professor and director of the University of Hawaii College of Social Sciences Public Policy Center.

Born and raised in Scarsdale, N.Y., she earned a bachelor’s degree in industrial psychology from Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., before moving to Hawaii at age 21 with her husband, David, who had accepted a professorship in sociology at UH.

"We thought that’d be kind of fun (to live in Hawaii) for a year or two," she said, "and we’ve been here since 1967. We love it."

Later she also earned a master’s degree in social work from UH and a doctorate in social policy from the University of California at Berkeley.

She is a board member of several nonprofit organizations and consults with the state Department of Human Services on "wraparound" services for at-risk children.

A mother herself of a son, Chandler lives with her husband in St. Louis Heights.

Question: What prompted the formation of the Medical Marijuana Dispensary Task Force?

Answer: I believe that the Legislature had been struggling with weaknesses in the existing medical marijuana law that we have. It had passed in 2000. It was one of the first in the nation to say that medical marijuana could be used for certain illnesses. There was a belief that it is helpful to people who have certain illnesses — cancer, people taking chemotherapy, glaucoma … 

So Hawaii in 2000 passed a law that a person could go to a doctor and have that particular illness be certified with a card, and that card would permit that person to use marijuana for medical purposes. 

But there was no dispensary system attached to that law. So over the years there’ve been efforts to try to add something to the law that would permit somebody to get the medical-level marijuana that they needed. 

They tried again last year and it didn’t pass, but this resolution to have a task force did pass, and I was asked as director of the Public Policy Center to facilitate the work of the task force and help them write a report that they would then give to the Legislature at this upcoming session. 

So hopefully they can amend the law to better serve people who have these various disabilities and illnesses.

Q: Why do you think there was no dispensary system attached to the law initially?

A: I think there are people who worry that by giving marijuana the status of a medication that … it would be more easily available to people who don’t have those illnesses. 

Also, I think 2000 was a long time ago, and, you know, there hadn’t been any states that had legalized it. There hadn’t been any referenda anywhere. So it was pretty forward of the state to see that medical marijuana had a medical purpose, but they weren’t quite ready to set up a dispensary system.

The other thing that was unusual is that the dispensing of the medical marijuana cards was put into the Department of Public Safety, so DPS was managing the application and distribution of the cards. Last year the Legislature moved that over to the Department of Health. So now I think that was the first step, to more clearly designate this as a public health issue rather than a public safety issue.

Q: Who are some of the so-called stakeholders in this process that you are facilitating?

A: Well, this is really very good because the task force is made up of 19 people, and it has representation from the Attorney General’s Office, from the Department of Health, from the Department of Public Safety, from the Department of Taxation, from Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the City Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. … Then we have legislators: Della Au Belatti, who’s Committee on Health; Sen. Josh Green, who’s Senate Committee on Health, Sen. Roz Baker, and Sen. Will Espero is very interested. And Gregg Takayama, from the House of Representatives. 

And then — I’m going to give you the whole 19 (laughs) — the University of Hawaii Tropical Agriculture Department, which is very important; the Drug Policy Forum; and then we have a doctor — Clif Otto is his name — and he’s a physician who’s participating in the medical marijuana program. He’s an opthamologist. 

Then we have a patient; we have a guardian of a patient, a mom who has a child; and then we have a caregiver who is participating in the program. And then we have a Hawaii Medical Association representative, a doctor. And then Dan Gluck, from the American Civil Liberties Union. One more: The Coalition for a Drug-Free Hawaii.

Q: Does that make sense to you to have people who are actually against drugs, or medical marijuana, be on this task force? 

A: Well, yeah, because the idea is to see how much consensus you can build, and give that report to the Legislature, because they want to get a real good hearing on what the views are of the citizenry. 

So when you facilitate a task force like this, my job is to get as much differences out there as possible, so you can find what we call the zones of agreement — you know, the areas where there’s a lot of consensus, and that helps the legislators move ahead in writing their bill.

Q: Considering that there are so many states now that have legalized medical marijuana, and a couple have even gone all the way, legalizing marijuana in toto, doesn’t that make some of the opponents a little uneasy, or seem a little bit out of step?

A: Well, I think they feel that maybe we should wait until there is an absolute new medicine approved by the FDA that is taking the parts of the marijuana plant that are helpful, and that  … unless you have a really, very seriously regulated system, there’s potential for abuse, and they worry about that.

Q: Even though statistics in other states are coming back fairly benign or even positive in that regard?

A: Well, I think what people on our task force say is, you know, just because Colorado did it doesn’t mean Hawaii should do it, and that they find evidence there’s increased usage when you have an easy system or certainly if you have a decriminalized system or legalized system.

Q: So there are debatable points that come up in these conversations?

A: Yes, and my job as a facilitator is to clarify the issues, and eventually what we’re doing is getting a vote on where we are. I think the … majority of the task force is in favor of most of the issues that we’re identifying as policy issues, but even then we don’t have a 100 percent consensus.

Q: What are those policy issues that they’re most in agreement on?

A: Well, the actual resolution asked us to look at a variety of actual policy issues. For instance, the number and location of dispensaries. … Would you have one on every island? Would you have one in every county? Would you have a ratio of the number of dispensaries based on number of licenses that have been distributed? I think most people are in favor of having the Department of Health be able to issue licenses for the dispensaries based on the number of people who are approved.

Q: What would a couple of the other policy issues be?

A: The range of products is kind of a controversial one. 

Again, some people think that if it’s a medicine, you should be able to put it in as many different forms as would be helpful for the person who needs it. So, you know, you get the oils and ointments and brownies and all that. But there are others who think that just is risky, and again, people can take it when they aren’t aware of what’s in it. So there are some real quality-control issues.

And there are a lot of production issues — you know, who’s going to produce it? Who’s going to grow it? It becomes a very complicated piece of legislation when you start thinking about it.

I think everybody is in favor of a real strong quality-control system. Everybody is in favor of making sure there’ll be safety regulations, so that, you know, people can’t break in and steal the stuff.

There’s a lot of agreement on advertising restrictions; you know, we don’t want to start having lots of advertisements about where you can get the stuff. 

Also, the Department of Health, and I think most people agree, is very concerned about getting qualified staff to be at the dispensaries, and there’s a lot of emphasis on public education, so people really understand what this is and why we’re doing it.

Q: Task force member Clif Otto has made the point that doctors can’t really prescribe medical marijuana itself because it’s a Schedule I drug; they can only authorize the patient cards. 

A: That’s his point and he makes that at every meeting. His point of view is why don’t we get the federal government to just change that and the world would be great. But that’s a long, long way away, you know?

Q: What could interaction with the federal government involve? Could our congressional delegation make an effort in that regard? My understanding is that the president could do that on his own (de-list marijuana as a Schedule I drug).

A: I’m not sure he would be interested in doing that, because, you know, the public safety people are still very much opposed to this. So what they’re doing is not intervening. That’s why so many states are able to move with either a dispensary system or legalization, because the federal government could intervene and stop this, but they’re choosing not to. And that’s why the states can sort of move ahead. 

But Hawaii is still, I think, being quite cautious. And that’s why it will take several years, to sort of make sure all the rules are in place, that everything will be done properly. I mean, it’s possible that maybe somebody will take this on at the federal level, and over the next two years take the drug off of Schedule I, but I just think there’s not a lot of energy (among our congressional delegation) to kind of make that happen.

Q: Do you think anything will come out of this next legislative session?

A: I do. I’m a bit of an optimist.

Q: Someone in one of our news stories said that even if the Legislature decides anything, it’s probably going to take at least two years or so for it to affect the patients.

A: Well that’s the sort of sad part. We did have two public hearings, one on Oahu and one on the Big Island, and I was struck by how many seriously ill people are coming forward and saying this is a very helpful drug for me. It helps me with my nausea in chemo-therapy, it really works, and yet it’s such a hassle to get and why is that so? 

We heard from many hundreds of people, and it really does strike you how this law is quite a barrier for people. So they have to either grow their own or they can get one caregiver to help give them the medication.

I didn’t know anything about this topic before I began, and I think what I’ve learned is how important this issue is as a public health issue and not as a public safety issue — that there are some very needy, ill people who benefit from this marijuana, this plant, and then to have such a complicated way of getting it just seems not right. 

I guess I’m personally hopeful that even if the Legislature moves with this bill, that something, some easing of the situation can happen before that.