[T]he Vermont Human Rights Commission has determined that the state discriminated against a man with post traumatic stress disorder when his application to the medical marijuana program was rejected.
Robert Merriam, who was diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety and depression, was turned down on two applications for a medical marijuana card.
The commission investigation notes that current law does not identify PTSD as a qualifying condition for the registry, which is run through the Department of Public Safety. However, the department does issue medical marijuana cards to some people with PTSD and other mental health conditions if the patient suffers “severe physical pain” as a result, according to the report.
Merriam’s initial application in 2014, on which he said he suffered from PTSD and severe pain, was rejected. He appealed, but the Marijuana Review Board upheld the decision.
Merriam reapplied a few days later, saying he suffered from anxiety and depression in addition to pain, and was accepted. He became a patient representative on a committee that oversees the system.
However, when he reapplied the following year using the same information, he was denied access to the system because his doctor allegedly told DPS by phone that Merriam did not experience physical pain due to his conditions. As a result of the denial, he lost his seat on the oversight committee because he was no longer a patient, according to the report.
According to the commission’s report, it is not clear that the department requires that a patient must experience severe pain that is physical in nature in order to qualify for the medical marijuana program. The investigation says that clarification is not made in statute or in rules.
The report says that the situation Merriam experienced is broader than a single instance.
“To the extent that his complaint raises the issue for him individually, it raises it with respect to all applicants diagnosed with emotional or mental illnesses,” the report states.
Scott Waterman, public information officer for DPS, referred comment on the case to the Vermont Attorney General’s office, which is handling the case. Sarah London, chief of the general counsel and administrative law division in the attorney general’s office, declined comment on the case.
Whether PTSD should qualify for medical marijuana has been a repeated subject of discussion in the Statehouse.
In 2014, lawmakers considered whether to include PTSD on the list of conditions that qualify for the state’s medical marijuana program, but voted the language down.
The issue resurfaced this year as the Senate drafted a bill that expands the medical marijuana program. PTSD is included as a qualifying condition in a version of that bill the Senate approved this week.
Karen Richards, executive director of the commission, said that the requirement by the Department of Public Safety that patients must demonstrate that they experience severe physical pain as a result of their condition is “not obvious.”
Richards said she believes the situation can be fixed easily.
“To me there’s a really simple solution here, and it would be to just change the application to be clear that physical pain needs to be shown,” she said.
If that standard is made explicit, potential patients and their doctors will have a better understanding of what is required to enroll in the program, Richards said. It could also save DPS employees time, as they will not need to follow up with doctors to find out if a patient experiences physical pain as a result.
Though the legislature is working on a bill that would change the medical marijuana law to recognize PTSD as a qualifying condition, Richards said there is still a need to clarify the application requirement.
“Obviously PTSD isn’t the only mental health issue that could have physical symptoms,” she said.
Richards said there is often more attention paid to physical health issues than mental health issues, and implicit bias is a factor.
“We think it’s more likely that somebody with a mental health issue is going to try to get medical marijuana when they shouldn’t be entitled to it than somebody who has a physical condition,” Richards said.
