To the Medical Board of California
From Patients, Caregivers, and Friends
of William S. Eidelman, M.D.

Please Follow the Law:
Give Dr. Eidelman Back His License and
Drop All Accusations

Whereas: Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 (c) reads: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied rights or privileges, for recommending marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.

Whereas: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law," is a special phrase in law, granting absolute immunity, even in cases of alleged or actual violations of laws or rules.

Whereas: In the whole process of the accusation and suspension of Dr. Eidelman, the Medical Board has shown NO interest for the rights, health, or safety of Dr. Eidelmans patients. The Medical Board has failed in its duty to protect medical marijuana patients, most of whom are very seriously ill.

Whereas: William S. Eidelman, M.D., had his license suspended by the Medical Board without a hearing almost a year ago, under allegations of violating rules and regulations in his recommendations of marijuana, but in essence, giving out Compassionate Use Act recommendations too easily to four undercover police officers posing as patients.

Whereas: Dr. Eidelmans suspension was based solely on his consultations with these undercover police officers. These officers portrayed Dr. Eidelmans practice as one of giving away fraudulent medical marijuana approvals. Yet the Medical Board has brought forth no patient where it is claimed the patients dont have a legitimate disease. In fact, Dr. Eidelmans practice consisted of legitimate patients.

Whereas: The police departments and police officers involved in the complaints against Dr. Eidelman are biased medical marijuana in general, with a personal vendetta against him and his patients. One Patient, Noel Spark, was convicted of growing three marijuana plants. The charges had been dropped with this admonition: Were going after your doctor, and when we get him, well put back the charges. The charges were re-filed one week before Dr. Eidelmans suspension. One of Dr. Eidelmans undercover accusers was a policeman from that jurisdiction. The jury felt that even though Mr. Spark was obviously in severe pain, due to the doctors suspension, they had to find him guilty. Police officers from the other two jurisdictions accusing Dr. Eidelman came the long distance to testify against Dr. Eidelman and Mr. Spark, who had only three marijuana plants and ten years of miserable pain both physical and emotional. It was to prevent this type of travesty of law that the people included section 11362.5 (c), protecting the physician to protect the patient, the citizen.

Whereas: Robbie Ciolli leader of the undercover sting that led to Dr. Eidelmans suspension, was quoted in the Victorville Daily Press, 12/16/02, Its (Prop 215) forcing district attorneys, police and law enforcement agencies to make up their own rules, said Detective Robbie Ciolli, a member of the Sheriffs Marijuana Eradication Team.
The rules Mr. Ciolli, his team, and the investigators for the Medical Board, and the Attorney Generals office, made up in entrapment of Dr. Eidelman are not in line with the laws they are sworn to enforce, ie Health and Safety Code section 11362.5, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

Whereas: All the police officers accusing Dr. Eidelman are members of CNOA, a police organization that states publicly that medical marijuana is a fraud (see www.cnoa.org). Thus, their prejudice is that all medical recommendations are bogus. The sworn statements in the affidavit filed by Robbie Ciolli, if investigated, show fabrications and grossly illegal and unconscionable police actions against a quadriplegic medical marijuana patient (for details, see www.DrEidelman.com/story.htm). They had no probable cause for the enforcement action against Dr. Eidelman.

Whereas: The investigator for the Medical Board who accompanied Mr. Ciolli and the team to Dr. Eidelmans office gave a sworn statement that there was no examination table or medical equipment of any kind, thus it was impossible for Dr. Eidelman to really be practicing medicine. In fact, Dr. Eidelmans examination/treatment table was in a separate room, impossible to miss (other equipment was in a drawer). The investigator for the Medical Board lied in sworn testimony. This same lie was given in sworn testimony by Mr. Ciolli and other undercover team members. This was part of the pattern using lies and twisted facts to show the worst light possible on Dr. Eidelman, to make the suspension sound like it was warranted (which it wasnt). At the second suspension non-hearing, Administrative Law Judge Carol Magnuson was informed by Dr. Eidelman, in writing, of the perjured testimony by essentially all the accusers. She let it pass without comment, continuing the suspension.

Whereas: Judge Magnuson ruled that Dr. Eidelmans behavior with the undercover officers showed he was not furthering the purpose of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, and thus does not deserve the immunity of section 11362.5 (c). Although legally his immunity it total, and does not depend on furthering the purpose, in fact, his practice was totally in support of this Act, and of rights given by this act to citizens of the state of California. Only a prejudiced and mean-spirited prosecution by the Medical Board and the Attorney Generals office could argue that Dr. Eidelman did not deserve the immunity granted by section 11362.5 (c).

Whereas: Dr. Eidelman has testified in court, written letters of support, and spoke on the telephone countless times in successful efforts to protect his patients from jail or punishment. Dr. Eidelman has been very important in the implementation of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Both deputy Attorney General Dhillon and Investigator Salcedo of the Medical Board told Dr. Eidelman that they had received many calls over a long period of time complaining about Dr. Eidelman and requesting that they stop him from giving medical marijuana approvals. The Medical Board and Attorney Generals office finally caved to the pressure, and cooperated with the rogue San Bernadino officers.

Whereas: Dr. Eidelmans unique experience and knowledge make him an irreplaceable figure in the health care world. He has many skills and talents that he used to benefit his patients daily, and which are difficult or impossible to find elsewhere.

Whereas: The New England Journal of Medicine, (January 30, 1997 -- Volume 336, Number 5), in an editorial entitled "Federal Foolishness and Marijuana," stated:
"Some physicians will have the courage to challenge the continued proscription of marijuana for the sick."
Dr. Eidelman should be awarded for his courage.

Therefore: Patients of Dr. Eidelman and concerned citizens of the state of California petition the Medical Board to do the following:

Drop and expunge all charges and punishments against Dr. William Eidelman. Return him his license immediately, with all rights and privileges, his record perfectly clean.