Medicinal  Marijuana, a product having the properties of a medicine made from the dried flower clusters and leaves of the cannabis plant usually smoked or eaten to induce euphoria or to relieve pain. The effects of Medicinal Marijuana vary with its strength and dosage and with the state of mind of the user. Typically, small doses result in a feeling of well-being. The intoxication lasts two to three hours, but accompanying effects on motor control last much longer. GOVERNMENT WARNING: Marijuana use can cause complex thoughts leading to better ideas of how to live your life. Caution, free thinking has been routinely reported with continued use. |
Future Doctors Support Medical Marijuana
The Medical Student Section (MSS) of the American Medical Association (AMA) overwhelmingly endorsed a resolution urging the AMA to support the reclassification of marijuana for medical use at the AMA's annual conference in Chicago earlier this month. The resolution will now go before the AMA House of Delegates for a final vote at its interim meeting in November. After a lengthy series of whereases detailing scientific support for therapeutic uses of cannabis, the MSS resolved that:
With some 50,000 members, the MSS is the largest and most influential organization of medical students in the US. The other major medical student group in the county, the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), which split from the AMA in the heady days of the 1960s to pursue a more socially activist agenda, endorsed rescheduling marijuana in 1993 and added its own resolution endorsing clinical research on medical marijuana in 1999. (AMSA claims 68,000 members, but also includes pre-med students.) Those two organizations join a growing list of medical groupings supporting medical marijuana, including the AIDS Action Council, the Alaska Nurses Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Nurses Association, the American Preventive Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, the California Academy of Family Physicians, the California Medical Association, the California Pharmacists Association, the Connecticut Nurses Association, Cure AIDS Now, the Florida Medical Association, the Los Angeles County AIDS Commission, the Lymphoma Foundation of America, the Medical Society of the State of New York, the National Association for Public Health Policy, the National Association of People with AIDS, the National Nurses Society on Addictions, the New England Journal of Medicine, the New Mexico Medical Society, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the San Francisco Medical Society, the Virginia Nurses Society on Addictions, the Wisconsin Public Health Association, and state nurses associations in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin, according to the medical marijuana education and advocacy group Patients Out of Time. The most recent addition to that list was the American College of Physicians (ACP), which adopted a resolution called for rescheduling of marijuana and an expansion of research into its medical efficacy in February. With 124,000 members, the ACP is the country's second largest physician group, second only to the AMA. But the AMA remains recalcitrant. Its most recent recommendation on medical marijuana, adopted in 2001, calls for further study, but urges that marijuana remain at Schedule 1 pending the outcome of those studies. The resolution passed by the MSS is designed to prod the organization forward. The MSS may have some clout, but it can't do it alone, said Sunil Aggarwal, a University of Washington medical student who championed the resolution in Chicago. "If it's just us, we lose," he said. "Between now and November, we'll be trying to get different organizations within the AMA to stand with us. We'll be going after the state medical societies in all the medical marijuana states, and we'll be building alliances with groups that are our allies, like the ACP," he strategized. "We have to be careful, though. There are some forces that would like to quash us, like the American Society of Addiction Medicine. Even though they're a relatively new organization, everyone tends to defer to them on matters of addiction and substance abuse. If they say no, the AMA might get cold feet." Medical marijuana advocates were pleased at the news. "This is a positive and necessary step in the right direction," said Dr. David Ostrow, a member of the AMA and Chair of the Medical & Scientific Advisory Board of Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the country's largest medical marijuana advocacy organization. "We are hopeful that the full house of delegates will follow the example set by the American College of Physicians earlier this year and vote to support this resolution, thereby placing the needs and safety of our patients above politics." Whether the battle is won this year or not, Aggarwal and his colleagues are the wave of the future, he said. "The two organizations that represent medical students nationally have now both called for the reclassification of marijuana," he said. "We're the future doctors of America. These are the people who are going to be the leaders in American medicine, and now they are officially supporting medical marijuana," he said. "This is a big milestone." |
"Massachusetts Entrepreneur Gets Monopoly Distribution Initiative on Michigan Town Ballot
Thanks to the efforts of a Massachusetts man, voters in the Detroit suburb of Ferndale, Michigan, will have a chance to vote November 4 on an initiative that would allow only one outfit to distribute medical marijuana. The initiative would allow something called the National Organization for Positive Medicine to seek a court order to distribute and sell medical marijuana to qualified patients. Medical marijuana is not currently recognized by the state of Michigan, although voters in several cities, including Detroit and Ferndale, have already voted to approve it at the municipal level. An initiative that would legalize medical marijuana statewide is on the November ballot. The Ferndale distribution initiative is not linked to the statewide initiative, nor is it linked to local activists. According to the Detroit Free Press, the National Organization for Positive Medicine is headed by a Carl Swanson of South Boston, Massachusetts. Swanson's attorney told the Free Press Swanson was not available for comment. "Swanson is looking ahead to when it's decriminalized statewide and he can distribute legally," Ferndale Mayor Craig Covey told the Free Press. "But it's just for him. We are just scratching our heads here." The text of the initiative is not yet available on the City of Ferndale web site, but Covey said it allows only the National Organization for Positive Medicine to seek a court order to sell medical marijuana. Councilman Scott Galloway told the Free Press the initiative was a publicity stunt by marijuana legalizers, but conceded that it could pass. "Like any movement, it has to start somewhere. My guess is that it passes, but has no real effect. You have to get a court order. That's never going to happen," he said. But on the face of it, the initiative appears more likely to be an effort by an entrepreneurial spirit to position himself to profit from medical marijuana sales in the event that the statewide initiative passes. The profit motive is a powerful force, for medical marijuana distribution as for any other product that people want. |
Oregon Appeals Court Protects Workers
Oregon employers must make a reasonable accommodation for workers who use medical marijuana for a disability, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in an opinion released Wednesday. The ruling upheld an earlier ruling by the state Bureau of Labor and Industries that found that state laws barring discrimination protected medical marijuana users from being fired because of their choice of medications. The decision came in the case of Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc., in which an employee was terminated after admitting he had a doctor's recommendation to use marijuana. A key factor in the court's decision was the fact that the employee did not use marijuana at work. In a 2006 ruling, the state Supreme Court upheld the firing of a worker after he tested positive for marijuana, but in that case, the high court avoided the issue of non-workplace use of medical marijuana.The voter-approved 1998 Oregon Medical Marijuana Act was unclear on whether employees must accommodate workers who use medical marijuana away from the workplace. In the present case, the Oregon Court of Appeals emphasized that the Emerald Steel employee did not use marijuana at work. The appeals court also rejected several arguments by Emerald Steel, including the claim that employees could be affected on the job by off-hours medical marijuana use and the claim that marijuana use violates federal law even if it is legal under state law. Emerald Steel had not raised those issues during earlier proceedings. "Accordingly, we will not consider those issues for the first time on review," wrote Judge Timothy Sercombe in the opinion. Legislators and some employer lobbies in Oregon have been trying for the past several years to impose restrictions on medical marijuana use and for laws that would allow employers to fire workers who use medical marijuana. But so far, those efforts have gone nowhere. Now, the Oregon Court of Appeals has dealt another blow to those efforts. |
'state lawmakers unconstitutionally overstepped their bounds' In a May 22 decision, the California 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles has ruled that state lawmakers unconstitutionally overstepped their bounds by limiting the amount of marijuana patients could possess. California's Compassionate Use Act became law as the result of a 1996 voter initiative, and the legislature cannot amend initiatives, the court held. Seeking to regulate medical marijuana in the state, the legislature passed a bill that set limits on the amount of pot patients could possess. That bill set the limit at eight ounces of dried marijuana and six mature or 12 seedling plants. Prosecutors used that provision of the law to charge medical marijuana patient Patrick Kelly with marijuana possession and sales after they busted him with 12 ounces. Kelley was a registered patient, but did not have a doctor's recommendation that he needed more than the eight ounces envisioned by the legislative action. Prosecutors were wrong to charge Kelly, the court held. "The CUA does not quantify the marijuana a patient may possess. Rather, the only 'limit' on how much marijuana a person falling under the act may possess is it must be for the patient's 'personal medical purposes,'" Justice Richard Aldrich wrote. "The legislature... cannot amend an initiative, such as the CUA, unless the initiative grants the legislature authority to do so," Aldrich continued in the 7-2 opinion. "The CUA does not grant the legislature the authority to amend it without voter approval." The unconstitutional provision was part of a 2004 bill by Sen. John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara) that sought to clarify the state's medical marijuana law. The following year, Vasconcellos got a bill passed that removed the cap language, but it was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who argued that it removed "reasonable and established quantity guidelines." |
Medical Marijuana at the Statehouse -- Stalled in St. Paul, Progress in Providence, Coming Out in Columbus
State legislatures are once again proving a formidable hurdle for the medical marijuana movement. In the last two weeks, legislation died for lack of action in the Minnesota Senate, and while the Rhode Island Senate passed a dispensary bill, it is unclear whether it will make it to the House floor. But hope springs eternal, as evidenced this week in Ohio, where the first medical marijuana bill in years was introduced. But it never got to a floor vote in the House before the session ran out. Supporters blamed the House leadership and the opposition of some sectors of law enforcement, which could not be pleased no matter how many changes to the bill -- 19 -- supporters made to assuage their fears. The bill also faced a likely veto from Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty. "We're disappointed that the Minnesota legislature failed to enact a medical marijuana bill this year," said Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project, the parent group for Minnesotans for Compassionate Care, which led the lobbying fight to pass the bill. "But we've seen in other states that the legislative process often takes several years, and we picked up incredible support this year, including the endorsements of the state's two largest newspapers. The dozens of brave patients who came forward to tell their stories in recent months aren't giving up, and neither are we." Meanwhile, in Rhode Island, the state Senate approved legislation May 15 that would create "compassion centers" or dispensaries where patients enrolled in the state's medical marijuana program could legally obtain their medicine. Under the bill, S. 2693,the dispensaries could legally grow and sell marijuana to the 359 patients in the state medical marijuana registry. The dispensaries would be regulated by the state Department of Health. The legislation would create licensed marijuana dispensaries, or "compassion centers," that would legally grow and sell the drug at affordable prices to the 359 patients in the state's program. The centers would be regulated by the state Health Department. But despite strong popular support and a 29-6 vote in the Senate, the bill is not expected to get through the House this year, the Providence Journal reported. It cited opposition in the House. "I would really have to have a sock over my head if I didn't know that," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Rhoda E. Perry (D-Providence). "What I think is important is to show movement," Perry said of the Senate vote. "I think getting it out of a chamber is movement. It's showing that there is a level of understanding and a level of acceptance," she told the Journal. How patients would get their medicine was "the unasked question" when the state's medical marijuana law was passed, House Majority Leader Gordon Fox told the Journal. "Do you send someone that may be suffering from cancer or whatnot out into the streets to procure it? I don't know if that's necessarily a good solution. I think the natural extension of that is that we provide some sort of safe place to obtain it for those who are legally authorized." But Fox declined to support the bill just yet. "I'm not saying that the leadership's going to support it," he said. "I'd like to read the bill. I haven't looked at what the bill does." While the Journal has pronounced the bill dead, that's a bit premature, said Jesse Stout, spokesman for the Rhode Island Patient Advocacy Coalition (RIPAC). "The House leadership hasn't said they're not going to vote on it, so we're working with them to try to schedule it," he said. "We still have another month left in the session." Stout was confident the measure would pass if it got to a floor vote. "We have a lot of rank and file support from House members who favor this common sense expansion of the law, and we have a new poll that shows popular support for this measure at 69%. We have lots of support, so this is by no means over," he said. While the legislative process has been long and torturous in Minnesota and Rhode Island, it is just getting underway in Ohio. On Wednesday, state Sen. Tom Roberts (D-Trotwood) announced details of his proposed Ohio Medical Compassion Act during a press conference at the state capitol in Columbus. Under Roberts' bill, the state Health and Agriculture Departments would be authorized to set up an advisory board to:
"Our laws should reflect the latest in medical research, which has shown that medical cannabis has a variety of benefits for treating pain, nausea and other symptoms related to a wide range of disease," Roberts said in a prepared statement. "In an era of scientific breakthroughs and medical advances, patients should not be put in the position of choosing between living a normal life and living a healthy life," Roberts said. "We took what we thought was the best of other medical marijuana laws and created this bill," said Tonya Davis, director of advocacy for the Ohio Patient Network. Davis, a chronic pain sufferer who is unable to walk, was optimistic about the bill's prospects. "This time around we have a cosponsor and more support in the Senate than ever before," she said. For Davis, access to medical marijuana is a quality of life issue. With medical marijuana, she can reduce her reliance on other medications, she told the Wednesday press conference. "I require medical marijuana to maintain a lifestyle with dignity," Davis said. The Ohio bill will likely face the same long and twisting legislative path that medical marijuana has followed in any number of statehouses. Whether it becomes law this year seems unlikely, but experience has shown that getting bills through is typically a multi-year process. And that's something to remember in Minnesota and Rhode Island, too, not to mention other states, such as Illinois, New Jersey, and New York, where bills are active this year, said MPP's Mirken. "I understand the frustration, but we've seen before that it typically takes several years to get medical marijuana passed. Elected officials by and large still think medical marijuana is more controversial than it is. It's never easy," he said. Still, said Mirken, time and the angels are on the side of the movement. "There is no question the historical tide is with us. It's just that sometimes it moves more slowly than we would like." |
"Obama supports the rights of states and local governments to make this choice"
With Sen. Barack Obama now the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, the Republican Party is looking for potential weaknesses and thinks it has found one in his relatively progressive stance on medical marijuana. On Wednesday, the Republican National Committee issued a press release saying Obama's position on medical marijuana and the DEA raids on patients and providers "raises serious doubts" about an Obama candidacy. The attack came after the San Francisco Chronicle published an article Monday detailing Obama's position on medical marijuana, from comments he made in November to a response he more recently provided to the paper's candidate questionnaire. In responding to the Chronicle's medical marijuana question, the Obama campaign said he endorsed a hands-off federal policy: "Voters and legislators in the states -- from California to Nevada to Maine -- have decided to provide their residents suffering from chronic diseases and serious illnesses like AIDS and cancer with medical marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering," said campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Obama supports the rights of states and local governments to make this choice -- though he believes medical marijuana should be subject to (US Food and Drug Administration) regulation like other drugs," LaBolt said. He added that Obama would end DEA raids on medical marijuana providers. Sen. Hillary Clinton has also suggested she would end the raids, according to Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana, a New Hampshire-based activist group that specializes in trying to get candidates on the record on medical marijuana. Republican nominee Sen. John McCain has waffled on the issue, according to Granite Staters, which has him saying he would end the raids at one point, but saying he would not end them a few weeks later. But in was Obama who was in the GOP bull's-eye over medical marijuana this week. "Barack Obama's pledge to stop Executive agencies from implementing laws passed by Congress raises serious doubts about his understanding of what the job of the President of the United States actually is," said RNC communications director Danny Diaz in the press release. "His refusal to enforce the law reveals that Barack Obama doesn't have the experience necessary to do the job of president, or that he fundamentally lacks the judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the executive Branch. What other laws would Barack Obama direct federal agents not to enforce?" Diaz asked. Obama's refusal to countenance continued DEA raids would mean he would violate his oath of office by not protecting and defending the Constitution, the RNC charged. The Supreme Court has upheld the authority of Congress to regulate the use of marijuana, it noted. Whether the Republican Party can gain advantage by attacking Obama on the medical marijuana issue remains to be seen. In poll after poll, American voters have said they support access to medical marijuana for sick people. It is currently legal in 12 states and under serious |
'Alternativo, will introduce a bill to legalize the medicinal use of marijuana'
Deputy Elsa Conde of the Social Democratic Alternative Party, or simply Alternativo, will introduce a bill to legalize the medicinal use of marijuana in Mexico next week. A press conference to announce the move is set for Monday, and the bill should be filed Tuesday, a day before the Mexican congress goes on vacation. The bill would make medical marijuana available for seriously ill patients. It proposes a system of licensed dispensaries to handle supply. The text of the bill was not available by Thursday afternoon. "I will introduce the bill on Tuesday," said Deputy Conde, "If marijuana helps sick people, we should not punish them for using it," she said Thursday. While the number of supporters from major parties is currently small, it is a prestigious group. The three PRD deputies who have signed on are all doctors, and the PAN member expressing support is the chair of the health committee in the Chamber of Deputies, where the bill will get its first hearing. Deputy Conde has been working with a small group of activists, academics, lawyers, and celebrities known as Grupo Cañamo (the Cannabis Group). Last fall, Conde introduced a bill that would decriminalize marijuana possession in Mexico. The final bill in Conde's and Grupo Cañamos tripartite marijuana offensive, one that would legalize hemp production, is in the works. Grupo Cañamo came together to push for legislative reforms, said Mexico City activist Ricardo Sala, whose own organization, Convivencia, has been a leading voice for a more rational approach to drugs. "Deputy Elsa wanted to present some marijuana legislation, and she said we needed to show broad support, so we organized the group to help push that effort" he said. The group hopes to expand and broaden its mandate, but right now is focusing on marijuana issues, he said. While Conde's decrim bill has gone virtually nowhere in the congress, the medical marijuana bill should have better prospects, said Jorge Hernandez Tinajero, a member of AMECA (the Mexican Association for Cannabis Studies) and an advisor to Conde. "This measure is very attractive medically and scientifically," he said at a Grupo Cañamo strategy session Thursday morning. "It will be easier to achieve than decriminalization." Tinajero said he joined Grupo Cañamo in a bid to move from street activism to the halls of power. "We do the global marijuana day marches," he noted, "but we have to do politics if we want to change the law." For Dr. Humberto Brocca, a leading Mexico City drug treatment provider who specializes in acupuncture therapy and deals with the city's street youth population, making medical marijuana available to those who need it is paramount. "This is a human rights issue," he said at the Thursday meeting. "The right to health is fundamental." There are challenges, said Brocca. "The government here is very moralistic, and what we need and want to do is move medical marijuana from the moral sphere to the scientific sphere. Marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule I drug with no medical use, and we need to open the scientific and political space to move it to Schedule II. What we need is to move beyond policy based on moralism to policy that is evidence-based." "Cannabis users should not be persecuted, either for medical marijuana or personal use," said anthropologist Sandra Tovar, who is married to Brocca and has coauthored several books with him. "I think this can pass," said Tinajero. "The PAN needs to have a human face, and taking a bold stance on a health issue may help them do it." Whether or not the bill passes, consideration of it will advance the cause, said Brocca. "We need to make this a public discussion so we can educate not only the public, but also the medical community and the politicians. This effort can only help," he said. |
'allow qualifying patients to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana'
A bill that would allow some Minnesota patients to use medical marijuana is headed for a House floor vote after easily passing the House Ways and Means Committee Wednesday. The bill, SF 345, passed the Senate last year, so the House vote is the only obstacle remaining before the bill lands on the desk of Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R). But the governor remains an obstacle as well. Pawlenty has signaled he will veto the bill. A Pawlenty spokesman reiterated the veto threat Wednesday, saying the bill must include provisions to make it palatable to law enforcement. The bill would allow qualifying patients to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana and to obtain it from organizations created to dispense the drug. Those nonprofits can grow up to 12 plants per patient. Patients and dispensaries would be registered with the state. "To me, this is the ultimate conservative issue," said Rep. Chris DeLaForest (R-Andover), a cosponsor of the measure. "It's about keeping the government out of the doctor-patient relationship." While the bill passed out of committee with no debate, that will not be the case when it comes before the House as a whole. That should take place sometime in the next few weeks. Preston resident Neil Haugerud, former sheriff of Fillmore County and a former state representative who suffers chronic pain from arachnoiditis (inflammation of the lining that surrounds the spinal cord), said, "I'm grateful to the committee for passing the medical marijuana bill, and I hope the full House and the governor will go ahead and make it law as soon as possible. Patients who are in pain shouldn't have to risk arrest and jail to get relief." Twelve states -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington -- presently allow medical use of marijuana. Medical marijuana bills are now under consideration in Illinois and New York, and an initiative is expected to appear on Michigan's November ballot.
|
Massachusetts Aims For Marijuana Decriminalization later this year
Eleven states have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana, leaving those busted to face only tickets and fines instead of a criminal record and possible jail time. But most of them decriminalized in the 1970s, with Nevada being the most recent addition to the list in 2001. This year, thanks to a carefully-crafted initiative campaign by the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy (CSMP), which follows two years of groundwork-laying by local activists, Massachusetts may be the next state to take the step. Last year, CSMP drafted a decrim initiative and gathered more than 80,000 valid signatures. Now, in accordance with Massachusetts law, the initiative is before the legislature, which can either pass it, offer a competing version up to the voters in November, or do nothing and let voters vote on the initiative itself in November. According to CSMP, the initiative (read its full text here) would:
While the initiative had a March 18 hearing before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary with a number of high-powered proponents, it is unlikely the legislature will act on it, leaving the voters to decide. That may be for the best, said Sen. Patricia Jehlen (D-Middlesex), who sponsored decrim legislation on which the initiative is based. While the Jehlen-sponsored SB1121 managed to win approval in committee, it has not gotten any further, nor has a similar bill, SB 1011, supported by the local activists of MassCann, the local affiliate of NORML. An initiative will fare better with the public than in the legislature for a couple of reasons, Jehlen said. "It's not a big issue for many legislators," she pointed out, "and members are reluctant to take votes they think might be misunderstood by the public." But before that can happen, CSMP will have to go back to the voters for another round of signature-gathering as required by Massachusetts law, explained committee head Whitney Taylor. Under that law, no one who signed petitions during the first round of signature gathering can sign a petition during the second round. Still, Taylor predicted no problems. "I'm very confident we can come up with the required number of signatures," she said. "We have a lot of public support, we've been doing a lot of volunteer recruiting, and we've been working closely with SSDP chapters -- a bunch have just opened in the Boston area. There is a really great synergy going on there," she said. "But while we have the enthusiasm of youth, we are also seeing a lot of buy-in from the broader public policy and advocacy community," said Taylor. "Massachusetts has the largest number of nonprofits per capita of any state, and these people are very comfortable in their political roles. There are lots of criminal and juvenile justice people who think our money could be better spent. It's great to see the support we're gathering at this early stage. I know we will make the ballot," she flatly predicted. The initiative did have some early hurdles to pass. Last fall saw disagreement over aspects of the initiative language, particularly around whether it was wise to include marijuana in one's bodily fluids in the definition of marijuana possession and whether that could create a fine where it doesn't exist now. Some activists, such as NORML founder and current legal counsel Keith Stroup, worried that the language could become a precedent for other states to follow. Currently only one of them, South Dakota, defines a criminal offense of internal possession. Taylor and initiative lawyers countered that there is conflicting case law on whether internal possession is already a criminal offense in Massachusetts that could draw a more severe punishment, or collateral consequences such as loss of college aid or problems in custody proceedings, and said the purpose of that language was to plug those holes by setting the same $100 fine as for external possession. They also argued that police can't take a bodily fluid sample without probable cause, which they say makes an internal possession penalty theoretical. Ultimately, all the major marijuana reform forces in the state, including NORML and MassCann, decided to support the initiative. MassCann has been promoting the decrim cause in Massachusetts for years, and can point to some admirable achievements. At times working alone, at times working with the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts, the local activists managed to get non-binding questions on medical marijuana or decrim on the ballot in dozens of representative districts around the state. The results of those contests have demonstrated strong support for marijuana law reform in the Bay State. "We never lost a ballot question," said MassCann treasurer Steve Epstein. "We did them in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and never lost, and we averaged 63%. We've also been working the legislature on reform there, but progress has been slow." A successful decrim initiative would serve the same purpose as the decrim bills currently before the legislature, said Epstein. "Any of them will result in police not being able to arrest people for simple possession, all would result in people not getting CORIs, and all would save the police time and money. The police here will look the other way. They do that half the time already." CSMP is honing its arguments as it looks forward to the fall campaign. "We are spending almost $30 million a year to arrest and book marijuana possession offenders," said Taylor. "And that's a conservative estimate. That money should stay in police coffers." In addition to the economic costs, the campaign will highlight the costs of a marijuana conviction to young people. "We are seeing about 7,500 marijuana possession arrests a year, and that means 7,500 CORI reports, and that means opening people up to being rejected by landlords and employers, losing access to student loans and professional licenses, and all of that," Taylor said. While opponents of marijuana law reform often cry that it will "send the wrong message" to the kids, Taylor said that is exactly backwards. "The wrong message to send to children is that if you make a mistake, we'll punish you for the rest of your life," she said. "With our initiative, whether this was just youthful experimentation or a sign of an actual problem, the consequences for law-breaking are immediate and done with, and that's more fair than the law currently is." Now, the stage is set. Massachusetts voters have had nearly a decade to get accustomed to the notion of marijuana law reform, and the legislature, despite its inertia, is nibbling at the edges. Prominent Bay Staters are coming on board, fundraising is underway, and proponents are itching to take it to the ballot because they think they can win. "The public supports it by about a two-to-one margin every time it's on the ballot. I filed my bill because of a vote like that in my district," said Sen. Jehlen. "It's also a better way to spend our public safety dollars more wisely by focusing on real threats, and it prevents harm to those people who are caught with it. Yes, I do think this can pass." |
New Hampshire House Passes Decriminalization Bill
In a vote that caught most observers by surprise, the New Hampshire House of Representatives approved a scaled-back marijuana decriminalization bill by a margin of 193-141. To become law, the measure must still pass the state Senate, where it will receive a cool reception, and be signed by the governor, who has signaled his opposition to it. Sponsored by Reps. Jeffrey Fontas (D-Nashua) and Andrew Edwards (D-Nashua), the bill, HB 1623 , would make possession of up to a quarter ounce of marijuana a violation punishable by a maximum $200 fine. Currently, small-time possession is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. The favorable vote came despite the bill's rejection by a House policy committee and the opposition of law enforcement officials. Among arguments raised by proponents was that young offenders would be unfairly punished by having a marijuana offense on their records. "How can we expect young people to get back on the right path if we take away every opportunity to do so?" Rep. Fontas said during the debate. That sentiment was echoed on the Republican side of the aisle, too. "The question today is not whether marijuana should be illegal, but whether a teenager making a stupid decision should face up to a year in prison and loss of all federal funding for college,'' said Rep. Jason Bedrick (R-Windham). Rep. John Tholl (R-Whitefield), a part-time police chief in the village of Dalton, was typical of opponents. He warned darkly that anyone sharing small amounts of marijuana could be charged with a felony and that anyone transporting it could still face jail time. Still, the measure would send the wrong message, he said. "If you send a message to the young people of our state that a quarter ounce of marijuana is no big deal, like a traffic ticket, what you are doing is you are telling them we are not going to be looking at this very hard,'' Tholl said. According to the Nashua Telegraph , Gov. John Lynch also thinks the bill sends the wrong message. His press secretary, Colin Manning, said Lynch will urge the Senate to reject it. "This sends absolutely the wrong message to New Hampshire's young people about the very real dangers of drug use. That is why the governor joins with the House Criminal Justice Committee and law enforcement in opposing this bill,'' Manning said. "If the bill were to reach the governor's desk, which seems very unlikely, the governor would veto it.'' Senate Majority Leader Joseph Foster (D-Nashua) told the newspaper the bill is going nowhere in his chamber. "I know of no interest in the Senate on either side of the aisle to entertain this,'' Foster told reporters. "The governor has expressed his view, but I don't think he will see it coming to him.'' The New Hampshire Coalition for Common Sense Marijuana Policy , which has led the lobbying charge for the bill, praised the House and urged the Senate to act. "Our representatives in the House did the right thing for New Hampshire -- and especially for New Hampshire's young people," said the coalition's Matt Simon. "It's time for the Senate to finish the work we've started here and bring some sanity to our marijuana sentencing policies." Eleven states have decriminalized marijuana possession, mostly in the 1970s. Nevada was the most recent, decriminalizing in 2001. |
Medical Marijuana at the Statehouse: Prospects for 2008
A dozen years after California voters ushered in the age of legal medical marijuana by supporting Proposition 215, the legal use of the herb for medicinal purposes has spread to 11 other states -- Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington -- but in recent years, progress has been excruciatingly slow. 2005 Coalition for Medical Marijuana-NJ press conference The last statewide initiative to go to voters failed in 2006 in South Dakota -- the only state where voters have rejected an initiative legalizing medical marijuana -- and last year, it took Herculean efforts by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) to revive and rescue the medical marijuana bill there, making the Land of Enchantment the only state to be added to the list of medical marijuana states in 2007. (Rhode Island legislators, who had passed a sunsetted bill in 2006, made it permanent last year.) This year, serious efforts to pass medical marijuana laws at the state house are underway in several more states, with most of the efforts being run by local groups backed by either the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) or the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA). Here's a look at the states where there has been or will be action at the state house on medical marijuana: Alabama: A medical marijuana bill was introduced last week by Rep. Laura Hall (D), but has yet to be assigned a bill number. This will mark the second year in a row that Alabama legislators have had a medical marijuana bill before them. There will be hearings this year, said Loretta Nall, executive director of Alabamians for Compassionate Care , the local group coordinating the effort to pass the bill. One of those who will testify is Jacki Phillips, whose son, Michael Phillips, had testified in support of medical marijuana in the past. Michael Phillips, who throughout his life suffered from seizures related to brain tumors, died last December in a New Orleans hotel room during the DPA conference. "I'm going to tell those lawmakers that the system killed my son," said Phillips. "I truly believe that if he could have gotten the marijuana and it had been regulated like other seizure medicines, he would be alive today. I'm not asking them to legalize it for potheads," she said, "I'm a Southern Baptist and I believe God gave you a brain to use, but using marijuana for medical purposes would help a lot of people." Marijuana didn't stop Michael Phillips' seizures, his mother said, "but it gave him the chance to function on a normal level for a period of time." When he smoked marijuana, she said, he would still have seizures, but their frequency and intensity was greatly reduced. Connecticut: After seeing a medical marijuana bill pass the legislature there last year only to be vetoed by Gov. Jodi Rell (R), activists there have found little traction on the issue this year as the legislature debates other criminal justice and drug policy issues. "We were emboldened last year and then deeply disappointed that people still essentially have to commit a crime to get access to medicine," DPA policy director Gabriel Sayegh told the Hartford Business Journal earlier this month. But despite little progress this year, "there is no doubt we are going to continue with this," he vowed. Illinois: A medical marijuana bill, SB 2865 , has passed committee votes and is now headed to the Senate floor, but its House companion bill, HB 5938, lost a committee vote this week. Still, that doesn't mean the measure is dead. "Unlike many states, losing a committee vote doesn't kill your bill," said MPP's Mirken, who spent part of this week at the state capitol in Springfield accompanying patients as they lobbied legislators. MPP and local reform groups IDEAL (Illinois Drug Education and Legislative Reform) and Illinois Compassion Action Network are keeping the pressure on. This week, MPP released a poll showing 68% support for medical marijuana in the state. Kansas: The first effort at passing a medical marijuana bill in Kansas, supported by the Kansas Compassionate Care Coalition and former Republican Attorney General Robert Stephan, ended a couple of weeks ago, bottled up in committee by a hostile committee chair. While disappointing, that is hardly surprising, given the torturous legislative process facing any new bill. Kansans should not be disheartened that they did not achieve victory in their first try, said MPP's Mirken. "It has been a multi-year struggle in all the states that have passed these laws," he said. "It's no surprise that it will take more than one year in Kansas." Minnesota: Last year, a medical marijuana bill passed the state Senate, but died of inaction in the House in the face of veto threats from Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty. But MPP and local affiliate Minnesotans for Compassionate Care are again working with friendly legislators. A Republican House member, Rep. Chris DeLaForest, is cosponsoring a House bill this year. Minnesota's is a two-year legislative session, so that means only a House bill must pass this year, provided it is congruent with the already passed Senate bill. "We are sitting in the House waiting for it to be brought up," said Mirken. "We're hoping it will pass and the governor will see the light." New Jersey: For the fourth consecutive year, a medical marijuana bill, AB 804 has been introduced by Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer) and a companion bill has been introduced in the state Senate. DPA's New Jersey office is working the legislature, but there seems little likelihood the Senate will act. "The Senate has always been the hold-up," said Ken Wolski, RN, executive officer of the Coalition for Medical Marijuana-New Jersey . "Although Gov. Corzine has said he would sign a bill if it gets to his desk, the Assembly doesn't really want to mess with it if the Senate won't move on it, so here we are." New York: A medical marijuana bill, SO4768 , initially introduced last year was reintroduced in January. It passed the Assembly last year, but was referred at that time to the Senate Health Committee where it has languished ever since. Given the turmoil in Albany in the wake of this week's resignation of Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer, said MPP's Mirken, it will take awhile for the dust to settle. "We're trying to figure out how the Spizter follies will change the situation, " he said. "While we have some hopes for New York, at this point, medical marijuana is not on the top of anybody's agenda." One optimistic sign, said Mirken, was that the new governor, David Paterson, is on much better terms with Republican Senate majority leader Joseph Bruno. Another is that, like Minnesota, New York has a two-year session, so a bill will not have to again pass the Assembly. The medical marijuana movement has mowed its way through most of the low-hanging fruit of the initiative states and now faces the long, hard slog through the legislative process if it wants to get more states on board. While it is less expensive to attempt to win in the legislature than at the ballot box, it is also much more difficult and complicated. "A lot of politicians are needlessly skittish about the politics of this," said Mirken. "If it were just a vote on the merits, it would pass today. Everywhere, we can produce polling numbers to show these guys a medical marijuana vote is not going to hurt them, but there is a deeply ingrained fear of being portrayed as soft on drugs, and that's very difficult to overcome. It's a real struggle," he said. When pressed on where victories might come this year, Mirken was careful. "I'd say there was a fighting chance in Illinois, Minnesota, and New York, but in an election year, politicians are more timid than usual," he offered. The real best shot this year, he said, is likely Michigan, where an initiative has been approved for the November ballot. |
Opponents of Marijuana Reform Constantly Contradict Themselves
This article on a marijuana decriminalization effort in New Hampshire provides a useful case study in the utter confusion and desperation of the anti-pot peanut gallery: Exeter Police Chief Richard Kane, among others, is adamantly opposed. "If we reduce the penalty for small amounts of marijuana, it will eventually lead to legalization and I think that's heading in the wrong direction," he said last week. Nashua Police Chief Donald Conley also said it would be a mistake to take the sting out of the law. [ Boston Globe ] So the Police Chief begins by arguing that we must go around stinging people for possessing pot. But when reform advocates argue that too many young lives are being derailed by harsh punishments for petty offenses, Conley completely changes his tune: "As far as someone getting arrested and their lives being ruined, I don't think that's the case," he said. "Employers are more forgiving in this day and age, and police prosecutors frequently reduce marijuana cases down to violations…" Wait, so should we be stinging people or not? He begins by defending aggressive sanctions and ends by claiming the sanctions aren't aggressive. The contradiction is transparent and embarrassing. It is, in fact, not at all uncommon to hear defenders of harsh marijuana laws speak approvingly of the fact that most offenders avoid jail time. Thus, it is not necessarily the practice of ruining lives for marijuana which they crave, but rather the discretion to do so should the urge happen to arise. Meanwhile, millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans are branded as criminals so that people like Chief Conley can live out their authoritarian fantasies. |
American College of Physicians 'yes' to Medical Marijuana in Historic Endorsement
In a position paper , a leading American medical association has endorsed the medicinal use of marijuana, called for more studies of its medical uses, and urged the US government to get out of the way. The position paper from the American College of Physicians was released last Friday after being approved by the group's governing body. The American College of Physicians (ACP) is the nation's second largest doctors' organization, behind only the American Medical Association. It is made up of some 124,000 internal medicine specialists dealing primarily with adults. The college pointed to strong evidence that marijuana has proven useful in treating AIDS wasting syndrome, glaucoma, and the nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy treatments. The college also noted that there is anecdotal evidence for many other medical uses of marijuana, but that research had been stymied by "a complicated federal approval process, limited availability of research grade marijuana, and the debate over legalization." The science of medical marijuana should not be "hindered or obscured" by the controversy over legalizing the plant for personal, non-medical use, the group said. "This is a historic statement by one of the world's most respected physician groups, and shows the growing scientific consensus that marijuana is a safe, effective medicine for some patients, including many battling life-threatening illnesses like cancer and AIDS," said former US Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders in a press release from the Marijuana Policy Project . "Large medical associations move cautiously, and for the American College of Physicians to note 'a clear discord' between scientific opinion and government policy on medical marijuana is a stinging rebuke to our government. It's time for politicians and bureaucrats to get out of the way of good medicine and solid research." "This statement by the American College of Physicians recognizes what clinicians and researchers have been seeing for years, that for some patients medical marijuana works when conventional drugs fail," said Dr. Michael Saag, director of the Center for AIDS Research at the University of Alabama-Birmingham. "One of the challenges in HIV/AIDS treatment is helping patients to adhere to drug regimens that may cause nausea and other noxious side effects. The relief of these side effects that marijuana provides can help patients stay on life-extending therapies." "This statement by America's second largest doctors' group demolishes the myth that the medical community doesn't support medical marijuana," said Marijuana Policy Project executive director Rob Kampia. "The ACP's statement smashes a number of other myths, including the claims that adequate substitutes are available or that marijuana is unsafe for medical use. 124,000 doctors have just said what our government refuses to hear, that it makes no medical or moral sense to arrest the sick and suffering for using medical marijuana." While the ACP position paper consists of 13 closely reasoned pages, the group summarizes its medical marijuana positions thusly: Position 1: ACP supports programs and funding for rigorous scientific evaluation of the potential therapeutic benefits of medical marijuana and the publication of such findings. Position 1a: ACP supports increased research for conditions where the efficacy of marijuana has been established to determine optimal dosage and route of delivery. Position 1b: Medical marijuana research should not only focus on determining drug efficacy and safety but also on determining efficacy in comparison with other available treatments. Position 2: ACP encourages the use of non-smoked forms of THC that have proven therapeutic value. Position 3: ACP supports the current process for obtaining federal research-grade cannabis. Position 4: ACP urges review of marijuana's status as a schedule I controlled substance and its reclassification into a more appropriate schedule, given the scientific evidence regarding marijuana's safety and efficacy in some clinical conditions. Position 5: ACP strongly supports exemption from federal criminal prosecution; civil liability; or professional sanctioning, such as loss of licensure or credentialing, for physicians who prescribe or dispense medical marijuana in accordance with state law. Similarly, ACP strongly urges protection from criminal or civil penalties for patients who use medical marijuana as permitted under state laws. "The richness of modern medicine is to carefully evaluate new treatments. Marijuana has been in a special category because of, I suppose, its abuses and other concerns," Dr. David Dale, the group's president and a University of Washington professor of medicine, told Reuters in a phone interview. An uncharacteristically terse David Murray, chief scientist for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, could only appeal to science in an interview with Reuters. "The science should be kept open. There should be more research. We should continue to investigate," he said. Dale Gieringer, executive director of California NORML had a few nits to pick with the ACP's statement, but approved overall. "This is an important step," he said. "But when they say they support the existing federal supply system, it suggests they are unaware of all the systematic blockage of independent research caused by the NIDA monopoly and DEA interference." Similarly, said Gieringer, while government licensing and regulation of medical marijuana makes sense, that doesn't mean we have to maintain the existing NIDA monopoly. "It just doesn't make sense to do that," he said. Where Gieringer was pleasantly surprised was with the ACP's call to end the criminal persecution of medical marijuana patients, providers, and doctors. "They came out really forcefully against criminalization," he noted. "That's very impressive. No one else has been willing to address that. All of these apologists for the government run around saying you can't have unregulated medical marijuana, but that doesn't mean you need to throw patients and doctors in jail." The medical community's embrace of medical marijuana has been timid and hesitant, with a number of important organizations, including the American Medical Association, lagging behind. This policy statement by the nation's second largest medical association should give that process an important boost. Drug War Issues Medical Marijuana Politics & Advocacy Organizations - ONDCP |
"UN anti-drug bureaucracy roused from its slumber" When medical marijuana vending machines appeared at a handful of Los Angeles-area dispensaries a couple of weeks ago, the press attention they received was enormous -- so enormous that it was heard deep in the bowels of the UN anti-drug bureaucracy in Vienna. Roused from its dogmatic slumber by the clamor, the UN's International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) issued a statement last Friday saying the machines violate international drug treaties and should be shut down. "The International Narcotics Control Board is deeply concerned about reports that computerized vending machines to dispense cannabis (marijuana) have been put into operation in Los Angeles," said INCB head Philip Emafo in the statement. "We know that the use of cannabis is illegal under federal law of the United States and we trust the authorities will stop such activities, which contravene the international drug control treaties," he added. The federal government may not recognize medical marijuana, but it is legal under state law. So far, there is no indication that providing it via vending machines violates the state's medical marijuana laws, much less international treaties which only prohibit non-medical use. And so far, the DEA has not acted against them. The machines have appeared in three Los Angeles dispensaries, and supporters say they are convenient for patients, secure, and could provide medical marijuana at lower prices. Qualified patients who wish to use the vending machines must provide documentation and fingerprints to the dispensary, which then issues them a card to insert in the machine. While the INCB reiterated that marijuana is illegal under federal law, it also seemed to suggest that if marijuana was going to be used, its use should be controlled by a federal agency. "The control measures applied in California for the cultivation, production and use of cannabis do not meet the control standards set in the 1961 Convention to prevent diversion of narcotic drugs for illicit use," the INCB said. "Such standards require, inter alia, the control of cultivation and production of cannabis by a national cannabis agency, and detailed record keeping and reporting on the activities with cannabis, including reporting to INCB." The INCB also took pains to note that it "welcomes sound scientific research on the therapeutic usefulness of cannabis," although it claimed that "so far, the results of research regarding the potential therapeutic usefulness have been limited." But in the same breath, it then complained that Canada and the Netherlands have authorized medical marijuana "without reporting conclusive research results to the WHO" and that "cannabis is used for medical purposes in some jurisdictions of the United States without having definitive proof of its efficacy." Whether the INCB's "concerns" will spur action from either federal or state authorities remains to be seen. But with each new dispensary, each new delivery service, each entrepreneurial innovation like the vending machines, the medical marijuana industry is becoming ever more deeply entrenched in the social fabric of the Golden State. It may be too late for anybody to stop it -- even the UN. |
'Era of DEA Raids May Be Coming to an End'
Incoming US Attorney for Northern California Joseph Russoniello held his first press briefing January 31, and during that briefing, he suggested that raiding and prosecuting medical marijuana providers is a waste of resources. That's a bit of a surprise, given Russoniello's history as a hard-line Republican prosecutor, but could augur a new day in Northern California. SF US Attorney's Office Although personally opposed to medical marijuana and openly skeptical that many who claim to be using the herb medicinally are not really ill, Russoniello suggested that trying to prosecute dispensaries out of existence was akin to trying to plough the sea. "The overwhelming majority of people in my view who are so-called patients are not," he said, but he added that cracking down on dispensaries was futile. "We could spend a lifetime closing dispensaries and doing other kinds of drugs, enforcement actions, bringing cases and prosecuting people, shoveling sand against the tide. It would be terribly unproductive and probably not an efficient use of precious federal resources," said Russoniello. Whether Russoniello's words will translate into policy changes in his office remains to be seen, but they could be a harbinger of things to come. Both Democratic presidential contenders have said they would halt the DEA raids on dispensaries in California, so his office could have few medical marijuana cases to prosecute in any case. Russoniello has other, higher priorities, including gun crimes, hard drugs, gangs, and child pornography, he said. "Guns which are a scourge to communities, which combined with the twin poisons of gangs and drugs are literally enslaving whole neighborhoods," he said. Russionello took over as US Attorney for Northern California early last month. He also spent eight years in that position under President Reagan in the 1980s. |
Medical Marijuana and the Right to Work: Under Attack in California and Oregon
Last week's California Supreme Court decision upholding the ability of employers to fire employees who test positive for marijuana even if they are patients has shone a spotlight on an increasingly contested grey area created by the disjuncture between state and federal policies toward medical marijuana. With last week's decision, California's more than 150,000 medical marijuana patients now face renewed insecurity on the job. But 11 other states also have medical marijuana laws, and patients are equally at risk of job loss in most of them. While every state medical marijuana law says employers are not required to accommodate on-the-job use, only a handful have provisions that could be interpreted as protecting medical marijuana users' employment rights, and only one, Rhode Island, explicitly protects patients, according to Karen O'Keefe, assistant director of state policies for the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). "There are several states -- California, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Rhode Island -- that specify that patients cannot be punished by professional licensing boards, and New Mexico and a number of other states have language like 'not subject to penalty in any manner,'" she said. "In Washington, it says 'the people shall not be denied any right or privilege.'" But whether such language really means patients are protected from being fired for testing positive on a drug test is likely to be sorted out only by court cases or legislation. Better to get that explicit protective language written into the law in the first place, suggested Jesse Stout, executive director of the Rhode Island Patient Advocacy Coalition (RIPAC). "We did get specific employment protections written into the law, as well a protection from discrimination in terms of enrolling in schools and leasing property," said Stout. "This happened because we went to our patients and asked them what they thought, and they said they wanted marijuana treated like any other medicine." While Rhode Island advocates had to take other measures out of the bill to ensure passage, employment protections were not controversial. "They weren't a problem," Stout said. As a result, Rhode Island's 600 medical marijuana patients are among the best protected in the country when it comes to employment protection. And they don't have to rely on the courts or the legislature to provide protection after the fact. In California, on the other hand, the Supreme Court has settled matters -- at least for now -- with its ruling last week. In that decision , the Court found that employers may fire workers who use medical marijuana in compliance with California's Compassionate Use Act -- even if they are off duty and even if their use does not affect their job performance. In that case, Gary Ross, whose doctor recommended medical marijuana for chronic back pain resulting from an injury incurred while serving in the Air Force, was hired by Raging Wire as a systems engineer in 2001 and was required to take a drug test as a condition of employment. He provided the company with a copy of his doctor's recommendation, but the company fired him a week later because of a positive test result. Ross sued, alleging that the company violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by not accommodating his disability. He also argued that the company fired him in violation of public policy because the Compassionate Use Act legalized medical marijuana in the state. But in siding with employers, the state high court said the state's Compassionate Use Act protected users only from criminal prosecution. "Nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use Act suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and duties of employers and employees," wrote Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdeger for the majority. "Under California law, an employer may require pre-employment drug tests and take illegal drug use into consideration in making employment decisions." Additionally, Werdeger noted, even though medical marijuana is legal under state law it remains illegal under federal law, and "the FEHA does not require employers to accommodate the use of illegal drugs." Justice Joyce Kennard was scathing in her dissent. The decision was "conspicuously lacking in compassion," she wrote. "The majority's holding disrespects the will of California's voters." The voters "surely never intended that persons who availed themselves" of the medical marijuana act "would thereby disqualify themselves from employment," Kennard said. She wasn't the only one. "This was an atrocious decision that generated a scathing dissent," said Joe Elford, legal counsel for the medical marijuana defense group Americans for Safe Access , who argued the case for Ryan. "When California voters passed a law ensuring the right of ill Californians to use marijuana, they didn't expect people to be fired for exercising that right." "This is a decision is based on tortured logic designed to lead to an absurdly narrow reading of the law," said Bruce Mirken, San Francisco-based communications director for MPP. "The court is claiming that California voters intended to permit medical use of marijuana, but only if you're willing to be unemployed and on welfare. That's ridiculous on its face, as well as cruel, as Justice Kennard rightly observed in her dissent." If the California Supreme Court has slapped patients in the face, at least one legislator is prepared to seek redress in Sacramento. In a press release the same day, San Francisco Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno announced he would introduce legislation protecting medical cannabis patients' right to employment. "Today's California Supreme Court ruling strikes a serious blow to patients' rights," stated Leno. "In the coming weeks I will introduce legislation that secures a medical cannabis patient's right to use their doctor recommended medication outside the workplace. Through the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996 and SB 420 in 2004, the people of California did not intend that patients be unemployed in order to use medical marijuana." If in California the battle over the employment rights of medical marijuana users will ultimately be decided in the legislature, in Oregon, the state with the second highest number of medical marijuana patients, some 16,000, the legislative battle is already in its second year. But instead of legislation seeking to protect patients' rights, Oregonians are faced with competing proposals to instead protect the rights of employers to fire those patients. Last year, a bill that would essentially have allowed employers to discriminate against medical marijuana patients handily passed the state Senate before dying in committee in the House on the last day of the session. This year, in what is supposed to be a limited special session that lasts only through February, legislators are again seeking to provide cover for employers. "They are trying to get a watered-down version of last year's bill through," said Leland Berger, an attorney and one of the leaders of Voter Power , the group behind the 1998 passage of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (OMMA). With the special session not yet underway, the bills are currently in the form of "legislative concepts." A hearing was held last week to introduce the competing bills, which would protect employers from lawsuits filed by medical marijuana cardholder employees fired for positive marijuana tests. Along with Oregon's panoply of medical marijuana advocacy groups, the ACLU of Oregon was a staunch supporter of patients rights' last year, and is back at it again this year. "We oppose both of these bills and any like them for a number of reasons," said Andrea Meyer, legislative director for the ACLU of Oregon, who has been working legislators on the issue. "First, we don't think they're necessary or effective. They talk about impairment, but most employers rely on urinalysis testing to determine impairment, and urinalysis doesn't measure impairment. We know that marijuana metabolites can stay in the system for up to 30 days after ingestion, but that has no correlation with impairment," she said. "This sort of legislation discriminates against medical marijuana cardholders," Meyer continued. "Oregonians voted to enact a medical marijuana law so people could lawfully obtain marijuana in almost the same manner as any other medicine, and we don't think patients using marijuana should be treated any differently than patients using codeine or morphine or amphetamines," she said. "We believe in a safe workplace, and we think when an employee is impaired for whatever reason -- emotional distress, under the influence of alcohol or lawful medications or illegal drugs, illness -- the employer has the legal authority to take action," Meyer said. "But we aren't any safer when an employee relies on a urinalysis to determine whether someone is a hazard in the workplace." The federal government's refusal to recognize medical marijuana is a key part of the problem, said Meyer. "If marijuana could be prescribed like any other controlled substance, I don't think employers would be suggesting it should be treated differently. The fact that the federal government proscribes it gives employers the excuse. What all this says is that we need to change the Controlled Substances Act and make medical marijuana available by prescription," she argued. Barring that unlikely event, it will be up to the states to protect the employment rights of their medical marijuana patients. "The California Supreme Court decision is an ill omen," said ASA's Elford. "Every one of the medical marijuana states should pass legislation to protect patients, but I'm afraid that's not going to happen." |
A selection of the latest YouTube Medicinal Marijuana Videos
|
| The DEA is continuing to terrorize medical marijuana patients The DEA is continuing to terrorize medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. On November 20, DEA agents raided the Long Beach Compassionate Cooperative (L.B.C.C.), a medical marijuana dispensary in Los Angeles County. In addition to seizing assets, federal agents arrested the owner and warned that other area dispensaries could face the same fate. Visit http://ca.mpp.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=cnKDINNwEqG&b=1769479&ct=4687443 to read the news coverage. * January 11: 11 dispensaries in West Hollywood The DEA has also instituted a chilling new form of interference in California's medical marijuana law: In July, the DEA began threatening landlords who lease space to medical marijuana dispensaries with prison time and forfeiture of their property — a move that was condemned in a Los Angeles Times editorial ( http://www.mpp.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=glKZLeMQIsG&b=1847069&ct=4143087 ) as a "deplorable new bullying tactic." The L.B.C.C.'s landlord was a recipient of one of these letters. |
|
This article is about health issues and the effects of cannabis. For the main articles, see cannabis and cannabis (drug) . Cured cannabis Although there are many conflicting studies involving health issues and the effects of cannabis , some conclusions concerning the effects on physical and mental health have been reached. Today, there is still a substantial amount of propaganda and misinformation from both cannabis advocates and opponents due to the legal issues of cannabis , including legal and political constraints on cannabis research.
EffectsThe psychomaniac effects of cannabis, known as a "high", are subjective and can vary based on the individual. Some effects may include general change in consciousness (altered perception); mild euphoria; feelings of well-being, relaxation or stress reduction; lethargy; increased appreciation of humor, music or art; joviality; metacognition and introspection; enhanced recollection of episodic memory; increased sensuality;increased awareness of sensation; increased libido; creative or philosophical thinking; disruption of linear memory; paranoia, agitation or anxiety; potentiation of other psychedelics and increased awareness of patterns and color.
HungerThe "Munchies" is a term that is often used to describe the increased appetite that comes from using cannabis. Research performed by the National Institutes of Health claimed that cannabis increases food enjoyment and the number of times a person eats each day. [ citation needed ] Recently, scientists have claimed to be able to explain what causes the increase in appetite, concluding that " endocannabinoids in the hypothalamus activate cannabinoid receptors that are responsible for maintaining food intake". [1] ToxicityAccording to the Merck Index , [2] the LD 50 (dosage lethal to 50% of rats tested) of ? 9 -THC by inhalation is 42 mg/kg of body weight. That is the equivalent of a man weighing 75 kg (165 lb) inhaling the THC found in 21 grams of extremely high-potency (15% THC) marijuana all in one sitting, assuming no THC is lost through smoke loss or absorption by the lungs. For oral consumption, the LD 50 for male rats is 1270 mg/kg, and 730 mg/kg for females—equivalent to the THC in about a pound of 15% THC marijuana. [3] The ratio of cannabis material required to saturate cannabinoid receptors to the amount required for a fatal overdose is 1:40,000. [4] There have been no reported deaths or permanent injuries sustained as a result of a marijuana overdose. It is practically impossible to overdose on marijuana, as the user would certainly either fall asleep or otherwise become incapacitated from the effects of the drug before being able to consume enough THC to be mortally toxic. According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction. [5]
Confounding combinationThe most obvious confounding factor in cannabis research is the prevalent usage of other recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco . [6] One paper claims marijuana use can increase risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. [7] Such complications demonstrate the need for studies on cannabis that have stronger controls, and investigations into the symptoms of cannabis use that may also be caused by tobacco . Some people question whether the agencies that do the research try to make an honest effort to present an accurate, unbiased summary of the evidence, or whether they "cherry-pick" their data, and others caution that the raw data, and not the final conclusions, are what should be examined. [8] However, contrasting studies have linked the smoking of cannabis to lung cancer and the growth of cancerous tumors. [9] [10] [11] [12] A 2002 report by the British Lung Foundation estimated that three to four cannabis cigarettes a day were associated with the same amount of damage to the lungs as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day. [13] Some of these finding may be attributed to the well-known custom that many British citizens often mix tobacco with marijuana. It should also be noted that a recent study conducted at a lab in UCLA has found no link between marijuana usage and lung cancer. [ citation needed ] Cannabis also has a synergistic toxic effect with the food additive Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and possibly the related compound butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). The study concluded, "Exposure to marijuana smoke in conjunction with BHA, a common food additive, may promote deleterious health effects in the lung." BHA & BHT are man-made fat preservatives, and are found in many packaged foods including: plastics in boxed Cereal, Jello, Slim Jims, and more. [14]
MemoryCannabis is known to act on the hippocampus (an area of the brain associated with memory and learning ), and impair short term memory and attention for the duration of its effects and in some cases for the next day [15] . In the long term, some studies point to enhancement of particular types of memory. [16] Cannabis was found to be neuroprotective against excitotoxicity and is therefore beneficial for the prevention of progressive degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease . [17] A 1998 report commissioned in France by Health Secretary of State Bernard Condevaux and directed by Dr. Pierre-Bernard Roques determined that, "former results suggesting anatomic changes in the brain of chronic cannabis users, measured by tomography , were not confirmed by the accurate modern neuro-imaging techniques ," (like MRI ). "Moreover, morphological impairment of the hippocampus [which plays a part in memory and navigation] of rat after administration of very high doses of THC (Langfield et al. , 1988) was not shown (Slikker et al. , 1992)" (translated). He concluded that cannabis does not have any neurotoxicity as defined in the report, unlike alcohol and cocaine. [18] [19] [20] In contradistinction to this report, however, a 1998 Journal of Neuroscience article explicitly states that THC is a cause of hippocampal neural death, though it is suggested that asprin and vitamin E , among other substances, might inhibit this neural death . "Neuron death induced by THC was inhibited by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including indomethacin and aspirin, as well as vitamin E and other antioxidants." [21]
Adulterated cannabisContaminants may be found in hashish when consumed from soap bar -type sources [22] . The dried flowers of the plant may be contaminated by the plant taking up heavy metals and other toxins from its growing environment [23] . Recently, there have been reports of herbal cannabis being adulterated with minute (silica [usually glass or sand], or sugar} crystals in the UK and Ireland . These crystals resemble THC in appearance, yet are much heavier, and so serve again to increase the weight, and hence street value of the cannabis [24] .
PregnancyStudies have found that children of marijuana-smoking mothers more frequently suffer from permanent cognitive deficits, concentration disorders, hyperactivity, and impaired social interactions than non-exposed children of the same age and social background. [25] [26] A recent study with participation of scientists from Europe and the United States, have now identified that endogenous cannabinoids, molecules naturally produced by our brains and functionally similar to THC from cannabis, play unexpectedly significant roles in establishing how certain nerve cells connect to each other. The formation of connections among nerve cells occurs during a relatively short period in the fetal brain. The study tries to give a closer understanding of if and when cannabis damages the fetal brain [27] [28] . [29] Other studies on Jamaica have suggested that cannabis use by expectant mothers does not appear to cause birth defects or developmental delays in their newborn children. [30] [31] In a study in 1994 of Twenty-four Jamaican neonates exposed to marijuana prenatally and 20 non exposed neonates comparisons were made at 3 days and 1 month old, using the Brazelton Neonatal Assessment Scale, including supplementary items to capture possible subtle effects. Results showed there were no significant differences between exposed and nonexposed neonates on day 3. At 1 month, the exposed neonates showed better physiological stability and required less examiner facilitation to reach organized states. The neonates of heavy-marijuana-using mothers had better scores on autonomic stability, quality of alertness, irritability, and self-regulation and were judged to be more rewarding for caregivers. This work was supported by the March of Dimes Foundation. [32]
CancerOn 23 May 2006, Donald Tashkin , M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles announced that the use of cannabis does not appear to increase the risk of developing lung cancer, or increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus. [33] The study involved 2252 participants, with some of the most chronic marijuana smokers having smoked over 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. [33] [34] [35] [36] The finding of Donald Tashkin, M.D., and his team of researchers in 2006 refines their earlier studies published in a Dec. 17th 2000 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarker and Prevention. [12] Many opponents of marijuana incorrectly cite the original finding of UCLA Medical Center from 2000 as "proof" that marijuana leaves the users at higher risk for cancer of the lung, and cancerous tumors, [9] even though the researchers at the UCLA Medical Center have revised their finding with a more in-depth study on the effects of the use of marijuana. This seemed to contradict assumptions made after some studies, like those from Dale Geirringer et al., which found that 118 carcinogens were produced when marijuana underwent combustion, and two carcinogens {2-Methyl-2, 4(2H-1-benzopyran-5-ol) & 5-[Acetyl benz[e]azulene-3,8-dione} formed when marijuana underwent vaporization with the Volcano Vaporizer. [37] To help explain this seemingly chemical proof of carcinogenity inherent in the process of combustion, Tashkin noted that "one possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation." [33]
In many countries, experimental science regarding cannabis is legally restricted because cannabis is illegal . Thus, cannabis as a drug is often hard to fit into the structural confines of medical research because appropriate, research-grade samples are difficult to obtain legally for research purposes, unless granted under authority of national governments.
United StatesThis issue was recently highlighted in the United States by the clash between Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), an independent research group, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), a federal agency charged with the application of science to the study of drug abuse. The NIDA largely operates under the general control of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), a White House office responsible for the direct coordination of all legal, legislative, scientific, social and political aspects of federal drug control policy. The cannabis that is available for research studies in the United States is grown at the University of Mississippi and solely controlled by the NIDA, which has veto power over the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to define accepted protocols. Since 1942, when cannabis was removed from the U.S. pharmacopoeia and its medical use was prohibited, there have been no legal (under federal law) privately funded cannabis production projects. This has resulted in a limited amount of research being done and possibly NIDA's producing cannabis which has been alleged to be of very low potency and inferior quality. [38] MAPS, in conjunction with Professor Lyle Craker , PhD, the director of the Medicinal Plant Program of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst , sought to provide independently grown cannabis of more appropriate research quality for FDA-approved research studies, and encountered opposition by NIDA, the ONDCP, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
United KingdomIn countries such as the United Kingdom a license for growing cannabis is required if it is to be used for botanical or scientific reasons. It is referred to as a "controlled drug". In such countries a greater depth and variety of scientific research has been performed. Recently several habitual smokers were invited to partake in various tests by British medical companies in order for the UK government to ascertain the influence of cannabis on operating a motor vehicle. [ citation needed ]
The most prevalent group of marijuana psychoactive substance in cannabis is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (commonly called ? 9 -THC, or simply THC). In the past two decades, the average content of THC in marijuana sold in North America has increased from about 1% to 3-4% or more. Carefully selected and cloned plants can yield as much as 15% THC (however in the Netherlands the maximum is 29% THC). [39] Another psychoactive cannabinoid present in Cannabis sativa is Tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), but it is only found in small amounts. [40] In addition, there are also similar compounds contained in cannabis that do not exhibit any psychoactive response but are obligatory for functionality: Cannabidiol (CBD), an isomer of THC; Cannabinol (CBN), an oxidation product of THC; Cannabivarin (CBV), an analog of CBN with a different sidechain , Cannabidivarin (CBDV), an analog of CBD with a different sidechain, and Cannabinolic acid . How these other compounds interact with THC is not fully understood. Some clinical studies have proposed that CBD acts as a balancing force to regulate the strength of the psychoactive agent THC. Anecdotal and inconclusive reports claim that marijuana with relatively high ratios of THC:CBD is less likely to induce anxiety than marijuana with low THC:CBD ratios. [41] CBD is also believed to regulate the body's metabolism of THC by inactivating cytochrome P450 , an important class of enzymes that metabolize drugs. Experiments in which mice were treated with CBD followed by THC showed that CBD treatment was associated with a substantial increase in brain concentrations of THC and its major metabolites, most likely because it decreased the rate of clearance of THC from the body. [41] Cannabis cofactor compounds have also been linked to lowering body temperature , modulating immune functioning, and cell protection. The essential oil of cannabis contains many fragrant terpenoids which may synergize with the cannabinoids to produce their unique effects. THC is converted rapidly to 11-hydroxy-THC , which is also pharmacologically active, so the drug effect outlasts measurable THC levels in blood. [39] In 1990, the discovery of cannabinoid receptors located throughout the brain and body, along with endogenous cannabinoid neurotransmitters like anandamide (a lipid material derived ligand from arachidonic acid ), suggested that the use of cannabis affects the brain in the same manner as a naturally occurring brain chemical. Cannabinoids usually contain a 1,1'-di-methyl-pyrane ring, a variedly derivatized aromatic ring and a variedly unsaturated |