Bill To License Dispensaries Clears Oregon House

posted in: Cannabis News 0

The House narrowly passed a bill Monday that would license and regulate medical marijuana dispensaries, a proposal that some lawmakers argue would allow more patients to safely access the drug but others worry could heighten abuse of the program.

The state currently allows patients with certain debilitating medical conditions to grow their own marijuana or designate someone else to do it but there isn’t a place to legally purchase the medicine.

Under House Bill 3460, the Oregon Health Authority would set up a registration system of medical marijuana dispensaries, authorizing the transfer of the drug and immature marijuana plants to patients. The facilities would also have to comply with regulations for pesticides, mold and mildew testing, which supporters say will help ensure the drug isn’t contaminated.

The bill passed on a 31-27 vote and is now headed to the Senate.

Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, told lawmakers on the floor that when his father-in-law was dying from lung cancer a doctor recommended medical marijuana to help with appetite and chemotherapy.

While he considers marijuana a gateway drug, he supports the bill because of his personal experience.

“I witnessed firsthand what it was like to have somebody be told you need this, you’re going to die. This is the only thing that might make you feel better but figure out some way to buy it off the street if you can figure it out because there’s no way for me to legally get it into your hands and I’m your doctor,” Clem said.

But former Oregon State Police officer Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany, told lawmakers the bill does little to address the abuses in the state’s medical marijuana program.

“It’s not that I’m opposed to medical marijuana. I’m a major advocate for those who are in need of marijuana as a medicine. I am opposed to the abuse,” he said.

In a lengthy floor speech, Olson talked about various concerns he had about the bill including federal law enforcement, drug trafficking, public safety, Rick Simpson’s hemp oil and out-of-state and youth access to the drug.

Olson read from a 2012 story by The Oregonian about how drug traffickers have exploited the state’s medical marijuana program.

He told lawmakers he would be committed to working with the other party on a more comprehensive bill to correct the abuses in program and provide the access the patients need.

The bill’s lead sponsor Rep. Peter Buckley, D-Ashland, and other lawmakers argued while the bill doesn’t fix every problem in the program it’s a step in the right direction.

“The black market of medical marijuana is out of hand,” he said. “The ability to trace with accuracy cardholders and growers is extremely problematic.”

Supporters of the bill include medical marijuana dispensaries, the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and other advocacy groups.

Medical marijuana facilities would pay a registration fee of $4,000 each, according to the bill’s fiscal note. If an estimated 225 facilities register, the state would receive about $900,000 in the next two years. Revenue from the fees would help offset the cost of creating and running a new registration system.

Marijuana is still illegal under federal law, meaning it has no accepted medical use.

Source: Statesman Journal (OR)
Author: Queenie Wong, Statesman Journal
Published: June 24, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Statesman Journal
Contact: [email protected]
URL: http://drugsense.org/url/51Kl9UjA
Website: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/

Medical Pot Laws Get Tougher

posted in: Cannabis News 0

Backers of medical-marijuana bills are proposing tighter restrictions on the drug to allay opponents’ fears of widespread use, a shift that is helping such legislation advance in additional states.

Illinois and New Hampshire are poised to pass some of the strictest medical-marijuana laws in the nation. They would join New Jersey, Connecticut and Delaware in banning patients from growing their own pot, increasing oversight on commercial growers and distributors, and restricting doctors from prescribing the drug for general pain.

The new restrictions are a far cry from the laws passed in the late 1990s, including in California, Colorado and Oregon, which were more ambiguous and, in some cases, made acquiring medical-marijuana prescriptions relatively simple.

In Colorado, for example, of the roughly 107,000 residents approved to use medical marijuana, pain is the qualifying condition for more than 100,000 of them. And in California, medical-marijuana prescriptions have become relatively common, as doctors can prescribe the drug for any illness “for which marijuana provides relief.”

“It’s clear that if I had proposed a California-type law, I would’ve had no chance of passing it,” said Illinois Rep. Lou Lang, the Democratic sponsor of the medical-marijuana bill now on the desk of Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat who says he is “very open-minded” about the bill.

Even in Canada, where medical marijuana has been legal since 2001, officials are pulling back. On Wednesday, the country is scheduled to publish rules that will soon ban patients from growing the drug at home.

The tighter state regulations appease some conservative lawmakers and governors hesitant to appear soft on crime, experts said, while still satisfying most medical-marijuana advocates, including patients and doctors.

From 1996 to 2008, the first 13 states to legalize medical marijuana allowed patients to grow the plant themselves and doctors to prescribe the drug for general pain, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, which tracks and advocates for medical-marijuana laws.

If Illinois and New Hampshire pass their laws as expected—becoming the 19th and 20th states to do so—five of the seven most recent medical-marijuana states would ban home cultivation and exclude or limit pain as a qualifying condition.

“There is suspicion about medical marijuana that it’s a foot in the door to full legalization,” said Sam Kamin, a law professor at the University of Denver. The new laws enable politicians to tell skeptical voters that “what we really want is sincere, well-regulated medical marijuana.”

Yet that suspicion isn’t without merit. In Colorado and Washington, two of the first states to allow medical marijuana, voters legalized recreational pot use in November. The states are setting up rules so retailers can begin selling the drug to anyone 21 and older next year.

Supporters of the Illinois bill say it would be the toughest such law in the nation—a claim used by proponents of similar bills elsewhere. The law would exclude minors, ban patients from growing their own pot and authorize doctors to prescribe the drug only for 33 serious medical conditions, including cancer, glaucoma and HIV/AIDS.

The Illinois bill would also give law-enforcement the authority to access to 24-hour surveillance video of the state’s licensed growers and revoke the driver’s license of any marijuana patient who refuses to undergo a sobriety test during a traffic stop.

The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police said that though the bill could be worse, it opposes it. “It’s a lesser of two evils, maybe, but something we’re still fighting against,” said John Kennedy, the association’s director.

In New Hampshire, a conference committee reconciled the House and Senate versions of a medical-marijuana bill on Tuesday, bowing to demands from Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan, including that patients cannot grow their own pot. The governor said she would sign it.

In New York, the legislature’s lower house recently passed a medical-marijuana bill. Aiming to get it through the more conservative Senate, this year’s bill is significantly more restrictive than past versions.

“We’re aiming for a very tightly regulated piece of legislation, which really will be the toughest in the nation,” said a sponsor of the bill, Democratic Sen. Diane Savino.

Some laws are so restrictive that getting the drug to those who need it has been difficult, advocates say. In New Jersey, only one dispensary has opened since its law passed in 2009, in part due to tight restrictions, including that the first six shops be nonprofit. So far, just 126 of the nearly 1,000 approved patients are obtaining marijuana legally, the state said.

Mike Miceli, a 32-year-old auto technician in Jackson, N.J., said marijuana is the only drug that puts his painful Crohn’s disease into remission. After being put on a waiting list for months, he drove in March to Maine, where pot dispensaries accept prescriptions from other states. Then, last month, Mr. Miceli was arrested during a traffic stop for possession of marijuana, despite his medical-marijuana card, and faces up to two years in jail.

Mr. Miceli said his attorney is optimistic the court will accept his medical-marijuana prescription as a legal defense, but he still will owe thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Author: Jack Nicas
Published: June 19, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.wsj.com/

Medical Cannabis: Safe, Effective

posted in: Cannabis News 0

Where did you receive your schooling and training?

I have been a medical physician for more than 29 years since graduating from the University of Utah School Of Medicine.  I completed training in general surgery in Los Angeles and plastic surgery in Utah.  During my general surgery training I completed a one-year plastic surgery research fellowship at the University of Southern California.  I finished my board certifications in both general surgery and plastic surgery, and set up private plastic surgery practice in Las Vegas.  I practiced plastic and reconstructive surgery for six years until I underwent cervical spine surgery for herniated discs in the neck.  The surgery left me with neck pain and bodily muscle pain that prevented me from returning to the practice of surgery.

After five years, I was well enough to re-train in pain medicine at the University of Utah under a group of renowned pain-medicine physicians, who have served as current and past presidents of prominent pain academies and societies in the United States.  I hold memberships in the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the International Cannabinoid Research Society and the American Telemedicine Association.

What is your current practice?

I am a board-certified pain-medicine physician and owner of Hawaiian-Pacific Pain and Palliative Care ( medicalmarijuanaofhawaii.org ).  The focus of my practice is the care of patients with chronic pain.  In addition, I have a strong interest in hospice and end-of-life care.  This practice is done on a voluntary basis and is based in Waimanalo at the Native Hawaiian Model Agricultural Village called Pu’uhonua O Waimanalo.  Nearly all fees generated by the advocacy and clinical practice for medical cannabis therapies are used for expenses and Native Hawaiian programs.

Malama First Healthcare is a nonprofit initiative based in the village, and its goals are to improve the health care of Native Hawaiians worldwide.  I serve as their chief medical officer on a voluntary basis.

How long have you been an advocate for medical marijuana?

I have been an advocate for the use of medical cannabis since 2008, when I was first exposed to a group of chronic pain patients on the Big Island who were using cannabis as their sole pain medication, or sometimes in combination with pain pills.

Having no personal experience with marijuana use, I found it quite fascinating that so many people found benefit and relief to their chronic pain conditions using cannabis.

From there, my professional opinion evolved to the point of full political and medical advocacy.

My formal training taught me that marijuana was a gateway drug and had no medical use, which I have since learned to be completely false.  During my training, patients using cannabis often were denied opioid therapies and viewed as drug seekers and addicts.

During my training, no one explained to me how cannabis helped with pain, except one young man who suffered a severe neck injury in the Indonesia tsunami.

Our addiction psychiatrists were forcing him to quit the use of cannabis before the group would prescribe opioids.  Thankfully, this is an out-of-date notion.

These restrictions should never be forced upon any patients who suffer severe, disabling pain.  As I interviewed more people, I became more convinced of the usefulness of medical cannabis.

I thought to myself that thousands of Hawaii residents can’t be wrong.

Patients were finding significant relief from chronic pain conditions and syndromes that otherwise have poor or no effective treatments.

I then set off on an extensive endeavor to understand the medical science of cannabis, cannabinoid receptors, cannabinoid physiology and cannabinoid therapies.

At first I was shocked by the suppression of these safe and effective therapies because of irrational prejudices and political machinations.  This was followed by professional and political disdain at government, politicians, entities and corporations with ulterior motives who are willfully causing millions of people to endure greater suffering because of their direct interference in the practice of medicine and medical research, and their suppression and denial of these therapies.  Thankfully, the Hawaii State Legislature took a bold stand more than a decade ago, in the face of great political pressure, which still exists, and allowed for legal use by chronically ill and disabled people.

Chronic pain is the No.  1 medical condition in the United States, with an estimated 75 million to 100 million Americans living with it.  At least 20 million to 25 million Americans live with severe pain.  In Hawaii, it is conservatively estimated that more than 100,000 live with moderate to severe pain from all causes, including arthritic degeneration, trauma, metabolic conditions such as diabetes, and cancer or its treatment.

Where do things stand right now in the legislative arena?

This year, two bills out of many were vetted in committee and passed by both the Hawaii State Senate and House of Representatives and are expected to be signed by Gov.  Abercrombie.  The first and most important bill calls for the transfer of the medical cannabis program to the Department of Health.  Patients and physicians have requested this transfer for many years.

It is more appropriate that a program for the health and medical welfare of patients be under the auspices of a health department and not law enforcement.  The second bill attempts to improve significant shortcomings in the program itself.  Safe access is our No.  1problem and concern.

The state allows for the use of cannabis as a medicine but does not allow the access to a safe source of that medicine.

From a medical point of view this is unconscionable.  You would not make a diabetic grow and produce their own insulin or diabetes pills.

Currently, patients must obtain seeds, grow the plants, overcome the hostilities of growing by mold and bugs and then develop the yield that becomes their medicine.

The majority of patients are not in a position to even get started.

They don’t know how to grow.  They don’t feel well enough to grow.  They don’t have a place to grow.  And there’s no guarantee that these efforts will result in an adequate medication supply.

The use of cannabis is not an alternative to the use of traditional medications it is a unique medication with unique medical effects.

It is not replaceable with anything else in existence.

Immediate access can only be solved by a dispensary or retail outlet.

A state-run system would be ideal.  The other main issue is the failure to increase the qualifying diagnoses list, since cannabinoid therapy is uniquely helpful to a myriad of conditions.  A large proportion of Hawaii’s cannabis users do it for medical purposes, but the law does not respect that and allow them to be legal because they are using it for conditions not allowed by law.  Our combat soldiers are denied its legal use for PTSD after a decade of multiple deployments to war zones, and are thereby denied an effective and safe treatment for this difficult-to-treat condition.  Cannabis is superior to all other modalities in existence such as anti-depressants and anti-psychotics, which have questionable effectiveness and many adverse side effects.

How effective is medical marijuana compared with other painkillers?

At the most recent meeting of the American Academy of Pain Medicine, Dr.  M.  Moskowitz stated that “preclinical studies, surveys, case studies and randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials with cannabis have all shown its effectiveness in chronic pain conditions .  Cannabis works to settle down the processing of wind-up ( or expanded pain processing in the brain ) and is the only drug known to do so.  It reduces inflammatory pain in the peripheral nerves, and has a unique mechanism for pain reduction unlike any other medicine.”

Studies have shown that medical cannabis is as effective as opioid therapies.  By using medical cannabis, many people are able to completely eliminate or significantly reduce their use of opioid pain pills.  This eliminates or significantly reduces the numerous adverse side effects that opioids inflict.

The major medical benefit to the withdrawal of opioids is the removal of physical dependency.  Most importantly, the mortal safety of a patient on an opioid regimen is dramatically improved with the addition of medical cannabis and a reduction in opioid dosage.

Every day, Americans are dying from the misuse and overdosing of opioid medications.  There is an epidemic of prescribed opioid pill diversions, which can lead to death or ongoing drug addiction.

The use of cannabis in chronic pain also reduces the number of other types of medications needed for coexisting sleep and mood disorders, and myofascial spasms ( within tissue surrounding the muscles ) found in nearly all chronic pain patients.

There are no other single medications in existence that can treat all of these coexisting problems in addition to treating the pain.  The removal of these other medications also removes their inherent adverse side effects and any medications needed for adverse side effects, such as drowsiness, constipation or nausea.

Anything you would like to add?

Medical cannabis is an effective and safe therapy that should not be denied to any human being.

Government policies are directly interfering with medical science and research, along with clinical care.

The prohibition of safe access is an ongoing major problem for patients in Hawaii and needs to be corrected by dynamic and outside-the-box thinking.

There are solutions to these issues.

The concerns of cannabis habituation, dependency and addiction, along with recreational or misuse in young people, are not valid reasons for the denial and suppression of these therapies for legitimate patients; otherwise, no controlled substances would be allowed in clinical practice.

I hear compelling, life-changing stories from patients almost daily.  Just today, a mother expressed her gratitude to us for helping her son, who was practically bedridden for two years, get his life back.  She cried when he tried cannabis and was able to get up and out of bed and start running around.

These are not isolated and rare occurrences.

The addition of medical cannabis as a replacement or adjuvant medication to the chronic pain patient’s medication regimen will greatly improve patient well-being and care, and provide increased patient safety.

Source: MidWeek (HI)
Column: Doctor in the House
Copyright: 2013 RFD Publications, Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.midweek.com/
Author: Rasa Fournier

Marijuana Tied To Better Blood Sugar Control

posted in: Cannabis News 0

People who had used marijuana in the past month had smaller waists and lower levels of insulin resistance – a diabetes precursor – than those who never tried the drug, in a new study.

The findings, based on surveys and blood tests of about 4,700 U.S. adults, aren’t enough to prove marijuana keeps users thin or wards off disease. And among current pot smokers, higher amounts of marijuana use weren’t linked to any added health benefits, researchers reported in The American Journal of Medicine.

“These are preliminary findings,” said Dr. Murray Mittleman, who worked on the study at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“It looks like there may be some favorable effects on blood sugar control, however a lot more needs to be done to have definitive answers on the risks and potential benefits of marijuana usage.”

Although pot smoking is a well-known cause of “the munchies,” some previous studies have found marijuana users tend to weigh less than other people, and one suggested they have a lower rate of diabetes. Trials in mice and rats hint that cannabis and cannabinoid receptors may influence metabolism.

The new study used data from a national health survey conducted in 2005-2010. Researchers asked people about drug and alcohol use, as well as other aspects of their health and lifestyle, and measured their insulin and blood sugar levels.

Just under 2,000 participants said they had used marijuana at some point, but not recently. Another 600 or so were current users – meaning they had smoked or otherwise consumed the drug in the past month.

Compared to people who had never used pot, current smokers had smaller waists: 36.9 inches versus 38.3 inches, on average. Current users also had a lower body mass index – a ratio of weight to height – than never-users.

When other health and lifestyle measures were taken into account, recent pot use was linked to 17 percent lower insulin resistance, indicating better blood sugar control, and slightly higher HDL (“good”) cholesterol levels.

However, there was no difference in blood pressure or blood fats based on marijuana use, Mittleman’s team found.

A Causal Link?

Mittleman said that in his mind, it’s still “preliminary” to say marijuana is likely to be responsible for any diabetes-related health benefits.

“It’s possible that people who choose to smoke marijuana have other characteristics that differ (from non-marijuana smokers),” and those characteristics are what ultimately affect blood sugar and waist size, he told Reuters Health.

Dr. Stephen Sidney from the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland, California, said he wonders if cigarette smoking may partially explain the association. Marijuana users are also more likely to smoke tobacco, he told Reuters Health.

“People who use tobacco oftentimes tend to be thinner,” said Sidney, who has studied marijuana use and weight but didn’t participate in the new study. “So I really wonder about that.”

Another limitation with this and other studies, Sidney and Mittleman agreed, is that all of the data were collected at the same time, so it’s unclear whether marijuana smoking or changes in waist size and blood sugar came first.

“The question is, is the marijuana leading to the lower rate (of diabetes) or do they have something in common?” said Dr. Theodore Friedman, who has studied that issue at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles.

He and his colleagues think the link is probably causal. “But it’s really hard to prove that,” Friedman, who also wasn’t involved in the new research, told Reuters Health.

One possibility is that the anti-inflammatory properties of marijuana help ward off diabetes, he said. But he agreed that more research is needed to draw out that link.

“I want to make it clear – I’m not advocating marijuana use to prevent diabetes,” Friedman said. “It’s only an association.”

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/10Ty3La — The American Journal of Medicine, online May 16, 2013.

Source: Reuters (Wire)
Author: Genevra Pittman
Published: May 23, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Thomson Reuters

Sharp Limits on L.A. MMJ Businesses Approved

posted in: Cannabis News 0

A ballot measure to sharply limit the number of medical marijuana dispensaries in the Los Angeles was approved by voters Tuesday night. The measure won with 62% of the vote, according to the latest results.

Proposition D would reduce the number of pot shops in the city from about 700 now to about 130 by allowing only those that opened before the adoption of a failed 2007 city moratorium on new dispensaries to remain open. A rival initiative, Measure F, which would have allowed an unlimited number of dispensaries to operate, failed. Both measures would raise taxes on medical marijuana sales 20%.

Yami Bolanos, a Proposition D supporter who opened PureLife Alternative Wellness Center in 2006, cried with happiness as the first election results came in, saying she felt as though years of uncertainty about the future of medical marijuana in the city were coming to an end. “Voters had the heart to stand up for the patients like the city council never did,” Bolanos said.

City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, a cancer patient and medical marijuana user who backed Proposition D, said the measure “takes us out of chaos.” He said the dispensaries that have been in the city since 2007 have showed that they are good actors. “They have lived with us,” he said.

Backers of Measure F, which called for additional regulations on dispensaries such as city audits and tests of cannabis for toxins, said they weren’t ready to give up.

David Welch, an attorney who supported that measure, said he was prepared to sue if Proposition D was declared the winner. He said the proposition was unconstitutional because it favored dispensaries based on an arbitrary date. He also predicted that Proposition D would be difficult to enforce, saying that many shops that opened after 2007 probably would continue to operate until the city identifies them and orders them closed. “The city has no idea who qualifies and who doesn’t,” Welch said.

The contentious campaign over how to regulate medical marijuana shops divided the city’s dispensaries, employees and customers, as well as the city council.

Measure F supporters warned that Proposition D would create a monopoly for older shops and allow the rise of “pot superstores.” Backers of Proposition D, including a coalition of older shops and a labor union that has organized workers at many of them, cautioned that Measure F could lead to thousands of new dispensaries.

A third measure, Initiative Ordinance E, would have permitted only the older shops to remain open but without raising taxes. It was put on the ballot by a coalition of older shops and the dispensary employees union, but that coalition shifted its support to Proposition D after the city council voted to put that measure on the ballot.

The stakes were raised this month when the California Supreme Court upheld the right of cities to ban dispensaries.

Supporters of both initiatives warned that if voters failed to pass one of the ballot measures, the city would be left with no law regulating medical marijuana and might be tempted to enact a total ban.

The city council attempted such a ban last year, voting 14 to 0 to outlaw over-the-counter sales of marijuana while allowing small groups of patients to grow the drug for their own use. It reversed the action after the coalition of older dispensaries and union workers qualified a measure for the ballot that would have repealed the ban.

At least one city council member, Jose Huizar, has spoken of revisiting the ban now that cities have been given the authority to outlaw dispensaries.

L.A. has struggled for years to regulate dispensaries, in large part because of contradictory court rulings. The city is battling more than 60 lawsuits over its earlier attempts at regulation.

Los Angeles voters have generally supported the availability of medical marijuana.

In 1996, California became the first state to legalize the medicinal use of pot, although subsequent state laws failed to make explicit how the drug should be distributed. In 2011, L.A. voters approved a ballot measure to tax sales.

Still, a USC Price/Los Angeles Times poll conducted this month found strong support for more regulation of pot shops, with 61% of respondents saying they felt the city should regulate dispensaries more than it currently does. In contrast, 13% said the city should regulate less, and 19% said regulation should not change.

The poll also found that 54% of voters supported a 20% tax increase on medical marijuana sales and 33% opposed it.

Many voters confessed to confusion over the differences among the ballot measures. “The pot stuff was hard,” said Sue Maberry, 64, of Silver Lake. She voted yes on Measure F because she believed Proposition D would create a monopoly.

Early returns also suggested voters favored a measure aimed at overturning Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruling that corporations and unions have a 1st Amendment right to spend their money to influence voters.

The measure would “instruct” members of Congress from the Los Angeles area to support a constitutional amendment to change the law, although the lawmakers would not be bound by it.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Kate Linthicum
Published: May 22, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.latimes.com/

Sharp Limits on L.A. MMJ Businesses Approved

posted in: Cannabis News 0

A ballot measure to sharply limit the number of medical marijuana dispensaries in the Los Angeles was approved by voters Tuesday night. The measure won with 62% of the vote, according to the latest results.

Proposition D would reduce the number of pot shops in the city from about 700 now to about 130 by allowing only those that opened before the adoption of a failed 2007 city moratorium on new dispensaries to remain open. A rival initiative, Measure F, which would have allowed an unlimited number of dispensaries to operate, failed. Both measures would raise taxes on medical marijuana sales 20%.

Yami Bolanos, a Proposition D supporter who opened PureLife Alternative Wellness Center in 2006, cried with happiness as the first election results came in, saying she felt as though years of uncertainty about the future of medical marijuana in the city were coming to an end. “Voters had the heart to stand up for the patients like the city council never did,” Bolanos said.

City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, a cancer patient and medical marijuana user who backed Proposition D, said the measure “takes us out of chaos.” He said the dispensaries that have been in the city since 2007 have showed that they are good actors. “They have lived with us,” he said.

Backers of Measure F, which called for additional regulations on dispensaries such as city audits and tests of cannabis for toxins, said they weren’t ready to give up.

David Welch, an attorney who supported that measure, said he was prepared to sue if Proposition D was declared the winner. He said the proposition was unconstitutional because it favored dispensaries based on an arbitrary date. He also predicted that Proposition D would be difficult to enforce, saying that many shops that opened after 2007 probably would continue to operate until the city identifies them and orders them closed. “The city has no idea who qualifies and who doesn’t,” Welch said.

The contentious campaign over how to regulate medical marijuana shops divided the city’s dispensaries, employees and customers, as well as the city council.

Measure F supporters warned that Proposition D would create a monopoly for older shops and allow the rise of “pot superstores.” Backers of Proposition D, including a coalition of older shops and a labor union that has organized workers at many of them, cautioned that Measure F could lead to thousands of new dispensaries.

A third measure, Initiative Ordinance E, would have permitted only the older shops to remain open but without raising taxes. It was put on the ballot by a coalition of older shops and the dispensary employees union, but that coalition shifted its support to Proposition D after the city council voted to put that measure on the ballot.

The stakes were raised this month when the California Supreme Court upheld the right of cities to ban dispensaries.

Supporters of both initiatives warned that if voters failed to pass one of the ballot measures, the city would be left with no law regulating medical marijuana and might be tempted to enact a total ban.

The city council attempted such a ban last year, voting 14 to 0 to outlaw over-the-counter sales of marijuana while allowing small groups of patients to grow the drug for their own use. It reversed the action after the coalition of older dispensaries and union workers qualified a measure for the ballot that would have repealed the ban.

At least one city council member, Jose Huizar, has spoken of revisiting the ban now that cities have been given the authority to outlaw dispensaries.

L.A. has struggled for years to regulate dispensaries, in large part because of contradictory court rulings. The city is battling more than 60 lawsuits over its earlier attempts at regulation.

Los Angeles voters have generally supported the availability of medical marijuana.

In 1996, California became the first state to legalize the medicinal use of pot, although subsequent state laws failed to make explicit how the drug should be distributed. In 2011, L.A. voters approved a ballot measure to tax sales.

Still, a USC Price/Los Angeles Times poll conducted this month found strong support for more regulation of pot shops, with 61% of respondents saying they felt the city should regulate dispensaries more than it currently does. In contrast, 13% said the city should regulate less, and 19% said regulation should not change.

The poll also found that 54% of voters supported a 20% tax increase on medical marijuana sales and 33% opposed it.

Many voters confessed to confusion over the differences among the ballot measures. “The pot stuff was hard,” said Sue Maberry, 64, of Silver Lake. She voted yes on Measure F because she believed Proposition D would create a monopoly.

Early returns also suggested voters favored a measure aimed at overturning Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruling that corporations and unions have a 1st Amendment right to spend their money to influence voters.

The measure would “instruct” members of Congress from the Los Angeles area to support a constitutional amendment to change the law, although the lawmakers would not be bound by it.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Kate Linthicum
Published: May 22, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.latimes.com/

Illinois Senate Approves Medical Marijuana Bill

posted in: Cannabis News 0

The Senate today approved legislation that would allow doctors to prescribe medical marijuana to patients with serious illnesses, sending the measure to Gov. Pat Quinn. The issue pitted supporters arguing for compassion for those suffering from pain they say only cannabis can ease against opponents who contend the legislation would undermine public safety.

Sponsoring Sen. Bill Haine, D-Alton, argued the measure is one of the toughest in the nation. Haine said his bill does not reflect other states that have “sloppily” instituted medical marijuana laws.

“This bill is filled with walls to keep this limited,” said Haine, a former Madison County state’s attorney.

Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon, raised concerns about lawmakers endorsing a product that classified as a controlled substance by the federal government, arguing marijuana is a gateway drug that could lead users to harder substances.

“For every touching story we have heard about the benefits to those in pain, I remind you today that there are a thousand time more parents who will never be relieved from the pain of losing a child due to addiction which in many cases started with the very illegal, FDA-unapproved addiction-forming drug that you are asking us to now make a normal part of our communities,” McCarter said.

The proposal would create a four-year trial program in which doctors could prescribe patients no more than 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. To qualify, patients must have one of 33 serious or chronic conditions — including cancer, multiple sclerosis or HIV — and an established relationship with a doctor.

Patients would undergo fingerprinting and a criminal background check and would be banned from using marijuana in public and around minors. Patients also could not legally grow marijuana, and they would have to buy it from one of 60 dispensing centers across Illinois. The state would license 22 growers.

The measure drew strong opposition from the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police and the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association, which sent a letter to the governor and lawmakers warning the proposal would not stop medical marijuana card holders from driving while under the influence. They suggested blood and urine testing be included in the legislation to allow police to determine whether card holders had marijuana in their system while driving.

Haine argued the law has safeguards to prevent that, including designating on a driver’s license whether they use medical marijuana.

The Senate vote was 35-21, with 30 needed to pass the bill. It goes to Quinn, who has not indicated whether he will sign it. The Democratic governor recently said he is open minded to the legislation.

Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Author: Monique Garcia Clout Street
Published: May 17, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/

Medical Marijuana Shouldn’t be for ‘Adults Only’

posted in: Cannabis News 0

My 9-year-old daughter has Aicardi syndrome, a rare genetic disorder that causes extremely hard-to-control seizures, debilitation, disability and early mortality. She began having seizures at three months of age, and since that time has had multiple seizures every day, with rare exception — probably to the tune of nearly 200,000 seizures in her lifetime.

For most families, even one such day would be an emergency. For ours, it is the norm.

My daughter is a beautiful, loving girl who goes to school, enjoys music and parks, loves to be read to and adores looking at big, modern art in museums. She cannot walk independently, cannot talk and wears diapers. Every day she is at risk of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy, or SUDEP, which accounts for 34 percent of all sudden deaths in children.

She is one of the 3 million Americans who have epilepsy, and one of the 40 percent whose seizures cannot be controlled by anti-seizure drugs. She has tried 10 anti-seizure medications as well as a high-protein/low-carbohydrate diet called the ketogenic diet; she takes three anti-seizure medications at once and has a vagus nerve stimulator implant that sends mild electrical pulses to the brain. These drugs help her, but she nonetheless experiences an average of three seizures every day. Moreover, the medications cause persistent side effects that negatively impact her quality of life, particularly her gastrointestinal, bone, dental, cognitive and mental health.

The Illinois Senate Executive Committee recently voted, 10-5, to move the House-passed medical marijuana legislation to the Senate for a vote. The bill is expected to pass, and though Gov. Pat Quinn has not committed to signing it, the general expectation is that the bill will become law. This should be received as great news for the many people with “debilitating” conditions that the bill is supposed to help — people for whom medical science has documented real, measurable and safe outcomes of the controlled use of cannabis or its component of chemical compounds.

It’s too bad that the legislature has ignored the medical needs of some of the most debilitated, and most vulnerable, patients in the state: children with epilepsy.

Imagine her father’s and my reaction upon learning that the legislature, in its concern not to send a “message” to kids that it is safe to smoke marijuana, decided that kids like ours, for whom medical cannabis has the potential to be as safe and effective as typical anti-seizure drugs, should be excluded from the benefits of this new law.

They have done so, I hope, only out of ignorance. Take, for instance, the parent survey conducted by Stanford University neurology researcher Dr. Catherine Jacobson. These parents had children with some of the most difficult-to-treat syndromes of epilepsy found in children: Dravet syndrome, Doose syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. All of the kids were being treated with a nonpsychoactive compound made from cannabis — cannabidiol. Their parents report remarkable results — 83 percent noted that their children’s seizure frequency had been reduced.

Two-thirds of these children achieved a greater than 80 percent reduction in seizure incidence. Seventy-five percent of the parents reported success in weaning their kids from other ASDs; a similar proportion noted improved sleep, mood and alertness in their children. Most important, the survey’s author notes that common negative side effects reported on other ASDs were notably absent on cannabidiol, including rash, vomiting, nausea, confusion, insomnia, anxiety, irritability, dizziness and aggressive behavior.

There is no likelihood that my daughter will become a drug addict from using a compound within cannabis in a medically controlled setting. There is, however, a good chance that participation in a controlled study of these compounds could open the door to new treatments for her, and the many children like her, who desperately need medical innovation to save or improve their lives.

I urge the bill’s chief sponsors, Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie, and Sen. William Haine, D-Alton, to reconsider and amend the bill to allow for the medically controlled and regulated use of cannabis for pediatric and adult patients with uncontrolled epilepsy. And to all Illinoisans who know or love someone with epilepsy, please let your legislators hear your voice on this matter.

Margaret Storey lives in Evanston.

Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Author: Margaret Storey
Published: May 15, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/

Federal Crackdown Busts Montana’s MMJ Industry

posted in: Cannabis News 0

If American society’s tolerance for marijuana is now growing, then what happened in Montana illustrates just what can happen when the government decides things have gone too far. Pot advocates were running caravans, helping hundreds of residents in a day get medical marijuana user cards. Some doctors who conducted cursory exams on scores of people were fined. As the number of users quickly grew, so did a retail industry that led some to dub the state “Big High Country.”

Today, thousands of medical pot providers have gone out of business, and a health department survey showed that the number of registered users have fallen to less than a quarter of their 2011 numbers.

The drop was driven in part by a tougher 2011 law on medical marijuana use and distribution. But more than anything, marijuana advocates say, the demise of the once-booming medical pot industry was the result of the largest federal drug-trafficking investigation in the state’s industry.

The three-year investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office, the Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal agencies wrapped up last week when the last of 33 convicted defendants was sentenced. That allowed its architect, U.S. Attorney Michael Cotter, to speak publicly for the first time on the crackdown.

“For a long time, we were hearing complaints from local law enforcement and from citizens … that they were tired of marijuana and they were tired of it next to schools, to churches, people smoking it openly on the streets,” Cotter said in an interview with The Associated Press.

“It was just something that had to be done,” he said. “And the result of doing it the way that we did, it was a strong statement that marijuana wasn’t going to be tolerated in Montana.”

Cotter said he believes he is on the right side of history, regardless of what is happening in the country. Last fall, voters in Colorado and Washington state passed laws to legalize recreational pot use, and a Pew Research Center poll released last month found 52 percent of Americans think marijuana should be legal.

The Justice Department has yet to decide whether to sue in federal court to block Colorado and Washington’s laws under the legal argument that federal laws outlawing any use, possession or distribution of marijuana prevail over state laws.

In Montana, what started out as a system to provide marijuana to those with health problems turned the state into a source for drug trafficking, Cotter said. The industry had ballooned so much and so quickly that drug traffickers were operating under the guise of medicinal caregivers, and the pot was being sent to users in New Jersey, Virginia, Colorado and other states, he said.

Now, marijuana is still in Montana, but it’s manageable, he said.

The investigations were split geographically into three parts: Operation Smokejumper, Operation Weed Be Gone and Operation Noxious Weed. They targeted medical marijuana providers dealing in more than 100 plants and came away with 34 indictments, from a longtime state lobbyist to a former University of Montana quarterback.

Most of those arrested argued at first that they were following the state’s medical marijuana law. When federal prosecutors, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thaggard, successfully squelched that argument in court, all but three of the providers made plea deals.

The federal Controlled Substances Act, which bans any distribution or use of marijuana, trumps state law, Thaggard said. Besides, the investigation found that none of the defendants was following state law, he added.

“I think that we were confident that if we had to go down that road, we would show just how out of compliance these people were,” Thaggard said.

The final scorecard: 33 convictions. Thirty-one made plea deals, two went to trial and lost and the case against the accountant of a provider was dismissed.

Federal prosecutors in other states watched closely as the probe unfolded in Montana, and was widely seen as a success and possibly a model for others, Cotter said.

“Speaking through enforcement action does have the deterrent effect that is needed,” Cotter said. “It had the effect that we were looking for, and that was to deter the trafficking of marijuana.”

Montana Cannabis Information Association spokesman and Marijuana Policy Project lobbyist Chris Lindsey — who also was one of the 33 providers convicted in the probe — agreed the federal investigation was the main driver in changing the shape of the industry.

But a federal crackdown won’t stem the tide of the public will, he said.

Montana residents are increasingly in favor of improving the medical marijuana laws so there is better regulation and better access for those who need it, Lindsey said. “In Montana, it seems our options have only been the wild, wild West or no activity at all. Ultimately, we will be in the middle,” Lindsey said.

Cotter and DEA Agent in Charge Brady MacKay, who led much of the investigation, dispute that medical marijuana is beneficial for the seriously ill. They say patients who need the relief that marijuana provides should get it from Marinol, a prescription drug that contains some of the properties of marijuana.

“I think it’s Madison Avenue marketing, the person who dreamed up tying medical and marijuana together,” Cotter said. “It’s a powerful marketing tool. But the fact of the matter remains that marijuana is a dangerous drug and it’s harmful to people,” Cotter said.

Source: Billings Gazette, The (MT)
Published: May 12, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Billings Gazette
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.billingsgazette.com/

The Marijuana Measures

posted in: Cannabis News 0

The regulation of medical marijuana in Los Angeles is a mess and has been ever since Proposition 215 was approved by California voters in November 1996.

Repeated state and city efforts to bring the chaotic situation under control have had little effect. A move by the City Council in 2007 to register medical marijuana dispensaries, for instance, led instead to an unexpected proliferation. An attempt to limit them in 2010 drew 66 lawsuits and a court-ordered injunction. An ordinance to ban them outright in 2012 was quickly repealed after marijuana businesses gathered enough signatures for a referendum to overturn the measure. Court decisions designed to clarify the murky laws have instead contradicted one another.

Today, there are an estimated 850 dispensaries — or maybe it’s 1,000 or 1,600 (no one seems sure) — operating in Los Angeles despite the city’s position that they’re illegal. Everyone knows that medical marijuana can be easily obtained by recreational users who aren’t truly sick. The “medicine” is not monitored by the government for potential health or safety problems; the dispensaries, by many accounts, are not nonprofit “collectives,” as state law requires (although it’s not really clear what a nonprofit collective is or isn’t). Residents in some neighborhoods complain that they are being overrun by dispensaries, and that many pot shops serve as hubs for crime.

A mess, like we said. And on May 21, Angelenos will have the opportunity to muck it up even further, if they’re not careful. On the ballot will be not one or two but three competing marijuana initiatives: Measures D, E and F.

It would be easy enough to urge a no vote on all three, and to call on the city to impose a full-scale ban instead. After all, The Times opposed Proposition 215 from the outset, partly because it was sloppily written and partly because it set up an inevitable conflict with the federal government, which continues to classify marijuana as illegal and dangerous.

But voting no solves nothing. The people of Los Angeles, like the people of California, overwhelmingly support making medical marijuana available to cancer patients, glaucoma sufferers and others. A ban would be unlikely to pass, and besides, denying marijuana to truly sick patients who can benefit from it would be a step backward. Given that, and given that the status quo is entirely unacceptable, the city’s best hope is to try to carry out the will of the voters with minimal confusion and maximum control to ensure that medical marijuana remains accessible to those who need it.

Measure D will come the closest to accomplishing that goal, or at least will put us on the right road.

Most important, it would impose limits on the number of marijuana businesses in the city, allowing about 135 dispensaries to remain open — those that were operating and registered under city laws in 2007 and that sought to re-register in 2011. Limits are essential. Even people who support easy access to medical cannabis can see that there need to be rules and oversight, as with bars and liquor stores. But resources are limited, and the city can’t police an infinite number of establishments.

Measure D is backed by both mayoral candidates and the current city attorney and his challenger. It applies to any organization of four or more people who cultivate, process, distribute or give away medical marijuana. It hikes the gross receipts tax on their operations — to $60 per $1,000 of gross receipts — and establishes the distances they must keep from schools, parks, one another and residential neighborhoods. It sets hours — they must be closed between 8 p.m. and 10 a.m. — prohibits the consumption of marijuana on the premises and requires background checks on managers, among other provisions.

It is far from perfect. For one thing, it is somewhat arbitrary. Why should a handful of dispensaries that got in under the wire in 2007 be the ones that now get to stay open? There’s no reason to think those particular establishments are more responsible than any other. For another, if it is passed, the city will be required to close hundreds of existing dispensaries, which could prove difficult, legally and practically. Here’s another thing: Measure D doesn’t create a process for a new dispensary to open when one of the 135 closes; that seems like an unfortunate oversight. And it would be far better if the measure could be amended or repealed by the City Council without requiring an additional vote of the people. But it cannot.

Still, Measure D is the best of the bunch.

Measure F, by contrast, sets no limits. It includes some strong rules and protections — in some cases stronger than those in D. But the city simply can’t sustain an unlimited number of dispensaries. Supporters of F say there would be de facto limits as a result of the requirements about how close dispensaries could be to schools, parks and one another, and that the final number would be in the hundreds. But what guarantee is there? Certainly nothing in the law.

As for Measure E — ignore it. That measure became moot after its supporters agreed to throw their support to Measure D.

No matter what you think of medical marijuana, it’s hard to deny that implementation of Proposition 215 has been unsuccessful. The Legislature and the state attorney general’s office were late to offer much-needed guidance. The federal government sent mixed messages about what it would or would not tolerate. The city of Los Angeles has flailed around, trying and failing to devise a workable set of rules.

Even if Measure D passes, there will still be no way to ensure that medical marijuana goes only to the sick people who are entitled to it, or that the product being sold is safe and untainted. Moreover, there will still be no resolution to the ongoing conflict between state and federal law. Perhaps one day the U.S. government will decide that marijuana should no longer be a Schedule I controlled substance, which means it has no medical use and is as dangerous as heroin. If that happens, perhaps the Food and Drug Administration will regulate it, doctors across the country will be able to prescribe it for patients they believe need it, and pharmacies will be able to provide it, just as they do with other medicines.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Published: May 10, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.latimes.com/

1 2 3 4