Monday, September 21, 2009
Pot Sales Go Legit!!
pot sales go legit is the title for money.com although don't get too comfortable as they are still doing raids with federal resources and involvement in San Diego and LA area. They have targeted over 30 clubs...updates coming soon. Here is the news from the fully legit or longterm bay area club founders:) thanks Mr. Lee
Friday, September 11, 2009
MS PATIENT PUNISHED FOR MEDICAL POT
AN MS PATIENT WAS PUNISHED BELOW FOR HIS CHOICE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS....
WE WILL EDUCATE AND HELP GAIN AWARENESS TO THIS AS WELL AS MANY OTHER ISSUES SURROUNDING MEDICAL CANNABIS BOTH NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE...PLEASE EMAIL US STORIES.
THIS BRINGS TO MIND THE MANY NEEDS, DEMANDS AND NEW EXPANDED CANNABIS SERVICES WHICH CA CANNABIS CAREGIVERS SHOULD OFFER TO PATIENTS...
WE WILL EDUCATE AND HELP GAIN AWARENESS TO THIS AS WELL AS MANY OTHER ISSUES SURROUNDING MEDICAL CANNABIS BOTH NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE...PLEASE EMAIL US STORIES.
THIS BRINGS TO MIND THE MANY NEEDS, DEMANDS AND NEW EXPANDED CANNABIS SERVICES WHICH CA CANNABIS CAREGIVERS SHOULD OFFER TO PATIENTS...
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
"TIME TO IGNITE" WITH THE PURPLE DANK ENERGY HEMP INFUSION THE HEALTHIEST ENERGY DRINK WITH OMEGA 3 AND 6(EFA'S)GUARANA AND YERBA MATE GREEN TEA
"TIME TO IGNITE" WITH THE PURPLE DANK ENERGY HEMP INFUSION THE HEALTHIEST ENERGY DRINK WITH OMEGA 3 AND 6(EFA'S)GUARANA AND YERBA MATE GREEN TEA ANYTIME,ANYWHERE ...ITS ALWAYS 420 SOMEWHERE
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Landmark Ruling Issued on Collective Cultivation of Medical Marijuana
For Immediate Release: July 1st, 2009
Landmark Ruling Issued on Collective Cultivation of Medical Marijuana
Appellate court protects collective cultivation and affirms civil actions by patients
Sacramento, CA -- The California Third District Court of Appeal issued a landmark ruling today on the right under state law of patients to collectively cultivate. The 2-1 appellate court decision stems from the case County of Butte v. Superior Court involving a private medical marijuana collective of 7 patients in Paradise, California. The nationwide advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a lawsuit in May 2006 on behalf of 56-year-old David Williams and six other collective members after a 2005 warrantless search of his home. Williams was forced by the Butte County Sheriff to uproot more than two-dozen plants or face arrest and prosecution. Contrary to state law, which allows for collective cultivation, Williams was told by the Sheriff that it was not lawful to grow collectively for multiple patients.
"This ruling by the California Courts sends yet another strong message to state law enforcement that they must abide by the medical marijuana laws of the state and not the competing federal laws," said Joe Elford, ASA Chief Counsel and the attorney that litigated the case on behalf of Williams. Today's appellate court ruling affirmed this position by concluding that, "the deputy was acting under color of California law, not federal law. Accordingly, the propriety of his conduct is measured by California law."
The appellate court also stated that to deny patients protection from warrantless intrusions and seizures by law enforcement "would surely shock the sensibilities of the voters who approved [Proposition 215]." Especially worthy of note is the appellate court's assertion that the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 is not simply an affirmative defense to criminal sanctions, but "...we see an opportunity for an individual to request the same constitutional guarantee of due process available to all individuals, no matter what their status, under the state Constitution. The fact that this case involves medical marijuana and a qualified medical marijuana patient does not change these fundamental constitutional rights or an individual's right to assert them."
Today's appellate court decision upholds Butte County Superior Court Judge Barbara Roberts' ruling from September 2007, in which she states that seriously ill patients cultivating collectively "should not be required to risk criminal penalties and the stress and expense of a criminal trial in order to assert their rights." Judge Roberts' ruling also rejected Butte County's policy of requiring all members to physically participate in the cultivation, thereby allowing collective members to "contribute financially."
Even in his dissenting opinion, Court of Appeal Judge James Morrison stated that, "the United States Congress should reconsider its refusal to amend the federal drug laws to make reasonable accommodation for the 13 states that have enacted some form of compassionate use exception to their penal codes."
ASA was compelled to file the Williams lawsuit after receiving repeated reports of unlawful behavior by Butte County law enforcement, as well as by other police agencies throughout the state. After uncovering Butte County's de facto ban on medical marijuana patient collectives, ASA decided to pursue the case to show that collectives and cooperatives are protected under state law. "In addition to protecting patients' right to collectively cultivate, the Court has reaffirmed that medical marijuana patients enjoy the same constitutional rights as everyone else, including the ability to file civil rights actions when those rights are violated," continued Elford.
Further information:
Today's ruling by the California Third District Court of Appeal: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Butte_Appellate_Decision.pdf
Information on Butte Case: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/Butte
Landmark Ruling Issued on Collective Cultivation of Medical Marijuana
Appellate court protects collective cultivation and affirms civil actions by patients
Sacramento, CA -- The California Third District Court of Appeal issued a landmark ruling today on the right under state law of patients to collectively cultivate. The 2-1 appellate court decision stems from the case County of Butte v. Superior Court involving a private medical marijuana collective of 7 patients in Paradise, California. The nationwide advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a lawsuit in May 2006 on behalf of 56-year-old David Williams and six other collective members after a 2005 warrantless search of his home. Williams was forced by the Butte County Sheriff to uproot more than two-dozen plants or face arrest and prosecution. Contrary to state law, which allows for collective cultivation, Williams was told by the Sheriff that it was not lawful to grow collectively for multiple patients.
"This ruling by the California Courts sends yet another strong message to state law enforcement that they must abide by the medical marijuana laws of the state and not the competing federal laws," said Joe Elford, ASA Chief Counsel and the attorney that litigated the case on behalf of Williams. Today's appellate court ruling affirmed this position by concluding that, "the deputy was acting under color of California law, not federal law. Accordingly, the propriety of his conduct is measured by California law."
The appellate court also stated that to deny patients protection from warrantless intrusions and seizures by law enforcement "would surely shock the sensibilities of the voters who approved [Proposition 215]." Especially worthy of note is the appellate court's assertion that the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 is not simply an affirmative defense to criminal sanctions, but "...we see an opportunity for an individual to request the same constitutional guarantee of due process available to all individuals, no matter what their status, under the state Constitution. The fact that this case involves medical marijuana and a qualified medical marijuana patient does not change these fundamental constitutional rights or an individual's right to assert them."
Today's appellate court decision upholds Butte County Superior Court Judge Barbara Roberts' ruling from September 2007, in which she states that seriously ill patients cultivating collectively "should not be required to risk criminal penalties and the stress and expense of a criminal trial in order to assert their rights." Judge Roberts' ruling also rejected Butte County's policy of requiring all members to physically participate in the cultivation, thereby allowing collective members to "contribute financially."
Even in his dissenting opinion, Court of Appeal Judge James Morrison stated that, "the United States Congress should reconsider its refusal to amend the federal drug laws to make reasonable accommodation for the 13 states that have enacted some form of compassionate use exception to their penal codes."
ASA was compelled to file the Williams lawsuit after receiving repeated reports of unlawful behavior by Butte County law enforcement, as well as by other police agencies throughout the state. After uncovering Butte County's de facto ban on medical marijuana patient collectives, ASA decided to pursue the case to show that collectives and cooperatives are protected under state law. "In addition to protecting patients' right to collectively cultivate, the Court has reaffirmed that medical marijuana patients enjoy the same constitutional rights as everyone else, including the ability to file civil rights actions when those rights are violated," continued Elford.
Further information:
Today's ruling by the California Third District Court of Appeal: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Butte_Appellate_Decision.pdf
Information on Butte Case: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/Butte
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Court Strikes Down SB420 Limits
Court Strikes Down SB420 Limits
Los Angeles, May 22, 2008: The Second District of California Court of Appeals ruled that the state limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation established under state law SB 420 are unconstitutional.
In the case People v. Patrick Kelly, the court overturned defendant's conviction for possessing 12 ounces of dried marijuana plants on the grounds that the prosecutor had improperly argued that the defendant was guilty because he possessed more than the 8-ounce limit established in Health & Safety Code Sec. 11362.77 and did not have a doctor's recommendation authorizing more. (Text of Kelly decision).
The Court validated the long-standing view of California NORML and other Prop 215 advocates that the SB 420 limits are unconstitutional. Cal NORML attorneys have successfully argued the point in several lower court cases, but this is the first time it has been addressed by an appellate court.
In a 3-0 decision, the court ruled: "The prosecutor's argument was improper. It was improper because the CUA [Compassionate Use Act] can only be amended with voters' approval. Voters, however, did not approve the eight-ounce limit and other caps in section 11362.77 [of SB420]; hence, section 11362.77 unconstitutionally amends the CUA." The decision is certified for partial publication, pending possible appeal to the Supreme Court.
The full implications of the Kelly decision remain unclear. In particular, it is not clear whether it rules out the use of SB 420 numbers as guidelines to protect patients with state ID cards from arrest. The court's reasoning would seem to apply only when the SB 420 numbers are used to limit patients' rights, not when they are used to protect them. However, the court's sweeping pronouncement that this section of SB 420 is "unconstitutional" might be interpreted otherwise by police who would prefer to ignore it. Further litigation therefore seems likely.
Ironically, the court noted that the constitutional problems in SB 420 could have been avoided by enactment of Sen. Vasconcellos' proposed "SB 420 Clean-Up" bill SB 1494 in 2004. That bill made it clear that qualified patients could legally possess whatever amount of marijuana was consistent with their needs. However, SB 1494 was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger on the grounds it removed "reasonable and established quantity guidelines."
One incidental casualty of the Kelly decision was Mendocino's Measure B anti-pot initiative, aimed at rolling back the county's limits for medical marijuana cultivation from 25 to 6 plants. Measure B specifically cites the clause in SB 420 that was struck down in the Kelly decision, H&SC 11362.77. Measure B therefore appears to rest on invalid law, making it vulnerable to legal and political challenge.
The Attorney General's office announced that it would appeal the Kelly ruling.
Text of the Kelly decision
UPDATE 8/14/08 - State top court to review medical pot limit
Los Angeles, May 22, 2008: The Second District of California Court of Appeals ruled that the state limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation established under state law SB 420 are unconstitutional.
In the case People v. Patrick Kelly, the court overturned defendant's conviction for possessing 12 ounces of dried marijuana plants on the grounds that the prosecutor had improperly argued that the defendant was guilty because he possessed more than the 8-ounce limit established in Health & Safety Code Sec. 11362.77 and did not have a doctor's recommendation authorizing more. (Text of Kelly decision).
The Court validated the long-standing view of California NORML and other Prop 215 advocates that the SB 420 limits are unconstitutional. Cal NORML attorneys have successfully argued the point in several lower court cases, but this is the first time it has been addressed by an appellate court.
In a 3-0 decision, the court ruled: "The prosecutor's argument was improper. It was improper because the CUA [Compassionate Use Act] can only be amended with voters' approval. Voters, however, did not approve the eight-ounce limit and other caps in section 11362.77 [of SB420]; hence, section 11362.77 unconstitutionally amends the CUA." The decision is certified for partial publication, pending possible appeal to the Supreme Court.
The full implications of the Kelly decision remain unclear. In particular, it is not clear whether it rules out the use of SB 420 numbers as guidelines to protect patients with state ID cards from arrest. The court's reasoning would seem to apply only when the SB 420 numbers are used to limit patients' rights, not when they are used to protect them. However, the court's sweeping pronouncement that this section of SB 420 is "unconstitutional" might be interpreted otherwise by police who would prefer to ignore it. Further litigation therefore seems likely.
Ironically, the court noted that the constitutional problems in SB 420 could have been avoided by enactment of Sen. Vasconcellos' proposed "SB 420 Clean-Up" bill SB 1494 in 2004. That bill made it clear that qualified patients could legally possess whatever amount of marijuana was consistent with their needs. However, SB 1494 was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger on the grounds it removed "reasonable and established quantity guidelines."
One incidental casualty of the Kelly decision was Mendocino's Measure B anti-pot initiative, aimed at rolling back the county's limits for medical marijuana cultivation from 25 to 6 plants. Measure B specifically cites the clause in SB 420 that was struck down in the Kelly decision, H&SC 11362.77. Measure B therefore appears to rest on invalid law, making it vulnerable to legal and political challenge.
The Attorney General's office announced that it would appeal the Kelly ruling.
Text of the Kelly decision
UPDATE 8/14/08 - State top court to review medical pot limit
Monday, August 17, 2009
Oakland's marijuana legalization initiative is still a Trojan Horse August 16, 3:54 PM · J. Craig Canada -
Oakland's marijuana legalization initiative is still a Trojan Horse
August 16, 3:54 PM · J. Craig Canada - Santa Cruz County Drug Policy Examiner
While Oakland's Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010) has been amended to exclude California's current medical marijuana laws from two items, it could still be a Trojan Horse.
For one thing, the two items that exempt California's current medical marijuana laws apply only to sales, tax, and possession; and this only in cities.
Nowhere in the proposition are medical marijuana patients, providers, and caregivers exempted from its cultivation, distribution, transportation, licensing, and administration requirements. And nowhere does the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" apply to "local government" or "county".
Proposition 215, The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, became California Health and Safety Code §11362.5. The California Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) was passed by the legislature as SB 420 and signed by Governor Gray Davis in 2003, just before he was recalled and replaced with Arnold Schwarzenegger. It became California Health & Safety Codes §11362.7 through §11362.83.
Initiatives in California are of higher legal authority than legislation and therefore Prop 215 (§11362.5) trumps the MMP (§11362.7 through §11362.83).
What's wrong with the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010)
The first thing to note is the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9". There is no California Health & Safety Code §11362.9. There are no California Health & Safety Codes between §11362.83 and §11363.
The next thing to note is the use of the words "city", "county", and "local government". In §11304(d)(vi) ROT 2010 defines "local government" as "city", "county", or "city and county". (Coincidentally, there is only one city/county in California and that is San Francisco.)
ROT 2010 consists of 5 sections: 1 - Name; 2 - Findings, Intents, and Purposes; 3 - Lawful Activities; 4 - Prohibition on Furnishing Cannabis to Minors; and 5 - Amendment.
The first two sections are essentially window dressing and have no direct effect on law except, perhaps, to act as guidance when questions of interpretation arise. It is in Sections 3, 4, and 5 that the actual legal language appears.
The amendments to ROT 2010 made 4 Aug 09 consist of appending the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" to items 7 and 8 of Section 2 under Purposes. Neither the word "county" nor the phrase "local government" appear in these items, but only the word "city". Further, those items are specific to buying, selling, taxing, possession, and consumption. The words, "cultivation", "processing", and "transportation" do not appear.
Items 7 and 8 have to do with prohibiting sales in "cities" that do not tax marijuana while allowing the possession and consumption of small amounts for personal use in private.
While it appears the intent of the amendments is to prevent ROT 2010 from impacting current California medical marijuana law, patients, and providers; a strict reading reveals this is not what it says.
Ironically, it appears that while it would be illegal to sell recreational marijuana in a city that doesn't tax it, selling recreational marijuana in an unincorporated area where the county is the "local government" would be legal unless and until the county enacts a marijuana tax or prohibits sales. Could it be argued that if ROT 2010 had meant "county" or "local government" it would have said it?
Previously, I stated this initiative was a treacherous Byzantine Maze and a Trojan Horse. Then, upon learning it had been amended I published an article announcing that it no longer appeared any of the initiatives filed in California would threaten California's current medical marijuana laws. It now appears this may not be the case.
Section 3, Lawful Activities, is the meat of ROT 2010. It is comprised of four sections of law to be added to the California Health and Safety Code as sections 11300 through 11304.
§11300 legalizes possession, processing, and transportation of up to an ounce for personal consumption and cultivation of up to 25 square-feet for personal use. It also prohibits consumption in public and smoking marijuana anywhere children are present as well as sales except by licensed vendors. Neither the words "city", "county", or "local government" appear in this section. Since the impact of this initiative on California's current medical marijuana laws is exempted only for "cities" and only with regard to "sales", "tax", "possession" and "consumption" of marijuana, it could be interpreted to set limits for patients on possession and consumption in unincorporated areas where the local jurisdiction is the county.
Since "cultivation" is nowhere in the document related to the exemption for current California medical marijuana law, ROT 2010 could be used to set marijuana cultivation limits statewide, for medical patients as well as recreational users.
This is all the more likely because recently the California Court of Appeals struck California Health & Safety Code §11362.77 enacted by the legislature which limits the number of plants and weight of dried bud medical marijuana patients can have because it conflicts with Proposition 215 (§11362.5) which has no limits. This matter is currently on appeal to the California Supreme Court.
Since ROT 2010 as an initiative has the same authority as Proposition 215 and is 14 years afterwards, it could well be argued that it was the intent of the voters to set limits where there were none, or to allow each city or county to set limits on how much patients may cultivate and possess. This possibility is further supported by the conspicuous absence of Health & Safety Codes 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83 in the list of California laws ROT 2010 is not intended to affect in Section 2, C - Intent.
The limits in Santa Cruz County for medical marijuana patients are 3 pounds and 100 square feet of canopy. Three pounds is what your average medical marijuana patient will use in one year. Twenty-five square feet is about enough room to bloom a couple of plants. If you're lucky, an indoor plant will yield 2.5 ounces. If you're not, you'll get an ounce or less per plant. The bloom cycle is 8 weeks and it takes at least as long to grow a clone to the point it will produce enough bud to be worth harvesting.
A perpetual garden requires at least two different areas with different lighting; one for cloning and growing the clones in a vegetative state, and another for blooming the clones. Many patients would not be able to supply themselves if limited to 25 square feet total for their grow area, particularly those who are not master gardeners, and especially if they grow outdoors and can only bring in one crop a year.
And then there are crop failures.
Take a look at its proposed §11300(a):
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual's personal consumption, and not for sale.
How does someone "share" something that is "solely for that individual's personal consumption"?
Does this section apply "notwithstanding" current California medical marijuana laws?
Similarly, §11301 states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of state and local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit, or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
...(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years of age or older, for personal consumption and not for resale
Does "Notwithstanding any other provision of state and local law..." include California Health & Safety Codes 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83?
Could this be used to argue that sales to medical marijuana patients under 21 years of age is prohibited in unincorporated areas where the local jurisdiction is the county?
Keep in mind, California's current medical marijuana laws are only exempted from the provisions of ROT 2010 in "cities" and with regard to "sales", "tax", "possession", and "consumption" as stated in the Purpose.
Item (k) of this section authorizes "appropriate fees or taxes pursuant to §11302". Could it be argued this was meant to authorize counties to tax medical marijuana even though it is medicine? And even though cities are not required to tax it in order to sell it to medical marijuana patients as stated in the Purpose? Why do items 7 & 8 in the Purpose say "city" instead of "local government"?
If I find this initiative treacherous and confusing, what about the voters? The legislature? The courts?
The potential points of conflict raised here are only a sample of the problems found in The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010) by Oaksterdam U.
What's wrong with the Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010)
Unfortunately, upon reflection, the Tax, Regulate, And Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010) doesn't appear to offer any more protection to medical marijuana patients than ROT 2010. While this proposition from Tax and Regulate Cannabis California 2010 states first among its intentions to "prohibit furnishing cannabis to minors under the age of 21, except for medical use", the only other place the word "medical" is found in the initiative is in item (h) under Intent which states, "Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes".
Further, while cultivation for personal consumption is permitted and there is no limit defined for personal consumption, nowhere is medical sales exempted from the $50 per ounce tax. §11302(e) states "Only Cannabis commercially cultivated, distributed and/or sold shall be taxed". Does this mean all cannabis that is not grown for personal consumption will be taxed? Are medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives commercial cultivation?
Should these initiatives make the ballot and pass, will the courts determine that the intent of the voters was to replace or supersede Proposition 215 which has withstood every challenge for more than a decade? Why-oh-why couldn't an institution that makes money teaching people the law regarding medical marijuana come up with something as clear, unambiguous, and straightforward as Tom Ammiano's Marijuana Control, Education, and Regulation Act (AB 390)? How did they get through 14 drafts without exempting current California medical marijuana law and, particularly, The Compassionate Use Act of 1996?
What's right with The Marijuana Control, Education, and Regulation Act (AB 390)
AB 390, in Section 1 (h) under intent states:
To exclude from the fees and regulations imposed by this Act marijuana that is for other uses than smoking and ingestion, and to exclude medicinal marijuana from fees under these provisions.
While it does not exclude medicinal marijuana from the "regulations" imposed by the Act, it does exclude it from the taxes and fees. Unlike either proposed initiative, this intent is written into the actual legal code under §34004(a) which states:
However, no fee shall be imposed under this part on marijuana used medicinally with a doctor's recommendation as specified in Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
Further, by listing the codes it repeals, and not including California's current medical marijuana laws among them, and as an act of the legislature and not an initiative by the people, AB 390 ensures that Proposition 215 will remain intact.
It should be noted that while AB 390 and THC 2010 have a "statutes repealed" section and do not list existing California medical marijuana laws among these statutes, ROT 2010 has no such section. Instead, it lists the statutes it is not intended to affect and does not include existing California medical marijuana laws among them.
As for the licensing, AB 390 sets limits for a commercial cultivation or wholesale license at $5,000 for the initial application and $2,500 for annual renewal.
How to fix ROT 2010
If the proponents have 15 business days from the time they filed with the attorney general to amend ROT 2010, they still have until the 18th to make amendments.
If I could, I would amend Section 2, B, 7 and 8 by replacing "city" with "local government".
I would also add Health & Safety Codes 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83 to the statutes ROT 2010 is "not intended to affect the application and enforcement of" under Section 2 C 2.
Under Section 3, change "Notwithstanding any other state or local law" and "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" to "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83".
Under Section 5, Amendment, add something like "Nothing in this section shall authorize the legislature to amend H&S 11362.5 without approval of the voters."
In addition to THC 2010 and ROT 2010, there is also The Common Sense Act of 2010. The proponents of these three California marijuana legalization initiatives will have until the time they turn in their signatures to withdraw the initiatives from the 2 Nov 2010 ballot. If more than one initiative wins, the one with the highest number of votes will trump the others.
If AB 390 should pass before the 2010 election and these initiatives have not been withdrawn, and if they win, will they be used to supersede AB 390 and dismantle Proposition 215?
For more info:
Office of The Attorney General, State of California - Initiative Measures
The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act (AB 390) - CA State Assembly | 23 Feb 09
The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010) - CA Attorney General | 15 Jul 09
The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010) - CA Attorney General | 28 Jul 09
The Common Sense Act of 2010 - California Attorney General | 4 Aug 09
Legalize Marijuana in California - The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act (AB 390)
California Cannabis Initiative - The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010)
Tax and Regulate Cannabis - The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010)
Common Sense for California - The Common Sense Act of 2010
California has three initiatives filed to legalize marijuana - Examiner.com | 10 Aug 09
Marijuana legalization and California initiatives - Examiner.com | 8 Aug 09
Comparing California cannabis/marijuana legalization initiatives - Examiner.com | 31 Jul 09
Oaksterdamn U wants to tax marijuana without limit - Examiner.com | 29 Jul 09
Selling out the medical marijuana movement? - Examiner.com | 24 Jul 09
Tax Prozac not medical marijuana - Examiner.com | 20 Jul 09
Medical marijuana and pizza - Examiner.com | 19 Jul 09
Copyright 2009 Examiner.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Author
J. Craig Canada is an Examiner from San Francisco. You can see J. Craig's articles at: "http://www.Examiner.com/x-14883-Santa-Cruz-County-Drug-Policy-Examiner"
August 16, 3:54 PM · J. Craig Canada - Santa Cruz County Drug Policy Examiner
While Oakland's Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010) has been amended to exclude California's current medical marijuana laws from two items, it could still be a Trojan Horse.
For one thing, the two items that exempt California's current medical marijuana laws apply only to sales, tax, and possession; and this only in cities.
Nowhere in the proposition are medical marijuana patients, providers, and caregivers exempted from its cultivation, distribution, transportation, licensing, and administration requirements. And nowhere does the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" apply to "local government" or "county".
Proposition 215, The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, became California Health and Safety Code §11362.5. The California Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) was passed by the legislature as SB 420 and signed by Governor Gray Davis in 2003, just before he was recalled and replaced with Arnold Schwarzenegger. It became California Health & Safety Codes §11362.7 through §11362.83.
Initiatives in California are of higher legal authority than legislation and therefore Prop 215 (§11362.5) trumps the MMP (§11362.7 through §11362.83).
What's wrong with the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010)
The first thing to note is the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9". There is no California Health & Safety Code §11362.9. There are no California Health & Safety Codes between §11362.83 and §11363.
The next thing to note is the use of the words "city", "county", and "local government". In §11304(d)(vi) ROT 2010 defines "local government" as "city", "county", or "city and county". (Coincidentally, there is only one city/county in California and that is San Francisco.)
ROT 2010 consists of 5 sections: 1 - Name; 2 - Findings, Intents, and Purposes; 3 - Lawful Activities; 4 - Prohibition on Furnishing Cannabis to Minors; and 5 - Amendment.
The first two sections are essentially window dressing and have no direct effect on law except, perhaps, to act as guidance when questions of interpretation arise. It is in Sections 3, 4, and 5 that the actual legal language appears.
The amendments to ROT 2010 made 4 Aug 09 consist of appending the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" to items 7 and 8 of Section 2 under Purposes. Neither the word "county" nor the phrase "local government" appear in these items, but only the word "city". Further, those items are specific to buying, selling, taxing, possession, and consumption. The words, "cultivation", "processing", and "transportation" do not appear.
Items 7 and 8 have to do with prohibiting sales in "cities" that do not tax marijuana while allowing the possession and consumption of small amounts for personal use in private.
While it appears the intent of the amendments is to prevent ROT 2010 from impacting current California medical marijuana law, patients, and providers; a strict reading reveals this is not what it says.
Ironically, it appears that while it would be illegal to sell recreational marijuana in a city that doesn't tax it, selling recreational marijuana in an unincorporated area where the county is the "local government" would be legal unless and until the county enacts a marijuana tax or prohibits sales. Could it be argued that if ROT 2010 had meant "county" or "local government" it would have said it?
Previously, I stated this initiative was a treacherous Byzantine Maze and a Trojan Horse. Then, upon learning it had been amended I published an article announcing that it no longer appeared any of the initiatives filed in California would threaten California's current medical marijuana laws. It now appears this may not be the case.
Section 3, Lawful Activities, is the meat of ROT 2010. It is comprised of four sections of law to be added to the California Health and Safety Code as sections 11300 through 11304.
§11300 legalizes possession, processing, and transportation of up to an ounce for personal consumption and cultivation of up to 25 square-feet for personal use. It also prohibits consumption in public and smoking marijuana anywhere children are present as well as sales except by licensed vendors. Neither the words "city", "county", or "local government" appear in this section. Since the impact of this initiative on California's current medical marijuana laws is exempted only for "cities" and only with regard to "sales", "tax", "possession" and "consumption" of marijuana, it could be interpreted to set limits for patients on possession and consumption in unincorporated areas where the local jurisdiction is the county.
Since "cultivation" is nowhere in the document related to the exemption for current California medical marijuana law, ROT 2010 could be used to set marijuana cultivation limits statewide, for medical patients as well as recreational users.
This is all the more likely because recently the California Court of Appeals struck California Health & Safety Code §11362.77 enacted by the legislature which limits the number of plants and weight of dried bud medical marijuana patients can have because it conflicts with Proposition 215 (§11362.5) which has no limits. This matter is currently on appeal to the California Supreme Court.
Since ROT 2010 as an initiative has the same authority as Proposition 215 and is 14 years afterwards, it could well be argued that it was the intent of the voters to set limits where there were none, or to allow each city or county to set limits on how much patients may cultivate and possess. This possibility is further supported by the conspicuous absence of Health & Safety Codes 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83 in the list of California laws ROT 2010 is not intended to affect in Section 2, C - Intent.
The limits in Santa Cruz County for medical marijuana patients are 3 pounds and 100 square feet of canopy. Three pounds is what your average medical marijuana patient will use in one year. Twenty-five square feet is about enough room to bloom a couple of plants. If you're lucky, an indoor plant will yield 2.5 ounces. If you're not, you'll get an ounce or less per plant. The bloom cycle is 8 weeks and it takes at least as long to grow a clone to the point it will produce enough bud to be worth harvesting.
A perpetual garden requires at least two different areas with different lighting; one for cloning and growing the clones in a vegetative state, and another for blooming the clones. Many patients would not be able to supply themselves if limited to 25 square feet total for their grow area, particularly those who are not master gardeners, and especially if they grow outdoors and can only bring in one crop a year.
And then there are crop failures.
Take a look at its proposed §11300(a):
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual's personal consumption, and not for sale.
How does someone "share" something that is "solely for that individual's personal consumption"?
Does this section apply "notwithstanding" current California medical marijuana laws?
Similarly, §11301 states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of state and local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit, or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
...(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years of age or older, for personal consumption and not for resale
Does "Notwithstanding any other provision of state and local law..." include California Health & Safety Codes 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83?
Could this be used to argue that sales to medical marijuana patients under 21 years of age is prohibited in unincorporated areas where the local jurisdiction is the county?
Keep in mind, California's current medical marijuana laws are only exempted from the provisions of ROT 2010 in "cities" and with regard to "sales", "tax", "possession", and "consumption" as stated in the Purpose.
Item (k) of this section authorizes "appropriate fees or taxes pursuant to §11302". Could it be argued this was meant to authorize counties to tax medical marijuana even though it is medicine? And even though cities are not required to tax it in order to sell it to medical marijuana patients as stated in the Purpose? Why do items 7 & 8 in the Purpose say "city" instead of "local government"?
If I find this initiative treacherous and confusing, what about the voters? The legislature? The courts?
The potential points of conflict raised here are only a sample of the problems found in The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010) by Oaksterdam U.
What's wrong with the Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010)
Unfortunately, upon reflection, the Tax, Regulate, And Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010) doesn't appear to offer any more protection to medical marijuana patients than ROT 2010. While this proposition from Tax and Regulate Cannabis California 2010 states first among its intentions to "prohibit furnishing cannabis to minors under the age of 21, except for medical use", the only other place the word "medical" is found in the initiative is in item (h) under Intent which states, "Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes".
Further, while cultivation for personal consumption is permitted and there is no limit defined for personal consumption, nowhere is medical sales exempted from the $50 per ounce tax. §11302(e) states "Only Cannabis commercially cultivated, distributed and/or sold shall be taxed". Does this mean all cannabis that is not grown for personal consumption will be taxed? Are medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives commercial cultivation?
Should these initiatives make the ballot and pass, will the courts determine that the intent of the voters was to replace or supersede Proposition 215 which has withstood every challenge for more than a decade? Why-oh-why couldn't an institution that makes money teaching people the law regarding medical marijuana come up with something as clear, unambiguous, and straightforward as Tom Ammiano's Marijuana Control, Education, and Regulation Act (AB 390)? How did they get through 14 drafts without exempting current California medical marijuana law and, particularly, The Compassionate Use Act of 1996?
What's right with The Marijuana Control, Education, and Regulation Act (AB 390)
AB 390, in Section 1 (h) under intent states:
To exclude from the fees and regulations imposed by this Act marijuana that is for other uses than smoking and ingestion, and to exclude medicinal marijuana from fees under these provisions.
While it does not exclude medicinal marijuana from the "regulations" imposed by the Act, it does exclude it from the taxes and fees. Unlike either proposed initiative, this intent is written into the actual legal code under §34004(a) which states:
However, no fee shall be imposed under this part on marijuana used medicinally with a doctor's recommendation as specified in Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
Further, by listing the codes it repeals, and not including California's current medical marijuana laws among them, and as an act of the legislature and not an initiative by the people, AB 390 ensures that Proposition 215 will remain intact.
It should be noted that while AB 390 and THC 2010 have a "statutes repealed" section and do not list existing California medical marijuana laws among these statutes, ROT 2010 has no such section. Instead, it lists the statutes it is not intended to affect and does not include existing California medical marijuana laws among them.
As for the licensing, AB 390 sets limits for a commercial cultivation or wholesale license at $5,000 for the initial application and $2,500 for annual renewal.
How to fix ROT 2010
If the proponents have 15 business days from the time they filed with the attorney general to amend ROT 2010, they still have until the 18th to make amendments.
If I could, I would amend Section 2, B, 7 and 8 by replacing "city" with "local government".
I would also add Health & Safety Codes 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83 to the statutes ROT 2010 is "not intended to affect the application and enforcement of" under Section 2 C 2.
Under Section 3, change "Notwithstanding any other state or local law" and "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" to "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83".
Under Section 5, Amendment, add something like "Nothing in this section shall authorize the legislature to amend H&S 11362.5 without approval of the voters."
In addition to THC 2010 and ROT 2010, there is also The Common Sense Act of 2010. The proponents of these three California marijuana legalization initiatives will have until the time they turn in their signatures to withdraw the initiatives from the 2 Nov 2010 ballot. If more than one initiative wins, the one with the highest number of votes will trump the others.
If AB 390 should pass before the 2010 election and these initiatives have not been withdrawn, and if they win, will they be used to supersede AB 390 and dismantle Proposition 215?
For more info:
Office of The Attorney General, State of California - Initiative Measures
The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act (AB 390) - CA State Assembly | 23 Feb 09
The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010) - CA Attorney General | 15 Jul 09
The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010) - CA Attorney General | 28 Jul 09
The Common Sense Act of 2010 - California Attorney General | 4 Aug 09
Legalize Marijuana in California - The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act (AB 390)
California Cannabis Initiative - The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010)
Tax and Regulate Cannabis - The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010)
Common Sense for California - The Common Sense Act of 2010
California has three initiatives filed to legalize marijuana - Examiner.com | 10 Aug 09
Marijuana legalization and California initiatives - Examiner.com | 8 Aug 09
Comparing California cannabis/marijuana legalization initiatives - Examiner.com | 31 Jul 09
Oaksterdamn U wants to tax marijuana without limit - Examiner.com | 29 Jul 09
Selling out the medical marijuana movement? - Examiner.com | 24 Jul 09
Tax Prozac not medical marijuana - Examiner.com | 20 Jul 09
Medical marijuana and pizza - Examiner.com | 19 Jul 09
Copyright 2009 Examiner.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Author
J. Craig Canada is an Examiner from San Francisco. You can see J. Craig's articles at: "http://www.Examiner.com/x-14883-Santa-Cruz-County-Drug-Policy-Examiner"
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Pot Collective Sprouts In Retirement Community
If you want to see my ideal group that will be successful!??
Pot Collective Sprouts In Retirement Community
by Debra Baer
If you would like to discuss patients working collectively, pot, the cannabiz or even the political pot world..Let's talk. Everything but legal advice. I cannot and will not give legal advice.
Pot Collective Sprouts In Retirement Community
by Debra Baer
If you would like to discuss patients working collectively, pot, the cannabiz or even the political pot world..Let's talk. Everything but legal advice. I cannot and will not give legal advice.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
100 million Americans say yes to marijuana
100 million Americans say yes to marijuana
19 May, 2009, 02:28
Marijuana is America’s largest cost crop, said pro-pot advocate in Washington, Aaron Houston, the Director of Government Relations for the Marijuana Policy Project.
It is bigger than corn and wheat combined with a value of about $36 billion per year; and if marijuana wholesale is legalized, not just for medical purposes, the US would make between $14 and $40 billion from the drug.
“There are 13 US states that have legalized medical marijuana but there are about 100 million Americans using marijuana and those people want to admit to government’s survey takers that they have used it,” Houston said.
“Clearly, when we have 100 million people saying they used it to government survey takers it probably would stand to reason. But that number is actually higher because certain people just do not want to tell someone from the government that they have used marijuana, a kind of illegal substance,” he said.
Supporters of legalization say the drug helps to relieve pain and may have huge financial benefit for the country.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
California: How to get a medical marijuana permit August 9, 10:13 PM · Angela Macdonald - NORML Examiner The golden state offers medical marijuana...
California: How to get a medical marijuana permit
August 9, 10:13 PM · Angela Macdonald - NORML Examiner
The golden state offers medical marijuana protection
and safe access to medicine for thousands of citizens
(Google Images)
If you live in California and you are interested in a medical marijuana permit, you are one of the lucky in the United States. Your state offers plenty of dispensaries and medical marijuana clinics with compassionate doctors. You also live in the one state that allows medical marijuana use for certain mental illnesses.
The state of California medical marijuana program is administered by individual counties. Recently San Diego and San Bernardino counties were ordered to begin issuing medical marijuana I.D. cards. Not all counties have I.D. programs in place yet.
To obtain a medical marijuana permit you can visit one of many clinics in the state. Once you obtain your I.D. card you can visit various dispensaries, co-ops, caregivers, or you can grow your own medicine. Often times, the dispensary will give you an I.D. card specific to their dispensary. The state offers a verification program, where dispensaries can verify a patient’s I.D. card online.
For a list of qualifying conditions in California click here.
August 9, 10:13 PM · Angela Macdonald - NORML Examiner
The golden state offers medical marijuana protection
and safe access to medicine for thousands of citizens
(Google Images)
If you live in California and you are interested in a medical marijuana permit, you are one of the lucky in the United States. Your state offers plenty of dispensaries and medical marijuana clinics with compassionate doctors. You also live in the one state that allows medical marijuana use for certain mental illnesses.
The state of California medical marijuana program is administered by individual counties. Recently San Diego and San Bernardino counties were ordered to begin issuing medical marijuana I.D. cards. Not all counties have I.D. programs in place yet.
To obtain a medical marijuana permit you can visit one of many clinics in the state. Once you obtain your I.D. card you can visit various dispensaries, co-ops, caregivers, or you can grow your own medicine. Often times, the dispensary will give you an I.D. card specific to their dispensary. The state offers a verification program, where dispensaries can verify a patient’s I.D. card online.
For a list of qualifying conditions in California click here.
Collectives and Cooperatives in SD, California Deputy district attorney of the narcotics division, Chris Lindberg
IV. GUIDELINES REGARDING COLLECTIVES AND COOPERATIVES
Under California law, medical marijuana patients and primary caregivers may “associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.” (§ 11362.775.) The following guidelines are meant to apply to qualified patients and primary caregivers who come together to collectively or cooperatively cultivate physician-recommended marijuana.
A. Business Forms: Any group that is collectively or cooperatively cultivating and distributing marijuana for medical purposes should be organized and operated in a manner that ensures the security of the crop and safeguards against diversion for non-medical purposes. The following are guidelines to help cooperatives and collectives operate within the law, and to help law enforcement determine whether they are doing so.
1.Statutory Cooperatives: A cooperative must file articles of incorporation with the state and conduct its business for the mutual benefit of its members. (Corp. Code, § 12201, 12300.) No business may call itself a “cooperative” (or “co-op”) unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the Corporations or Food and Agricultural Code. (Id. at § 12311(b).) Cooperative corporations are “democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their members as patrons.” (Id. at § 12201.) The earnings and savings of the business must be used for the general welfare of its members or equitably distributed to members in the form of cash, property, credits, or services. (Ibid.) Cooperatives must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each year. (See id. at § 12200,et seq.) Agricultural cooperatives are likewise nonprofit corporate entities “since they are not organized to make profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but only for their members as producers.” (Food & Agric. Code, § 54033.) Agricultural cooperatives share many characteristics with consumer cooperatives. (See, e.g., id. at § 54002, et seq.) Cooperatives should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.
2. Collectives: California law does not define collectives, but the dictionary defines them as “a business, farm, etc., jointly owned and operated by the members of a group.” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary; Random House, Inc.© 2006.) Applying this definition, a collective should be an organization that merely facilitates the collaborative efforts of patient and caregiver members – including the allocation of costs and revenues. As such, a collective is not a statutory entity, but as a practical matter it might have to organize as some form of business to carry out its activities. The collective should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, it should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.
From the 2008 Attorney General’s Guidelines for the Security and Non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use.
Read more: http://www.sdnn.com/attorney-generals-guidelines-for-the-security-and-non-diversion-of-marijuana-grown-for-medical-use#ixzz0NrINqe76
http://www.sdnn.com/sandieg...SD Deputy district attorney of the narcotics division, Chris Lindberg
Under California law, medical marijuana patients and primary caregivers may “associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.” (§ 11362.775.) The following guidelines are meant to apply to qualified patients and primary caregivers who come together to collectively or cooperatively cultivate physician-recommended marijuana.
A. Business Forms: Any group that is collectively or cooperatively cultivating and distributing marijuana for medical purposes should be organized and operated in a manner that ensures the security of the crop and safeguards against diversion for non-medical purposes. The following are guidelines to help cooperatives and collectives operate within the law, and to help law enforcement determine whether they are doing so.
1.Statutory Cooperatives: A cooperative must file articles of incorporation with the state and conduct its business for the mutual benefit of its members. (Corp. Code, § 12201, 12300.) No business may call itself a “cooperative” (or “co-op”) unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the Corporations or Food and Agricultural Code. (Id. at § 12311(b).) Cooperative corporations are “democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their members as patrons.” (Id. at § 12201.) The earnings and savings of the business must be used for the general welfare of its members or equitably distributed to members in the form of cash, property, credits, or services. (Ibid.) Cooperatives must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each year. (See id. at § 12200,et seq.) Agricultural cooperatives are likewise nonprofit corporate entities “since they are not organized to make profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but only for their members as producers.” (Food & Agric. Code, § 54033.) Agricultural cooperatives share many characteristics with consumer cooperatives. (See, e.g., id. at § 54002, et seq.) Cooperatives should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.
2. Collectives: California law does not define collectives, but the dictionary defines them as “a business, farm, etc., jointly owned and operated by the members of a group.” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary; Random House, Inc.© 2006.) Applying this definition, a collective should be an organization that merely facilitates the collaborative efforts of patient and caregiver members – including the allocation of costs and revenues. As such, a collective is not a statutory entity, but as a practical matter it might have to organize as some form of business to carry out its activities. The collective should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, it should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.
From the 2008 Attorney General’s Guidelines for the Security and Non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use.
Read more: http://www.sdnn.com/attorney-generals-guidelines-for-the-security-and-non-diversion-of-marijuana-grown-for-medical-use#ixzz0NrINqe76
http://www.sdnn.com/sandieg...SD Deputy district attorney of the narcotics division, Chris Lindberg
Drug-Legalizing Cop Wins Back His Free Speech Rights Press Release Sergeant Fired After Criticizing "War on Drugs," Now Reinstated
Drug-Legalizing Cop Wins Back His Free Speech Rights
Press Release Sergeant Fired After Criticizing "War on Drugs," Now Reinstated
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 13, 2009
SEATTLE, WA -- A Mountlake Terrace police sergeant who was fired after publicly criticizing the "war on drugs" has reached an $812,500 settlement in a lawsuit he filed against the city and police department, among others. Under the settlement, Sergeant Jonathan Wender has been reinstated on the force and is eligible to receive back pay and full retirement benefits.
“In an open society, people on the front lines of the criminal justice system have an ethical duty to speak out on controversial social and legal issues that affect the public we serve," said Sgt. Wender, a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a 10,000-strong organization representing police, prosecutors, judges and others who fought on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and who now want to legalize and regulate drugs. "The public has a fundamental right to know which laws and policies are effective, and which ones aren’t; and they should expect that their police officers will speak the truth even when it isn’t popular or comfortable to do so. I hope that the outcome of this case will help reassure police and other public officials that they can speak freely on controversial topics such as the urgent need to seek better ways to deal with the crisis of drugs that plagues American society.”
Sgt. Wender joined the police force in 1990 after graduating from college and was terminated in 2005. He holds a Pd.D. from Simon Fraser University and is currently a full-time sociology professor at the University of Washington. As part of the settlement, Sgt. Wender is back on the payroll at the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, where he will serve on administrative leave until he retires from the force on November 10, 2010 and can then qualify for his full pension.
"Jonathan Wender's victory is ours, as well. As was his fight," said Norm Stamper, the retired Seattle police chief and LEAP member. "Because of this fine man's courage and perseverance, and his willingness to tell the truth about the 'drug war,' we've all moved closer to putting an end to that war. I believe police officers across the country will be moved by Jonathan's example, and will raise their voices in support of LEAP's goal of ending drug prohibition."
The lawsuit was filed against the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office, the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, the City of Mountlake Terrace, the City of Lynnwood, and a handful of individual defendants.
For more information about LEAP, please contact Tom Angell at (202) 557-4979 or media@leap.cc www.leap.cc
Press Release Sergeant Fired After Criticizing "War on Drugs," Now Reinstated
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 13, 2009
SEATTLE, WA -- A Mountlake Terrace police sergeant who was fired after publicly criticizing the "war on drugs" has reached an $812,500 settlement in a lawsuit he filed against the city and police department, among others. Under the settlement, Sergeant Jonathan Wender has been reinstated on the force and is eligible to receive back pay and full retirement benefits.
“In an open society, people on the front lines of the criminal justice system have an ethical duty to speak out on controversial social and legal issues that affect the public we serve," said Sgt. Wender, a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a 10,000-strong organization representing police, prosecutors, judges and others who fought on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and who now want to legalize and regulate drugs. "The public has a fundamental right to know which laws and policies are effective, and which ones aren’t; and they should expect that their police officers will speak the truth even when it isn’t popular or comfortable to do so. I hope that the outcome of this case will help reassure police and other public officials that they can speak freely on controversial topics such as the urgent need to seek better ways to deal with the crisis of drugs that plagues American society.”
Sgt. Wender joined the police force in 1990 after graduating from college and was terminated in 2005. He holds a Pd.D. from Simon Fraser University and is currently a full-time sociology professor at the University of Washington. As part of the settlement, Sgt. Wender is back on the payroll at the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, where he will serve on administrative leave until he retires from the force on November 10, 2010 and can then qualify for his full pension.
"Jonathan Wender's victory is ours, as well. As was his fight," said Norm Stamper, the retired Seattle police chief and LEAP member. "Because of this fine man's courage and perseverance, and his willingness to tell the truth about the 'drug war,' we've all moved closer to putting an end to that war. I believe police officers across the country will be moved by Jonathan's example, and will raise their voices in support of LEAP's goal of ending drug prohibition."
The lawsuit was filed against the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office, the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, the City of Mountlake Terrace, the City of Lynnwood, and a handful of individual defendants.
For more information about LEAP, please contact Tom Angell at (202) 557-4979 or media@leap.cc www.leap.cc
Monday, August 10, 2009
We can Do it Again: Help our economy, Keep streets safer - LEAP Central Valley
As your constituent, I'm writing to you with an important question: Would you like to know how we can boost America’s ailing economy by tens of billions of dollars every year and make our communities safer?
All we have to do is learn a lesson from 75 years ago in America's history, back in December 1933, when our leaders had the good sense to stop spending so much money on the ineffective prohibition of alcohol in the midst of the Great Depression.
Today, we spend tens of billions of dollars a year arresting, prosecuting and locking up far too many Americans under this generation's failed prohibition policy, the "war on drugs." But drugs are generally cheaper, more potent and more available than at any point in history.
But that's not the worst of it. During alcohol prohibition, gangsters like Al Capone were using illegal booze profits to run rampant in our cities. Today, in addition to dealing with violent domestic gangs, we are also under attack from international cartels and terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, who make money off of drugs only because of today’s prohibition.
Ultimately, judging the merits of our drug policy - which seems to hurt countless citizens and help only violent criminals and traffickers - requires that we first have a true accounting of all its costs.
But while we know that direct government expenditures on drug prohibition cost tens of billions of dollars every year, there are also numerous corollary costs that aren't easily tallied. For example, what about tax revenue not collected from wages of drug market employees and on properties where drugs are produced? And let's not not forget the diminished wages (and tax payments) of people who find it hard to secure gainful employment because of criminal records.
That's why I'm writing to urge you to support the creation of blue ribbon commission that can take a serious look at the real cost of continuing our ineffective approach during a time of economic crisis. The results of a comprehensive review, I believe, will make it crystal clear that under our limited budgets, prohibition is a failed drug control policy that we just can't afford any longer.
Why not take a good look at the facts before our fiscal reality forces us to cut essential services that are actually necessary for protecting public health and safety for our children and families?
This is a serious issue with real consequences that we cannot afford to ignore. I look forward to reading your thoughts on what actions you think policymakers should take to solve the problems caused by our failed drug prohibition policy. Thanks in advance for your attention to this important matter.
All we have to do is learn a lesson from 75 years ago in America's history, back in December 1933, when our leaders had the good sense to stop spending so much money on the ineffective prohibition of alcohol in the midst of the Great Depression.
Today, we spend tens of billions of dollars a year arresting, prosecuting and locking up far too many Americans under this generation's failed prohibition policy, the "war on drugs." But drugs are generally cheaper, more potent and more available than at any point in history.
But that's not the worst of it. During alcohol prohibition, gangsters like Al Capone were using illegal booze profits to run rampant in our cities. Today, in addition to dealing with violent domestic gangs, we are also under attack from international cartels and terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, who make money off of drugs only because of today’s prohibition.
Ultimately, judging the merits of our drug policy - which seems to hurt countless citizens and help only violent criminals and traffickers - requires that we first have a true accounting of all its costs.
But while we know that direct government expenditures on drug prohibition cost tens of billions of dollars every year, there are also numerous corollary costs that aren't easily tallied. For example, what about tax revenue not collected from wages of drug market employees and on properties where drugs are produced? And let's not not forget the diminished wages (and tax payments) of people who find it hard to secure gainful employment because of criminal records.
That's why I'm writing to urge you to support the creation of blue ribbon commission that can take a serious look at the real cost of continuing our ineffective approach during a time of economic crisis. The results of a comprehensive review, I believe, will make it crystal clear that under our limited budgets, prohibition is a failed drug control policy that we just can't afford any longer.
Why not take a good look at the facts before our fiscal reality forces us to cut essential services that are actually necessary for protecting public health and safety for our children and families?
This is a serious issue with real consequences that we cannot afford to ignore. I look forward to reading your thoughts on what actions you think policymakers should take to solve the problems caused by our failed drug prohibition policy. Thanks in advance for your attention to this important matter.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Oakland Approves Nation's First Cannabis Business Tax Last night's landslide victory for Oakland's cannabis business tax, Measure F, by 79.9% mirrors
Oakland Approves Nation's First Cannabis Business Tax
Last night's landslide victory for Oakland's cannabis business tax,
Measure F, by 79.9% mirrors the historic 79.6% victory of San
Francisco's path-breaking medical marijuana initiative, Prop. P, in
1991. Like Prop P, Measure F seems destined to serve as a model for
cannabis reform elsewhere in the state and country.
Measure F would impose a 1.8% tax on the city's medical cannabis
businesses, raising an estimated $300,000 for the city.
Kudos to James Anthony for having proposed and authored this
measure; to Rebecca Kaplan for having shepherded it through City
Council; and to medical cannabis collective directors Steve
DeAngelo, Richard Lee, and Keith Stephenson for their enlightened
support of this landmark measure.
Thanks too to the voters of Oakland, who approved Measure Z to "tax
and regulate" marijuana in 2004 and have kept their city on the
forefront of cannabis law reform.
- Dale Gieringer, Cal NORML
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0722/p02s07-ussc.html
Christian Science Monitor, Jul 22, 2009
Oakland voters approve marijuana tax
It is the first US city to assess such a tax, which could raise
almost $300,000 in revenue next year. Opponents of the measure say it
opens the door to more crime and heavier drug use.
LOS ANGELES - Oakland, Calif., on Tuesday became the first city in
the US to assess a tax on marijuana.
State and national advocates of the tax say the victory is a
significant turning point in the history of cannabis use, paving the
way for taxation in other communities and states and establishing
more social acceptance of marijuana use.
Opponents say an irreversible threshold has been crossed, opening
the door to more crime and heavier drug use.
By a wide margin of 80 percent to 20 percent, Oakland voters
said "yes" to Measure F, which asked: "Shall City of Oakland's
business tax, which currently imposes a tax rate of $1.20 per $1,000
on 'cannabis business' gross receipts, be amended to establish a new
tax rate of $18 per $1,000 of gross receipts?"
"The voters of Oakland have sent a message to the nation that
cannabis is better treated as a legitimate, tax-paying business than
as a cause of crime and futile law-enforcement expenditures," says
Dale Gieringer, California state coordinator for the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
The city estimates that the measure will raise $294,000 in
additional tax revenue in 2010 and more in future years. Some say the
measure will provide funds to help offset the city's current $83
million deficit as well as allow police to direct their limited
resources to more serious crimes and drug offenses.
"The public is more interested in having money to preserve social
services and fight more important crimes," says Sam Singer, a
Berkeley resident and well-known PR consultant.
Mr. Singer and others say that since the passage of Proposition 218
in 1996 - which made marijuana available by prescription to relieve
pain and nausea - marijuana use in California has existed behind a
"false front": Users can go to a doctor, complain of symptoms, and
for about $100, get the doctor to write them a prescription for the
drug. A state-issued card lasts for one year.
"It's so easy to get a card that it's almost as if physicians will
help lead you to your story of chronic pain, insomnia, fatigue,
etc.," says John Diaz, editorial page editor of the San Francisco
Chronicle.
Oakland has not so much cleared up the marijuana issue so much as
found a way to contain it, Mr. Diaz says. The city is giving permits
to only four clubs, compared with a few dozen in San Francisco and
about 800 in Los Angeles.
Federal law still prohibits the use and sale of marijuana,
although US Attorney General Eric Holder has said that federal law
enforcement will no longer conduct raids in the states that have
legalized medical-marijuana use. Nationwide, about 775,000 people
were arrested for marijuana possession in 2007.
"It takes a lot of time, attention, and money to bust, prosecute,
and then incarcerate marijuana users," Singer says. "Given the
economy, this is a move that will be welcomed not just in Oakland,
but most likely in major urban cities across the nation."
Some residents in nearby communities are not happy with the Oakland vote.
"I am happy to forfeit the tax money and keep it illegal," says
Trygve Mikkelsen, a Norwegian immigrant living on the
Berkeley-Oakland border. The owner of a wine-rack business, Mr.
Mikkelsen worked on the San Francisco waterfront in the 1970s and
'80s around some people who used cannabis every day. "I preferred not
to work next to them, preferred to have conversations with other
individuals since they were affected by the drug," he says.
The father of three is convinced that younger people will have more
access to marijuana. "I prefer that it is difficult to get a hold of
and an illegal substance," he says.
Last night's landslide victory for Oakland's cannabis business tax,
Measure F, by 79.9% mirrors the historic 79.6% victory of San
Francisco's path-breaking medical marijuana initiative, Prop. P, in
1991. Like Prop P, Measure F seems destined to serve as a model for
cannabis reform elsewhere in the state and country.
Measure F would impose a 1.8% tax on the city's medical cannabis
businesses, raising an estimated $300,000 for the city.
Kudos to James Anthony for having proposed and authored this
measure; to Rebecca Kaplan for having shepherded it through City
Council; and to medical cannabis collective directors Steve
DeAngelo, Richard Lee, and Keith Stephenson for their enlightened
support of this landmark measure.
Thanks too to the voters of Oakland, who approved Measure Z to "tax
and regulate" marijuana in 2004 and have kept their city on the
forefront of cannabis law reform.
- Dale Gieringer, Cal NORML
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0722/p02s07-ussc.html
Christian Science Monitor, Jul 22, 2009
Oakland voters approve marijuana tax
It is the first US city to assess such a tax, which could raise
almost $300,000 in revenue next year. Opponents of the measure say it
opens the door to more crime and heavier drug use.
LOS ANGELES - Oakland, Calif., on Tuesday became the first city in
the US to assess a tax on marijuana.
State and national advocates of the tax say the victory is a
significant turning point in the history of cannabis use, paving the
way for taxation in other communities and states and establishing
more social acceptance of marijuana use.
Opponents say an irreversible threshold has been crossed, opening
the door to more crime and heavier drug use.
By a wide margin of 80 percent to 20 percent, Oakland voters
said "yes" to Measure F, which asked: "Shall City of Oakland's
business tax, which currently imposes a tax rate of $1.20 per $1,000
on 'cannabis business' gross receipts, be amended to establish a new
tax rate of $18 per $1,000 of gross receipts?"
"The voters of Oakland have sent a message to the nation that
cannabis is better treated as a legitimate, tax-paying business than
as a cause of crime and futile law-enforcement expenditures," says
Dale Gieringer, California state coordinator for the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
The city estimates that the measure will raise $294,000 in
additional tax revenue in 2010 and more in future years. Some say the
measure will provide funds to help offset the city's current $83
million deficit as well as allow police to direct their limited
resources to more serious crimes and drug offenses.
"The public is more interested in having money to preserve social
services and fight more important crimes," says Sam Singer, a
Berkeley resident and well-known PR consultant.
Mr. Singer and others say that since the passage of Proposition 218
in 1996 - which made marijuana available by prescription to relieve
pain and nausea - marijuana use in California has existed behind a
"false front": Users can go to a doctor, complain of symptoms, and
for about $100, get the doctor to write them a prescription for the
drug. A state-issued card lasts for one year.
"It's so easy to get a card that it's almost as if physicians will
help lead you to your story of chronic pain, insomnia, fatigue,
etc.," says John Diaz, editorial page editor of the San Francisco
Chronicle.
Oakland has not so much cleared up the marijuana issue so much as
found a way to contain it, Mr. Diaz says. The city is giving permits
to only four clubs, compared with a few dozen in San Francisco and
about 800 in Los Angeles.
Federal law still prohibits the use and sale of marijuana,
although US Attorney General Eric Holder has said that federal law
enforcement will no longer conduct raids in the states that have
legalized medical-marijuana use. Nationwide, about 775,000 people
were arrested for marijuana possession in 2007.
"It takes a lot of time, attention, and money to bust, prosecute,
and then incarcerate marijuana users," Singer says. "Given the
economy, this is a move that will be welcomed not just in Oakland,
but most likely in major urban cities across the nation."
Some residents in nearby communities are not happy with the Oakland vote.
"I am happy to forfeit the tax money and keep it illegal," says
Trygve Mikkelsen, a Norwegian immigrant living on the
Berkeley-Oakland border. The owner of a wine-rack business, Mr.
Mikkelsen worked on the San Francisco waterfront in the 1970s and
'80s around some people who used cannabis every day. "I preferred not
to work next to them, preferred to have conversations with other
individuals since they were affected by the drug," he says.
The father of three is convinced that younger people will have more
access to marijuana. "I prefer that it is difficult to get a hold of
and an illegal substance," he says.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Cannabis Delivery, Co-op, Collective, Dispensary - Work for yourself or work with others?
Want to open a medical marijuana dispensary? Have you thought it was for you? Do you want to make money? Well Think again!
Legal or not, you must have a passion for pot.
Also besides passion you must have the proof that you need the cannabis:)
Thanks to the voters, state laws, and even the attorney general..
Although still since the news and changes the feds can come at any time...Do you want that Stress? Legal Risk, and more??
As usual everything is at your fingertips. Well if you have more questions...contact me!!! NO BULL,PLAN FOR BAIL!!
Do you own a California Compassionate Club, Collective, Dispensary or Co-op? Give us your feedback.
"The Best part is seeing the patients happy, relieved, and thankful"- PCC
"I love working for myself. When you work for yourself, you work when and where you want to, and it is your choice as to how much you want to make."- Brandon
It's not for everyone...
"You should never start a business if you do not have your heart and soul in the business," "I have seen many put in the money investment but never truly put in the physical investment needed for their business to succeed. ... You have to love what you are doing."-BJM
Legal or not, you must have a passion for pot.
Also besides passion you must have the proof that you need the cannabis:)
Thanks to the voters, state laws, and even the attorney general..
Although still since the news and changes the feds can come at any time...Do you want that Stress? Legal Risk, and more??
As usual everything is at your fingertips. Well if you have more questions...contact me!!! NO BULL,PLAN FOR BAIL!!
Do you own a California Compassionate Club, Collective, Dispensary or Co-op? Give us your feedback.
"The Best part is seeing the patients happy, relieved, and thankful"- PCC
"I love working for myself. When you work for yourself, you work when and where you want to, and it is your choice as to how much you want to make."- Brandon
It's not for everyone...
"You should never start a business if you do not have your heart and soul in the business," "I have seen many put in the money investment but never truly put in the physical investment needed for their business to succeed. ... You have to love what you are doing."-BJM
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Stanislaus County Medical Marijuana ID Cards
Newshawk: http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm
Pubdate: Mon, 12 Jan 2009
Source: Modesto Bee, The (CA)
Webpage: http://www.modbee.com/1618/story/560876.html
Copyright: 2009 The Modesto Bee
Contact: letters@modbee.com
Website: http://www.modbee.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/271
Author: Tim Moran
Cited: Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors http://www.co.stanislaus.ca.us/board/index.shtm
Cited: Americans for Safe Access http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/
Cited: Marijuana Policy Project http://www.mpp.org/
Cited: California NORML http://www.canorml.org/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Proposition+215
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/dispensaries
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
MARIJUANA ID REVIEWED BY COUNTY
Stanislaus One of Dozen Without a Card Program
A medical marijuana identification card program will come before the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors sometime in the next few months. It's a program that has been in the works for more than 2 1/2 years.
Stanislaus is one of just 12 of the state's 58 counties that does not already have an identification card program, which is required by state law. The programs issue identification cards to medical marijuana users who ask for them. The cards can then be shown to law enforcement officers when patients are stopped and questioned about possession of the drug.
The cards, like the whole issue of medical marijuana, have been controversial. Two years ago, then-Stanislaus County Supervisor Ray Simon called the program "a huge fraud perpetrated on us by the state of California." Modesto Police Chief Roy Wasden also criticized the program, saying it should go through a formal U.S. Food and Drug Administration trial and be dispensed by prescription through pharmaceutical companies.
Proponents, however, point out that medical marijuana use was approved by the state's voters in 1996 in Proposition 215. The federal government still considers any marijuana use to be illegal, but proponents of Proposition 215 point out that issuing the ID cards violates neither state nor federal law -- and not issuing them would violate state law.
Stanislaus and several other counties delayed issuing the cards while legal challenges played out. Now that the ID cards have cleared legal hurdles, most counties have launched programs. San Joaquin County announced its card program last week.
The Stanislaus ID card program is under review to make sure it complies with state law, said Deputy County Counsel Dean Wright. The program will require the county to acquire camera equipment to take pictures of applicants, along with paperwork to ensure that the applicants have a doctor's recommendation. The information would then be forwarded to Sacramento, where the cards will be issued.
Some of the delay in getting the program before the Board of Supervisors has been caused by the small staff in the California Department of Public Health dedicated to overseeing the program, Wright said.
When it gets on the supervisors' agenda is still in question, because the county is wrestling with midyear budget adjustments, said Cleopathia Moore, associate director of the county Health Services Agency, which will administer the program.
The cards are completely voluntary -- medical marijuana users don't have to get them in order to comply with the state law. The cards in theory will prevent them from being arrested if police officers find them in possession of marijuana.
When the medical ID card program comes before the board, members will be faced with a decision to approve or reject a specific program. Rejecting the idea of an ID program carries a legal risk: Solano County was sued last week by Americans for Safe Access for failing to implement a card program.
Most Dispensaries Banned
In the meantime, the medical marijuana environment in California and the Northern San Joaquin Valley continues to evolve. Most of the cities in the northern valley have banned marijuana dispensaries. That leaves patients with a doctor's recommendation a choice of either driving to the Bay Area, where there are many dispensaries; seeking the drug in the underground illegal market; or growing their own, which is allowed by law in limited quantities.
Medical marijuana advocates say most patients don't want to grow their own. It takes time and some expertise, as well as a place to grow it, said Aaron Smith, California policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project.
Driving to the Bay Area is also inconvenient if not impossible for some patients, Smith said. Some patients are undergoing chemotherapy and are physically unable to cultivate plants or drive for hours to get marijuana, he said.
Sources Will Deliver
"Many are going into the black market. It's readily available in the black market, but part of the intent of Prop. 215 was that they not have to go to the black market," Smith said.
"They are pushing the market into the dark corners of society instead of open, licensed and inspected dispensaries."
The Web site of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, another marijuana advocacy group, lists several sources that will deliver marijuana to the Modesto area, but the group doesn't vouch for the reliability of the sources, said Ellen Comp, a board member and volunteer for California NORML.
Doctors are more willing to recommend marijuana to patients since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that it was a First Amendment right of doctors to make recommendations, Smith and Comp said.
In Modesto, a MediCann clinic at 725 18th St. provides patient evaluations and marijuana recommendations. MediCann is a San Francisco-based group with 12 clinics throughout the state dedicated to helping patients with medical marijuana referrals and other alternative medical treatments.
For a local county packet and information email cacaregivers @ aol.com
If you have any cannabis related questions please contact your local co-op 209-818-2932
Pubdate: Mon, 12 Jan 2009
Source: Modesto Bee, The (CA)
Webpage: http://www.modbee.com/1618/story/560876.html
Copyright: 2009 The Modesto Bee
Contact: letters@modbee.com
Website: http://www.modbee.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/271
Author: Tim Moran
Cited: Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors http://www.co.stanislaus.ca.us/board/index.shtm
Cited: Americans for Safe Access http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/
Cited: Marijuana Policy Project http://www.mpp.org/
Cited: California NORML http://www.canorml.org/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Proposition+215
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/dispensaries
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
MARIJUANA ID REVIEWED BY COUNTY
Stanislaus One of Dozen Without a Card Program
A medical marijuana identification card program will come before the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors sometime in the next few months. It's a program that has been in the works for more than 2 1/2 years.
Stanislaus is one of just 12 of the state's 58 counties that does not already have an identification card program, which is required by state law. The programs issue identification cards to medical marijuana users who ask for them. The cards can then be shown to law enforcement officers when patients are stopped and questioned about possession of the drug.
The cards, like the whole issue of medical marijuana, have been controversial. Two years ago, then-Stanislaus County Supervisor Ray Simon called the program "a huge fraud perpetrated on us by the state of California." Modesto Police Chief Roy Wasden also criticized the program, saying it should go through a formal U.S. Food and Drug Administration trial and be dispensed by prescription through pharmaceutical companies.
Proponents, however, point out that medical marijuana use was approved by the state's voters in 1996 in Proposition 215. The federal government still considers any marijuana use to be illegal, but proponents of Proposition 215 point out that issuing the ID cards violates neither state nor federal law -- and not issuing them would violate state law.
Stanislaus and several other counties delayed issuing the cards while legal challenges played out. Now that the ID cards have cleared legal hurdles, most counties have launched programs. San Joaquin County announced its card program last week.
The Stanislaus ID card program is under review to make sure it complies with state law, said Deputy County Counsel Dean Wright. The program will require the county to acquire camera equipment to take pictures of applicants, along with paperwork to ensure that the applicants have a doctor's recommendation. The information would then be forwarded to Sacramento, where the cards will be issued.
Some of the delay in getting the program before the Board of Supervisors has been caused by the small staff in the California Department of Public Health dedicated to overseeing the program, Wright said.
When it gets on the supervisors' agenda is still in question, because the county is wrestling with midyear budget adjustments, said Cleopathia Moore, associate director of the county Health Services Agency, which will administer the program.
The cards are completely voluntary -- medical marijuana users don't have to get them in order to comply with the state law. The cards in theory will prevent them from being arrested if police officers find them in possession of marijuana.
When the medical ID card program comes before the board, members will be faced with a decision to approve or reject a specific program. Rejecting the idea of an ID program carries a legal risk: Solano County was sued last week by Americans for Safe Access for failing to implement a card program.
Most Dispensaries Banned
In the meantime, the medical marijuana environment in California and the Northern San Joaquin Valley continues to evolve. Most of the cities in the northern valley have banned marijuana dispensaries. That leaves patients with a doctor's recommendation a choice of either driving to the Bay Area, where there are many dispensaries; seeking the drug in the underground illegal market; or growing their own, which is allowed by law in limited quantities.
Medical marijuana advocates say most patients don't want to grow their own. It takes time and some expertise, as well as a place to grow it, said Aaron Smith, California policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project.
Driving to the Bay Area is also inconvenient if not impossible for some patients, Smith said. Some patients are undergoing chemotherapy and are physically unable to cultivate plants or drive for hours to get marijuana, he said.
Sources Will Deliver
"Many are going into the black market. It's readily available in the black market, but part of the intent of Prop. 215 was that they not have to go to the black market," Smith said.
"They are pushing the market into the dark corners of society instead of open, licensed and inspected dispensaries."
The Web site of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, another marijuana advocacy group, lists several sources that will deliver marijuana to the Modesto area, but the group doesn't vouch for the reliability of the sources, said Ellen Comp, a board member and volunteer for California NORML.
Doctors are more willing to recommend marijuana to patients since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that it was a First Amendment right of doctors to make recommendations, Smith and Comp said.
In Modesto, a MediCann clinic at 725 18th St. provides patient evaluations and marijuana recommendations. MediCann is a San Francisco-based group with 12 clinics throughout the state dedicated to helping patients with medical marijuana referrals and other alternative medical treatments.
For a local county packet and information email cacaregivers @ aol.com
If you have any cannabis related questions please contact your local co-op 209-818-2932
A look at cannabis, CBD, and blood pressure
A look at cannabis, CBD, and blood pressure
Ask MedicalCannabisMD.com
By David Ostrow, MD
This issue’s column responds to two related questions sent in by readers that illustrate the complexity of understanding how the 100+ active ingredients in whole cannabis produce different effects depending on the genetic strain, how and where it was grown and harvested, an individual’s sensitivity to these different compounds, how much and by what route it was ingested and, as always, the setting in which it is used and what other drugs it may be combined with. To help answer these complex questions, Sunil Aggrawall, PhD, has provided most of the following information from his recently completed thesis on The Medical Geography of Cannabinoid Botanicals in Washington State: Access, Delivery, and Distress, available at sunilaggarwal.net.
Question 1: What is Cannabidiol (CBD) and do its effects on the body differ from THC?
A: There are over 100 compounds in whole cannabis — including at least 108 different cannabinoids (which, structurally, are 21-carbon terphenophenolics), flavonoids, sesquiterpenoids, and phytosterols — all pharmacologically active to varying degrees. A good general rule is that indica strains produce more CBD, and are better for chronic bodily pain and sedation; while sativa strains produce more THC and are better for antidepressant and energizing effects. But, as indicated above, these are only the two best-studied components of whole cannabis and the actual properties and effects of a particular strain or preparation, such as hash or kief, may depend more on the interplay between the total set of active ingredients — what Dr. Ethan Russo calls the “entourage effect.”
That is why medicinal cannabis users often find relief from not just depression or pain, but also inflammation, nausea/vomiting, and muscle spasticity. In addition, basic and clinical researchers are testing whole cannabis and its components for anti-cancer and anti-aging properties.
Question 2: Is cannabis good for controlling blood pressure? Since it can make your heart beat faster, is there a risk of heart attack with cannabis use? A friend once passed out from using cannabis while drunk on wine. It was very scary and made me afraid to combine cannabis with alcohol.
A: Any drug that can lower blood pressure in some individuals and at specific doses, but produce the opposite effect in others or at different doses, is considered “biphasic.” Most often, this is related to dose — one phase of the drug effect predominates at lower doses while the other phase predominates at higher doses. But with whole cannabis, we are dealing with over 100 active compounds, so it is difficult to impossible to predict what dose will have what effect beforehand. Your friend who passed out was probably reacting more to the wine they consumed than to the cannabis. When used alone, cannabis usually causes a mild increase in heart rate (tachycardia) and an insignificant rise in blood pressure.
However, persons with a variety of heart conditions, particularly those with irregular heart rhythms (dysrhythmias) or uncontrolled abnormal blood pressure, can experience more severe changes in heart rate and blood pressure from cannabis, and thus should consult with their cardiologist (who, hopefully, is knowledgeable about the pharmacology of cannabis) before using it. While there are no reported deaths due to cannabis use, there have undoubtedly been persons whose abnormal blood pressure or heart rhythm was worsened by it. This can rarely, if not recognized, lead to a heart attack, stroke or even death.
Ask MedicalCannabisMD.com
By David Ostrow, MD
This issue’s column responds to two related questions sent in by readers that illustrate the complexity of understanding how the 100+ active ingredients in whole cannabis produce different effects depending on the genetic strain, how and where it was grown and harvested, an individual’s sensitivity to these different compounds, how much and by what route it was ingested and, as always, the setting in which it is used and what other drugs it may be combined with. To help answer these complex questions, Sunil Aggrawall, PhD, has provided most of the following information from his recently completed thesis on The Medical Geography of Cannabinoid Botanicals in Washington State: Access, Delivery, and Distress, available at sunilaggarwal.net.
Question 1: What is Cannabidiol (CBD) and do its effects on the body differ from THC?
A: There are over 100 compounds in whole cannabis — including at least 108 different cannabinoids (which, structurally, are 21-carbon terphenophenolics), flavonoids, sesquiterpenoids, and phytosterols — all pharmacologically active to varying degrees. A good general rule is that indica strains produce more CBD, and are better for chronic bodily pain and sedation; while sativa strains produce more THC and are better for antidepressant and energizing effects. But, as indicated above, these are only the two best-studied components of whole cannabis and the actual properties and effects of a particular strain or preparation, such as hash or kief, may depend more on the interplay between the total set of active ingredients — what Dr. Ethan Russo calls the “entourage effect.”
That is why medicinal cannabis users often find relief from not just depression or pain, but also inflammation, nausea/vomiting, and muscle spasticity. In addition, basic and clinical researchers are testing whole cannabis and its components for anti-cancer and anti-aging properties.
Question 2: Is cannabis good for controlling blood pressure? Since it can make your heart beat faster, is there a risk of heart attack with cannabis use? A friend once passed out from using cannabis while drunk on wine. It was very scary and made me afraid to combine cannabis with alcohol.
A: Any drug that can lower blood pressure in some individuals and at specific doses, but produce the opposite effect in others or at different doses, is considered “biphasic.” Most often, this is related to dose — one phase of the drug effect predominates at lower doses while the other phase predominates at higher doses. But with whole cannabis, we are dealing with over 100 active compounds, so it is difficult to impossible to predict what dose will have what effect beforehand. Your friend who passed out was probably reacting more to the wine they consumed than to the cannabis. When used alone, cannabis usually causes a mild increase in heart rate (tachycardia) and an insignificant rise in blood pressure.
However, persons with a variety of heart conditions, particularly those with irregular heart rhythms (dysrhythmias) or uncontrolled abnormal blood pressure, can experience more severe changes in heart rate and blood pressure from cannabis, and thus should consult with their cardiologist (who, hopefully, is knowledgeable about the pharmacology of cannabis) before using it. While there are no reported deaths due to cannabis use, there have undoubtedly been persons whose abnormal blood pressure or heart rhythm was worsened by it. This can rarely, if not recognized, lead to a heart attack, stroke or even death.
Major HIV/AIDS research findings on cannabis
Major HIV/AIDS research findings on cannabis
The Lab Bench
By Jahan Marcu*
Promising research demonstrates that cannabis could be used for neuropathic pain, inhibiting HIV replication, and fighting drug-resistant bacterial infections.
Two clinical studies on smoked cannabis for HIV neuropathy
A study published by a research team at UC Davis Medical Center [1] was conducted as a double blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of 38 patients with HIV neuropathic pain. The Participants smoked medicine with a THC content of seven percent or 3.5 percent. They were scheduled for three 6-hour sessions, which were separated by at least 3 days. Their pain was significantly alleviated and the side effects were well tolerated.
Another study was conducted and published by researchers at UC San Diego [2]. This study began with 34 patients who were not responsive to other pain medication. Over the course of the study, participants received both real and placebo cigarettes. The THC content ranged from one to eight percent and was smoked four times daily for five days. Treatment phases were interrupted by two weeks of no medication. The patients continued to use their regular pain medication during the whole study. The team found that 46 percent of the 28 patients in the study gained pain relief of more than 30 percent. These studies follow previous research findings on the same topic (Abrams et al. 2007).
Cannabis-extract component inhibits HIV replication
Research efforts to find new HIV treatments often focus on viral particles that are essential for HIV replication. Plant-derived natural products are emerging as potent anti-HIV compounds which can interfere with viral particles. Researchers from Germany and Spain investigated cannabis tinctures and found extracts that inhibited HIV replication [3]. Denbinobin, a single compound, was demonstrated to be mostly responsible for the ability of the extract to inhibit HIV replication. Denbinobin was shown to directly interfere with a replication protein called NF-KB (NF-kappa B), which is considered a good target for HIV therapies because it contributes to a wide variety of cellular processes.
Cannabinoids kill antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria
Multi-drug resistant and extremely drug-resistant forms of bacteria have created a strong demand for new antibacterial drugs. In the US such strains are causing more deaths each year [4].
Developing a new antibacterial is very challenging. Only one has been introduced in the last 30 years. The antibacterial effects of cannabinoids have been documented for over 50 years, inspiring researchers in Italy to re-examine the effects of cannabinoids on these new and more dangerous forms of bacteria. The research team found that the five most common cannabinoids THC, CBD, CBG, CBC, and CBN had potent antibacterial effects. The authors conclude that mixtures of cannabinoids could also be used as cheap and biodegradable antibacterial agents.
* Email: cannabispodcast@gmail.com
Source notes for the above:
1. Wilsey, B., et al., ‘A randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of cannabis cigarettes in neuropathic pain.’
J Pain, 2008. 9(6): p. 506-21.
2. Ellis, R.J., et al., ‘Smoked medicinal cannabis for neuropathic pain in HIV: a randomized, crossover clinical trial.’ Neuropsychopharmacology, 2009. 34(3): p. 672-80.
3. Sanchez-Duffhues, G., et al., ‘Denbinobin, a naturally occurring 1,4-phenanthrenequinone, inhibits HIV-1 replication through an NF-kappaB-dependent pathway.’ Biochem Pharmacol, 2008. 76(10): p. 1240-50.
4. Appendino, G., et al., ‘Antibacterial cannabinoids from Cannabis sativa: a structure-activity study.’ J Nat Prod, 2008. 71(8): p. 1427-30.
The Lab Bench
By Jahan Marcu*
Promising research demonstrates that cannabis could be used for neuropathic pain, inhibiting HIV replication, and fighting drug-resistant bacterial infections.
Two clinical studies on smoked cannabis for HIV neuropathy
A study published by a research team at UC Davis Medical Center [1] was conducted as a double blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of 38 patients with HIV neuropathic pain. The Participants smoked medicine with a THC content of seven percent or 3.5 percent. They were scheduled for three 6-hour sessions, which were separated by at least 3 days. Their pain was significantly alleviated and the side effects were well tolerated.
Another study was conducted and published by researchers at UC San Diego [2]. This study began with 34 patients who were not responsive to other pain medication. Over the course of the study, participants received both real and placebo cigarettes. The THC content ranged from one to eight percent and was smoked four times daily for five days. Treatment phases were interrupted by two weeks of no medication. The patients continued to use their regular pain medication during the whole study. The team found that 46 percent of the 28 patients in the study gained pain relief of more than 30 percent. These studies follow previous research findings on the same topic (Abrams et al. 2007).
Cannabis-extract component inhibits HIV replication
Research efforts to find new HIV treatments often focus on viral particles that are essential for HIV replication. Plant-derived natural products are emerging as potent anti-HIV compounds which can interfere with viral particles. Researchers from Germany and Spain investigated cannabis tinctures and found extracts that inhibited HIV replication [3]. Denbinobin, a single compound, was demonstrated to be mostly responsible for the ability of the extract to inhibit HIV replication. Denbinobin was shown to directly interfere with a replication protein called NF-KB (NF-kappa B), which is considered a good target for HIV therapies because it contributes to a wide variety of cellular processes.
Cannabinoids kill antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria
Multi-drug resistant and extremely drug-resistant forms of bacteria have created a strong demand for new antibacterial drugs. In the US such strains are causing more deaths each year [4].
Developing a new antibacterial is very challenging. Only one has been introduced in the last 30 years. The antibacterial effects of cannabinoids have been documented for over 50 years, inspiring researchers in Italy to re-examine the effects of cannabinoids on these new and more dangerous forms of bacteria. The research team found that the five most common cannabinoids THC, CBD, CBG, CBC, and CBN had potent antibacterial effects. The authors conclude that mixtures of cannabinoids could also be used as cheap and biodegradable antibacterial agents.
* Email: cannabispodcast@gmail.com
Source notes for the above:
1. Wilsey, B., et al., ‘A randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of cannabis cigarettes in neuropathic pain.’
J Pain, 2008. 9(6): p. 506-21.
2. Ellis, R.J., et al., ‘Smoked medicinal cannabis for neuropathic pain in HIV: a randomized, crossover clinical trial.’ Neuropsychopharmacology, 2009. 34(3): p. 672-80.
3. Sanchez-Duffhues, G., et al., ‘Denbinobin, a naturally occurring 1,4-phenanthrenequinone, inhibits HIV-1 replication through an NF-kappaB-dependent pathway.’ Biochem Pharmacol, 2008. 76(10): p. 1240-50.
4. Appendino, G., et al., ‘Antibacterial cannabinoids from Cannabis sativa: a structure-activity study.’ J Nat Prod, 2008. 71(8): p. 1427-30.
Botanist battles Federal marijuana monopoly
Botanist battles Federal marijuana monopoly
By Fred Gardener O’Shaughnessey’s Journal
The “final” DEA decision issued Jan 12 in the case of Craker v. DEA might not be final after all. Lyle Craker is the UMass-Amherst botany professor who applied in 2001 for a DEA application to grow cannabis for use by FDA-approved medical researchers.
After a three-and-a-half-year run-around he was turned down on the grounds that the nation’s one licensed grower, Mahmoud ElSohly, U Mississippi, was meeting all the researchers’ needs. Craker appealed and after a few more years won — in the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge who heard the case — but after another year-plus of ‘review,’ as the Bush gang was exiting stage right, acting DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart, issued a ‘final’ rejection of Craker’s application.
Craker, with legal help from ACLU and Julie Carpenter of Jenner & Block (working pro bono), filed a “motion to reconsider” that could extend the case until Obama appointees are running DEA. Caren Woodson of Americans for Safe Access convinced Rep. John Oliver (D-MA, whose district includes Amherst) and 15 co-signers to send a letter urging AG Eric Holder to grant the motion. Leonhart, perhaps sensing a shift in the political winds, then gave Craker’s lawyers additional time to file a response to the “final” ruling.
The best-case scenario, according to Craker’s longtime backer Rick Doblin of Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, would be that “DEA decides to reverse its final ruling and give Craker the license, before April 1 when the current Final Ruling becomes effective.”
Worst case? “We fail to gather sufficient political pressure and end up having to sue DEA in the DC Court of Appeals, which could take years, cost lots of money, and give the Obama Administration a reason to do nothing until the litigation is completed.... Unless there is a political decision to let research take place, we could bounce back and forth between DEA and the Court of Appeals for Obama’s entire first term.”
Doblin adds, “I’d say the worst case is more likely, but that our odds for the best case are improving. ... DEA is on the defensive and needs a new strategy.”
The federal monopoly on growing cannabis for approved research has held back work in the US, but not in other parts of the world. For the most current information, subscribe to O’Shaughnessy’s Journal online at oshaughnessys.com.
By Fred Gardener O’Shaughnessey’s Journal
The “final” DEA decision issued Jan 12 in the case of Craker v. DEA might not be final after all. Lyle Craker is the UMass-Amherst botany professor who applied in 2001 for a DEA application to grow cannabis for use by FDA-approved medical researchers.
After a three-and-a-half-year run-around he was turned down on the grounds that the nation’s one licensed grower, Mahmoud ElSohly, U Mississippi, was meeting all the researchers’ needs. Craker appealed and after a few more years won — in the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge who heard the case — but after another year-plus of ‘review,’ as the Bush gang was exiting stage right, acting DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart, issued a ‘final’ rejection of Craker’s application.
Craker, with legal help from ACLU and Julie Carpenter of Jenner & Block (working pro bono), filed a “motion to reconsider” that could extend the case until Obama appointees are running DEA. Caren Woodson of Americans for Safe Access convinced Rep. John Oliver (D-MA, whose district includes Amherst) and 15 co-signers to send a letter urging AG Eric Holder to grant the motion. Leonhart, perhaps sensing a shift in the political winds, then gave Craker’s lawyers additional time to file a response to the “final” ruling.
The best-case scenario, according to Craker’s longtime backer Rick Doblin of Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, would be that “DEA decides to reverse its final ruling and give Craker the license, before April 1 when the current Final Ruling becomes effective.”
Worst case? “We fail to gather sufficient political pressure and end up having to sue DEA in the DC Court of Appeals, which could take years, cost lots of money, and give the Obama Administration a reason to do nothing until the litigation is completed.... Unless there is a political decision to let research take place, we could bounce back and forth between DEA and the Court of Appeals for Obama’s entire first term.”
Doblin adds, “I’d say the worst case is more likely, but that our odds for the best case are improving. ... DEA is on the defensive and needs a new strategy.”
The federal monopoly on growing cannabis for approved research has held back work in the US, but not in other parts of the world. For the most current information, subscribe to O’Shaughnessy’s Journal online at oshaughnessys.com.
Harborside launches lab testing program
Harborside launches lab testing program
Concentrates found to contain more CBD than do flowers
By Shiloh Brotherman
In mid-December 2008, Harborside Health Center became the first dispensary in California to offer laboratory testing of its medicine. All flowers and concentrates distributed by the Oakland collective are now laboratory tested for safety and potency. It uses plate culture analysis to detect pathogenic molds invisible to the human eye, which may pose a health hazard to patients with compromised immune systems. Potency tests use gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry/flame ionization detection to measure the percentages of three major cannabinoids: THC, CBD, and CBN.
Harborside CEO Steve DeAngelo greeted the program with enthusiasm “For first time in the history of human cannabis consumption, patients have a scientific assessment of the safety and potency of their medicine prior to ingesting it.”
The program is the result of a long and painstaking development process, undertaken in partnership with the Analytical Laboratory Project. The seeds of the program were planted at the 2007 NORML conference, when ALP founders David Lampach and Addison DeMoura met lifelong activist DeAngelo.
“Everybody we talked to said it had been tried before, but that it was impossible” said Lampach, “We never believed that; and when we met Steve, he agreed and encouraged us to develop the testing program. So we took the plunge and started purchasing equipment.”
Over the course of the next 18 months, ALP developed analytical methods in partnership with a senior bio-chemist from one of the Bay Area’s most prestigious research institutions. Additional scientific oversight is provided by London’s Institute of Psychiatry and the University of the City of London, in a partnership with the internationally renowned Beckley Foundation.
The ultimate goal of the partnership is the development of a comprehensive database to compile patient evaluations of tested medicine samples. This database could one day identify the most therapeutically active components in the cannabis plant, and guide future development of cannabinoid medicines. Lady Amanda Neidpath, Director of the Beckley Foundation, commented, “It could very well be a scientific gold mine.” After a short beta phase at Harborside, ALP will extend the testing program to dispensaries, collectives, and growers state-wide.
Results so far show that most of the medicine presented to Harborside is free of pathogenic molds; but some samples have traces of the aspergillus mold — possibly fatal to patients with very seriously compromised immune systems. Harborside returns to the grower all items found to contain any aspergillus and any that exceed American Herbal Products Assn. standards for mold content. Harborside THC content has ranged from 5.18 to 87.60 percent (including care packages and concentrates), with most flower varieties falling between 15 and 25 percent, and most concentrates between 20 and 80 percent.
Levels of CBD, a cannabinoid of intense interest to researchers, vary markedly between flowers and concentrates. CBD levels in flowers generally have been less than 1 percent, while concentrates — often made from leaf material — have up to three times more. Because researchers and some patients believe CBD has great therapeutic potential, this may be the most important finding of the program so far.
Business profile: Stressful life of pioneering 'cannabis dealer'
Business profile: Stressful life of pioneering 'cannabis dealer'
Published: 12:01AM BST 05 Aug 2006
Geoffrey Guy: ?It has been very, very difficult. Some slightly unkind things have been said about us?
Geoffrey Guy remains confident despite feeling exhausted after trying to rush MS medicine to the market, writes Katherine Griffiths
Should regulators just chill out about the cannabis-based drug for multiple sclerosis made by GW Pharmaceuticals?
Related Articles
British birds will suffer from the disappearance of set-aside land
Thank goodness the EU said 'no' to Chateau So Light 2009
MS sufferer who pioneered specialist treatment commits suicide
World Stinging Nettle Eating Championship attracts record crowd
Postmistress foils Kinder egg cannabis deliveryThe company has faced so many difficulties from watchdogs it might be enough to drive Geoffrey Guy, GW's executive chairman, to the weed he grows in huge quantities.
Guy prefers to unwind by boating in his native Dorset and does not even drink alcohol or coffee, let alone smoke dope, which he says he has never tried.
He admits running GW - the first company to attempt the complicated process of making a medicine using the entire cannabis plant - has been gruelling.
GW's main product, Sativex, is potentially a revolutionary medicine for people with MS. The under-the-tongue spray, made from cannabis grown in GW's top-secret greenhouses in the south of England, uses the plant's relaxing qualities to alleviate involuntary muscle spasms of MS patients, while not creating any of the hallucinogenic qualities of smoking a joint.
Yet, having been formed eight years ago, GW has disappointed investors by seemingly being on the brink of launching Sativex on the market, only to be thwarted by adverse regulatory rulings and disappointing results from some of its medical studies. The frustrations have led to accusations that Guy has over-promised and under-delivered.
Guy, a co-founder of GW and the G in its name, is normally relentlessly upbeat about the medical potential of cannabis.
But he concedes that the process of developing Sativex in a way that satisfies regulators has been tough: "It has been very, very difficult. I do suffer under the frustrations and some slightly unkind things have been said about us. On the other hand, spending a day with a patient restores it all, when you get a patient who says 'thank you Geoffrey for giving me my life back'."
The Barts-trained doctor points out that many of GW's hiccups with regulators were because he speeded things along. In the mid 1990s, MS patients desperate for something to alleviate their condition were using cannabis, only to find themselves charged with possession of an illegal drug. The courts tended to let them off or hand out suspended sentences, but the Home Office recognised the situation was unsatisfactory and encouraged a plan put forward by Guy to look at turning cannabis into a regulated medicine.
"When I started this programme I did it under a social, legal, medical imperative to work as quickly as possible. The transcripts of a House of Lords select committee in 2001 show it was lambasting the Department of Health for being so slow. The Department of Health was saying in late 2002 Sativex would be approved in 2004."
GW first submitted its dossier to regulators in the UK in 2003 as a treatment for both spasticity and neuropathic pain, which affects peoples nerves. To the company's dismay, it was rejected, on the grounds that separate trials should be conducted for each problem even though most MS patients suffer from both.
Two subsequent trials followed in spasticity, the latest of which was published in March. The study showed good results but just fell short of the efficacy standard demanded by regulators.
Guy admits they did not get the "slam dunk" but he insists the trials taken together show Sativex works, and he is confident that some regulators, perhaps on the Continent, will see it that way.
At the same time, GW has been doing trials of Sativex for neuropathic pain - a massive market - and is also conducting trials for cancer pain in the US.
Mindful of previous promises that have not come off, Guy is cautious about which indication it will focus on first. "I'm not saying it is going to be X or Y on a certain date. We've been caught out very badly on that before," he says.
The 51-year-old nearly died from pneumonia a few years ago and has been diagnosed with diabetes. He admits he is "exhausted", but adds "that is like saying to a marathon runner don't get tired at the end of the marathon".
He says "our European programme has been spreading, we have more positive results across the board and we have got into the US. And since the beginning of the year patients in the UK can get Sativex under prescription from their doctor."
Guy has made a lot of money in the drugs industry, though his 20pc stake in GW has almost halved in value since 2004 to about £18m.
His successes include developing narcotic analgesics and the first skin patch for hormone replacement therapy.
Guy found himself having a conversation on this subject with Margaret Thatcher, who complained about the old style hormone replacement treatment, delivered through jelly bags attached to the skin.
"I was on the British mission in Kiev in the late 1980s, on a stand about drug delivery.
"Margaret Thatcher - who is a chemist - was talking about HRT and said they are awfully crispy and fall off."
Much of Guy's work on HRT was done at Ethical, another drugs company he set up in 1985. He left it after the company "ran straight into the front of the biotech downturn" in 1996 and failed to list in London.
"I felt really, really bad about it at the time. Later it wasn't so bad when you considered that nobody else got away." The decision to leave, he says, was because "I always said if I find a time when I don't believe I can add anything the next day it is time to move on. So that is what I did."
After Ethical, Guy decided to pursue a hunch he had that cannabis might be the missing link in the naturally produced pain killers that include morphine and capsicum, from peppers.
To the doubters Guy can fairly claim he has made progress.
Sativex sales have started in Canada and there has been a small-scale distribution in Spain and the UK under a compassionate use scheme. GW has licensing partnerships with much larger drugs companies, such as Germany's Bayer and Almirall of Spain, which will net it £70m if it meets certain hurdles.
In the key American market the go-head by the Food and Drug Administration to carry out a late-stage trial on cancer pain is also a considerable opportunity.
Guy points out that due to the nature of his raw ingredients, GW's progress has been in the spotlight.
"It is like a cook being asked to choose a new recipe and being told people are going to sit in the kitchen all day and watch them make it. Every single thing, warts and all has been looked at. Most pharmaceuticals companies do not have to do that," he says.
Publishers wishing to reproduce photographs on this page should phone 44 (0) 207 538 7505 or e-mail syndication@telegraph.co.uk
Delivery Services - Deliveries and Private Caregivers BE SAFE!!
We decided to post these two videos to educate and show the SD law enforcement have choose to taken the position against private care services. One video has the purchase and everything on tape from the verification to the delivery. We also have a video which the attorney also replies. Coming soon. www.compassionatecaregivers.com
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Speaking at a press conference with DEA administrator Michelle Leonhart, Attorney General Eric Holder declared that ending medical marijuana raids
Speaking at a press conference with DEA
administrator Michelle Leonhart, Attorney General
Eric Holder declared that ending medical
marijuana raids "is now American policy."
A reporter asked, "shortly after the
inauguration there were raids on California
medical marijuana dispensaries...do you expect
these to continue?", noting that the President
had promised to end the raids in the campaign.
Holder responded, "What the President said
during the campaign...is consistent with what we
will be doing here in law enforcement. He was my
boss in the campaign....He is my boss now. What
he said in the campaign is now American policy."
!!!
The question appears about 25 minutes into the
press conference, which was devoted to an
operation against the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821
administrator Michelle Leonhart, Attorney General
Eric Holder declared that ending medical
marijuana raids "is now American policy."
A reporter asked, "shortly after the
inauguration there were raids on California
medical marijuana dispensaries...do you expect
these to continue?", noting that the President
had promised to end the raids in the campaign.
Holder responded, "What the President said
during the campaign...is consistent with what we
will be doing here in law enforcement. He was my
boss in the campaign....He is my boss now. What
he said in the campaign is now American policy."
!!!
The question appears about 25 minutes into the
press conference, which was devoted to an
operation against the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821
Tom Ammiano: Legalize Marijuana, Regulate It and Tax It
Tom Ammiano: Legalize Marijuana, Regulate It and Tax It
by: Robert in Monterey
Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 12:00:22 PM PST
A frequent topic of online discussion on the budget crisis in recent weeks has been a call to legalize and tax marijuana in order to help close the budget deficit. This would have two beneficial effects - reducing the prison population and increasing the revenue stream for state government. It was even the most popular question at Change.gov back in December.
Today Assemblymember Tom Ammiano announced he supports this basic concept, and to that end is introducing AB 390 - a bill number you'll be hearing a lot about in coming months. From a press release sent via email:
Today Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) announced the introduction of groundbreaking legislation that would tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education act (AB 390) would create a regulatory structure similar to that used for beer, wine and liquor, permitting taxed sales to adults while barring sales to or possession by those under 21.
"With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense. This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes", said Ammiano. "California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana."
Ammiano estimates this will bring in $1 billion in annual revenue. That could double when considering the impact of savings on prison spending.
This is clearly an idea whose time has come. I do not know of any recent polling on the topic, but I have to believe that support for regulating marijuana like alcohol has risen in recent years. 2009 offers an interesting moment, where long-time legalization advocates can now ally with Californians who want to solve the budget crisis and can no longer afford to ignore the high costs of a failed marijuana policy.
Ammiano is also following in the footsteps of other San Francisco legislators. In 1975 then-State Senator George Moscone got a bill passed and signed by Governor Jerry Brown to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Ammiano's proposed legislation is of a much larger scale, but it makes sense to treat marijuana, a drug that is already widely available in California, the same way we treat alcohol.
It's good to see someone in Sacramento stand up and point out that there's no reason we should maintain a policy that has failed so totally and completely, and at such an enormous cost, as marijuana prohibition.
by: Robert in Monterey
Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 12:00:22 PM PST
A frequent topic of online discussion on the budget crisis in recent weeks has been a call to legalize and tax marijuana in order to help close the budget deficit. This would have two beneficial effects - reducing the prison population and increasing the revenue stream for state government. It was even the most popular question at Change.gov back in December.
Today Assemblymember Tom Ammiano announced he supports this basic concept, and to that end is introducing AB 390 - a bill number you'll be hearing a lot about in coming months. From a press release sent via email:
Today Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) announced the introduction of groundbreaking legislation that would tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education act (AB 390) would create a regulatory structure similar to that used for beer, wine and liquor, permitting taxed sales to adults while barring sales to or possession by those under 21.
"With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense. This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes", said Ammiano. "California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana."
Ammiano estimates this will bring in $1 billion in annual revenue. That could double when considering the impact of savings on prison spending.
This is clearly an idea whose time has come. I do not know of any recent polling on the topic, but I have to believe that support for regulating marijuana like alcohol has risen in recent years. 2009 offers an interesting moment, where long-time legalization advocates can now ally with Californians who want to solve the budget crisis and can no longer afford to ignore the high costs of a failed marijuana policy.
Ammiano is also following in the footsteps of other San Francisco legislators. In 1975 then-State Senator George Moscone got a bill passed and signed by Governor Jerry Brown to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Ammiano's proposed legislation is of a much larger scale, but it makes sense to treat marijuana, a drug that is already widely available in California, the same way we treat alcohol.
It's good to see someone in Sacramento stand up and point out that there's no reason we should maintain a policy that has failed so totally and completely, and at such an enormous cost, as marijuana prohibition.
Recession depression....? Medical Marijuana Market Also effected!
Wouldn't you think that more medical cannabis would be smoked during a recession for depression possibly??
Well according to the SF pot Clubs the Marijuana Market is even slow and hurts them.
Now could it be the new president and his great positive attitude? maybe this is a change, change but hopefully for the best!~ Now is the time to stand for what you believe in vs standing for nothing at all.
Well according to the SF pot Clubs the Marijuana Market is even slow and hurts them.
Now could it be the new president and his great positive attitude? maybe this is a change, change but hopefully for the best!~ Now is the time to stand for what you believe in vs standing for nothing at all.
BASA AND GREEN CROSS even hurt by the recession....
Pubdate: Tue, 17 Feb 2009
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Copyright: 2009 San Francisco Examiner
Contact: letters@sfexaminer.com
Website: http://www.sfexaminer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/389
Author: Tamara Barak Aparton
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/topic/dispensaries
RECESSION THREATENS TO BURN OUT POT CLUBS
SAN FRANCISCO - One might guess that tough economic times would only fuel the desire for mind-altering substances. For San Francisco's cannabis clubs, however, nothing could be further from the truth.
The deepening economic crisis has hit the dispensaries hard, forcing the nonprofit collectives to cut staff, business hours and donations to charities.
Charlie Alazraie, manager of Bay Area Safe Alternatives, said business has dropped about 60 percent since summer, as the economy forces patients to buy smaller quantities. Alazraie had to let go of one full-time employee and two part-time workers at the small Western Addition collective.
Also halted were donations to soup kitchens and low-cost health clinics that serve many of BASA's patients. The previously profitable collective was hit with a penalty last quarter after paying their sales tax late for the first time.
"This year we're going to be so much in the red, I don't want to find out. I know it's going to be ugly," Alazraie said. "We're in arrears with our vendors, with architects, with everything."
The collective has always had a commitment to provide free medical marijuana for those in impossible situations - people who are critically ill and living in poverty were subsidized with money set aside from sales. In the past, the number of people who qualified hovered around 36. Today, there are 60.
The recession hit right after many San Francisco pot clubs had spent tens of thousands of dollars to comply with legislation passed in 2005 requiring them to meet city permit regulations.
Kevin Reed, founder of the Green Cross, which delivers medical marijuana to patients in San Francisco, said his sales are down 25 percent in the past 40 days, and dropped 45 percent in the past two weeks.
To survive, the collective cut its hours and cut its 12 employees' pay by $2 an hour.
"It's amazing to me," Reed said. "It's an industry I never thought could be affected."
Reed said he thought marijuana would be a recession-proof product, much like alcohol.
"I always heard that if the economy went bad, people would be depressed," he said. "The whole theory got blown out the window for me."
The cost of the pot hasn't risen, but the $300-an-ounce price tag has become a heavy burden for people who have lost their jobs and cut back on expenses. Insurance does not cover medicinal marijuana.
"The only busy day we've had in the past 40 days is when we offered a one-third off discount for veterans," Reed said. "It seemed like half the veterans in the state signed up."
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Copyright: 2009 San Francisco Examiner
Contact: letters@sfexaminer.com
Website: http://www.sfexaminer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/389
Author: Tamara Barak Aparton
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/topic/dispensaries
RECESSION THREATENS TO BURN OUT POT CLUBS
SAN FRANCISCO - One might guess that tough economic times would only fuel the desire for mind-altering substances. For San Francisco's cannabis clubs, however, nothing could be further from the truth.
The deepening economic crisis has hit the dispensaries hard, forcing the nonprofit collectives to cut staff, business hours and donations to charities.
Charlie Alazraie, manager of Bay Area Safe Alternatives, said business has dropped about 60 percent since summer, as the economy forces patients to buy smaller quantities. Alazraie had to let go of one full-time employee and two part-time workers at the small Western Addition collective.
Also halted were donations to soup kitchens and low-cost health clinics that serve many of BASA's patients. The previously profitable collective was hit with a penalty last quarter after paying their sales tax late for the first time.
"This year we're going to be so much in the red, I don't want to find out. I know it's going to be ugly," Alazraie said. "We're in arrears with our vendors, with architects, with everything."
The collective has always had a commitment to provide free medical marijuana for those in impossible situations - people who are critically ill and living in poverty were subsidized with money set aside from sales. In the past, the number of people who qualified hovered around 36. Today, there are 60.
The recession hit right after many San Francisco pot clubs had spent tens of thousands of dollars to comply with legislation passed in 2005 requiring them to meet city permit regulations.
Kevin Reed, founder of the Green Cross, which delivers medical marijuana to patients in San Francisco, said his sales are down 25 percent in the past 40 days, and dropped 45 percent in the past two weeks.
To survive, the collective cut its hours and cut its 12 employees' pay by $2 an hour.
"It's amazing to me," Reed said. "It's an industry I never thought could be affected."
Reed said he thought marijuana would be a recession-proof product, much like alcohol.
"I always heard that if the economy went bad, people would be depressed," he said. "The whole theory got blown out the window for me."
The cost of the pot hasn't risen, but the $300-an-ounce price tag has become a heavy burden for people who have lost their jobs and cut back on expenses. Insurance does not cover medicinal marijuana.
"The only busy day we've had in the past 40 days is when we offered a one-third off discount for veterans," Reed said. "It seemed like half the veterans in the state signed up."
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Toronto: Stirling Hemp Company Gets $2 Million To Open Plant
Toronto: Stirling Hemp Company Gets $2 Million To Open Plant
* News
Stonehedge Bio-Resources Inc.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
http://www.elorin.ca/imagedb/StonehedgeNew.jpg
Stirling research scientist John Baker has spent a decade growing and testing varieties of hemp.
He's now taken a giant step toward producing industrial hemp for the global marketplace.
The founder and president of Stonehedge Bio- Resources Inc. was in Toronto Wednesday to secure $2 million from private investors to open the first North American bio-processing plant for industrial hemp by this time next year.
Baker has received three letters of intent to invest more than $2 million from Lime Technology Ltd. in the United Kingdom, American Lime Technology in the United States and another private UK investor. Also attending the ceremony and news con-f erence were John Wilkinson, minister of research and innovation and Northumberland- West MPP Lou Rinaldi.
"I am delighted to
accept these letters of intent on behalf of my company," Baker said. "We have a vision to make Stonehedge the leader in industrial hemp in North America and today we are one step closer."
Baker said the investment will allow him to hire five employees this year and employ up to 27 people by 2011, as well as creating new opportunities for up to 200 farmers.
He plans to open a biorefining facility along the Highway 41 corridor between Oshawa and Belleville that would produce Hemcrete, an environmentally-friendly limestone building material similar to concrete.
The company also expects to produce more than $17 million per year in renewable hemp fibre, woodlike chips, pellets, matting and seed products.
"These bio-based products signify the future of sustainable development and clean green technology by replacing products that cause serious environmental damage with innovative carbon-negative alternatives," he told The Intelligencer in a telephone interview from a Toronto hotel.
Industrial hemp has been grown for thousands of years to make fibre for clothing, furniture, ropes, sails and more.
Baker said that as an agricultural crop, hemp is beneficial -- it can be readily grown organically as it does not require the use of harsh chemical herbicides, pesticides and defoliants as do many other fibre crops.
Baker and his wife, Christine, have owned and operated Stonehedge Kennels and horse breeding farm on Eggleton Road southeast of Stirling for the past 25 years. Their 50-acre farm is located almost next door to their daughter, Beth Bouma, who has 80 acres.
Baker said he's spent the past 10 years growing, testing and coming up with his own varieties of hemp and is now looking to industrialize it for the marketplace.
He said the Quinte area and Northumberland region provides an ideal soil/climate resource on which to develop the hemp biomass sector.
As well, he said the regions' proximity to the Quebec-Ontario market corridor and the eastern seaboard of the United States provides an additional competitive advantage.
Baker said he will need at least 17,000 acres of land to produce hemp. He plans on contracting hemp production to growers along the 401 corridor.
"This will be an opportunity for Northumberland, Hastings and Prince Edward and Lennox and Addington farmers to grow seeds that we need to plant acreage," he said.
Baker said he believes growing hemp can be as profitable as other crops.
"It's a great opportunity and our farming community can gauge on this ... but it will take some patience on everyone's part."
He is now looking for a location for the bio-refining facility for hemp, adding that it will have to be along the 401 corridor, central to where the hemp is grown.
"We hope to be ordering equipment in three months and start production 12 to 15 months from today," Baker said. "We will have to contract some acreage this year in anticipation of the plant being up in 12 months."
He added the success of the operation may mean adding additional bio-refining facilities in the future.
"The whole project will be in the neighbourhood of $20 million," Baker said. "This $2-million private investment is a giant step ahead."
He said the possibilities are endless, considering that the global renewable and bioproducts industry is expected to exceed $125 billion in revenues by 2010.
Baker credits several organizations for contributing to his success, including the Trenval Business Development Corporation, Northumberland Community Futures Development Corporation and the Easter Lake Ontario Innovation Network.
Gerrit DeBruyn, Trenval's executive director, accompanied Baker to Toronto Wednesday and said the investment is like a dream come true.
"Trenval had been working with John probably seven years or so ago when he had this dream of utilizing hemp in various products and we have been supporting his mission by providing him some funding ... we're delighted today that after years of patience and perseverance on John's part that we're able to see a major breakthrough here," he said.
DeBruyn said Trenval will assist Baker in taking the next step in opening his bio-refining facility.
"It's green energy and obviously we're very supportive of that," he said.
http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1398812
* News
Stonehedge Bio-Resources Inc.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
http://www.elorin.ca/imagedb/StonehedgeNew.jpg
Stirling research scientist John Baker has spent a decade growing and testing varieties of hemp.
He's now taken a giant step toward producing industrial hemp for the global marketplace.
The founder and president of Stonehedge Bio- Resources Inc. was in Toronto Wednesday to secure $2 million from private investors to open the first North American bio-processing plant for industrial hemp by this time next year.
Baker has received three letters of intent to invest more than $2 million from Lime Technology Ltd. in the United Kingdom, American Lime Technology in the United States and another private UK investor. Also attending the ceremony and news con-f erence were John Wilkinson, minister of research and innovation and Northumberland- West MPP Lou Rinaldi.
"I am delighted to
accept these letters of intent on behalf of my company," Baker said. "We have a vision to make Stonehedge the leader in industrial hemp in North America and today we are one step closer."
Baker said the investment will allow him to hire five employees this year and employ up to 27 people by 2011, as well as creating new opportunities for up to 200 farmers.
He plans to open a biorefining facility along the Highway 41 corridor between Oshawa and Belleville that would produce Hemcrete, an environmentally-friendly limestone building material similar to concrete.
The company also expects to produce more than $17 million per year in renewable hemp fibre, woodlike chips, pellets, matting and seed products.
"These bio-based products signify the future of sustainable development and clean green technology by replacing products that cause serious environmental damage with innovative carbon-negative alternatives," he told The Intelligencer in a telephone interview from a Toronto hotel.
Industrial hemp has been grown for thousands of years to make fibre for clothing, furniture, ropes, sails and more.
Baker said that as an agricultural crop, hemp is beneficial -- it can be readily grown organically as it does not require the use of harsh chemical herbicides, pesticides and defoliants as do many other fibre crops.
Baker and his wife, Christine, have owned and operated Stonehedge Kennels and horse breeding farm on Eggleton Road southeast of Stirling for the past 25 years. Their 50-acre farm is located almost next door to their daughter, Beth Bouma, who has 80 acres.
Baker said he's spent the past 10 years growing, testing and coming up with his own varieties of hemp and is now looking to industrialize it for the marketplace.
He said the Quinte area and Northumberland region provides an ideal soil/climate resource on which to develop the hemp biomass sector.
As well, he said the regions' proximity to the Quebec-Ontario market corridor and the eastern seaboard of the United States provides an additional competitive advantage.
Baker said he will need at least 17,000 acres of land to produce hemp. He plans on contracting hemp production to growers along the 401 corridor.
"This will be an opportunity for Northumberland, Hastings and Prince Edward and Lennox and Addington farmers to grow seeds that we need to plant acreage," he said.
Baker said he believes growing hemp can be as profitable as other crops.
"It's a great opportunity and our farming community can gauge on this ... but it will take some patience on everyone's part."
He is now looking for a location for the bio-refining facility for hemp, adding that it will have to be along the 401 corridor, central to where the hemp is grown.
"We hope to be ordering equipment in three months and start production 12 to 15 months from today," Baker said. "We will have to contract some acreage this year in anticipation of the plant being up in 12 months."
He added the success of the operation may mean adding additional bio-refining facilities in the future.
"The whole project will be in the neighbourhood of $20 million," Baker said. "This $2-million private investment is a giant step ahead."
He said the possibilities are endless, considering that the global renewable and bioproducts industry is expected to exceed $125 billion in revenues by 2010.
Baker credits several organizations for contributing to his success, including the Trenval Business Development Corporation, Northumberland Community Futures Development Corporation and the Easter Lake Ontario Innovation Network.
Gerrit DeBruyn, Trenval's executive director, accompanied Baker to Toronto Wednesday and said the investment is like a dream come true.
"Trenval had been working with John probably seven years or so ago when he had this dream of utilizing hemp in various products and we have been supporting his mission by providing him some funding ... we're delighted today that after years of patience and perseverance on John's part that we're able to see a major breakthrough here," he said.
DeBruyn said Trenval will assist Baker in taking the next step in opening his bio-refining facility.
"It's green energy and obviously we're very supportive of that," he said.
http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1398812
Monday, January 12, 2009
DEA denied Carl Olsen marijuana rescheduling request (enclosed)
U.S. Department of Justice
Drug Enforcement Administration
Office of the Deputy Administrator
Washington, D.C. 20537
December 19, 2008
Mr. Carl Olsen
130 E Aurora Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50313-3654
Dear Mr. Olsen:
On May 12,2008, you petitioned the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to initiate rulemaking proceedings under the rescheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). You requested that DEA remove marijuana from schedule I of the CSA based on your assertion that the federal definition for a schedule I controlled substance no longer applies to it. You contend that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine accepted medical use and that marijuana, therefore, has a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" because 12 states have passed laws relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Based on these same assertions, on August 5, 2008, you filed a "Notice and Deadline to Cease and Desist Illegal Enforcement of Fraudulant [sic] Marijuana Regulation." The notice states that the DEA must "cease and desist enforcement of the illegal regulation of marijuana" within 30 days or you will file a federal civil injunction.
The Deputy Administrator finds, for the reasons stated herein, that the grounds upon which you rely are not sufficient to justify the initiation of proceedings for the removal of marijuana from schedule I ofthe CSA. Accordingly, your petition is hereby denied. For the same reasons, the Deputy Administrator finds that the notice to cease and desist also lacks merit. Accordingly, to the extent you seek action based on this filing, this request also is hereby denied.
Legal Background
When the CSA was created, Congress specified the initial scheduling of controlled substances and the criteria by which controlled substances could be rescheduled. 21 U.S.C. 811-812 (2008). Congress placed marijuana into schedule I. See Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-513, 202(c), schedule I (c)(10), 84 Stat. 1247.
The Attorney General "may by rule" transfer a drug or other substance between schedules if he finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse and makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of Section 812 for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed. 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(I). In order for a substance to be placed in schedule I, the Attorney General must find that:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse;
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1)(A)-(C). To be classified in one of the other schedules (II through V), a drug of abuse must have a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." [Footnote 1]
Footnote 1: A controlled substance in schedule II must have either "a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions." 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(2)(B); see also Notice of Denial of Petition, 66 Fed. Reg. 20,038, 20,038 (Apr. 18,2001) ("Congress established only one schedule - schedule I - for drugs of abuse with 'no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States' and a 'lack of accepted safety for use ... under medical supervision.'").
The CSA provides that, in making any rescheduling determination, the Attorney General shall consider the following eight factors:
(1) The drug's actual or relative potential for abuse;
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known;
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug;
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse;
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse;
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health;
(7) The drug's psychic or physiological dependence liability; and
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under the CSA.
21 U.S.C. 811(c). The Attorney General has delegated this authority to the Administrator of DEA, who has redelegated it to the Deputy Administrator. See 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) & 0.104, Appendix to Subpart R, sec. 12 (2008).
The CSA further provides that, before initiating proceedings to reschedule a drug, the Administrator must gather the necessary data and request from the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendations as to whether the controlled substance should be rescheduled as the petitioner proposes. 21 U.S.C. 811(b); 21 C.F.R. 130S.43(d); Gettman v. DEA, 290 F.3d 430, 432 (D.C. Cir. 2002). In making such evaluation and recommendations, the Secretary must consider the factors listed in paragraphs (2), (3), (6), (7), and (8) above, and any scientific or medical considerations involved in paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) above. 21 U.S.C. 811(b). The Secretary has delegated this function to the Assistant Secretary for Health. [Footnote 2] If the Administrator determines that the evaluations and recommendations of the Assistant Secretary and "all other relevant data" constitute substantial evidence that the drug that is the subject of the petition should be subjected to lesser control or removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings to reschedule the drug or remove it from the schedules as the evidence dictates. 21 U.S.C. 811(b); 21 C.F.R. 1308.43(e).
Footnote 2: As set forth in a memorandum of understanding entered into by HHS, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), FDA acts as the lead agency within HHS in carrying out the Secretary's scheduling responsibilities under the CSA, with the concurrence of NIDA. Memorandum of Understanding with the Nat'l Inst. on Drug Abuse, 50 Fed. Reg. 9,518 (Mar. 8, 1985).
Basis for Denial of Your Petition and Notice
Your petition and notice rest on your contention that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine, for purposes of the CSA, whether a drug has a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," and that marijuana has such a currently accepted medical use because 12 states have passed laws relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes. See Carl Olsen Petition for Marijuana Rescheduling (May 12, 200S) ("Pet."); Carl Olsen Memorandum of Law in Support ofPetition for Marijuana Rescheduling (May 25, 200S) ("Mem."); Notice and Deadline to Cease and Desist Illegal Enforcement of Fraudulant [sic] Marijuana Regulation (Aug. 5, 200S) ("Notice"). [Footnote 3] For the following reasons, your contention is not in accordance with law.
Footnote 3: You do not, in this petition or notice, dispute whether marijuana meets the frrst criterion for schedule I or schedule II, i.e., that the substance has a high potential for abuse. Nor do you purport to present new scientific or medical evidence - beyond that previously considered by DEA in its prior denial of another petition to reschedule marijuana, see Notice of Denial of Petition, 66 Fed. Reg. at 20,038 - regarding whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use. See generally Pet.; Mem.; Notice. Finally, you do not raise any religious use arguments such as those you previously raised and recently had rejected in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See Olsen v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2008) (rejecting Olsen's religious use claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and rejecting Olsen's free exercise and equal protection claims).
A. The CSA's Statutory Scheme
The CSA's statutory scheme disproves your contention that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine whether a drug has a "currently accepted medical use" within the meaning ofthe CSA. You rely on Section 903 ofthe CSA, see Pet. at 2; Mem. at 16; Notice at 1, which provides that: "No provision ofthis subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part ofthe Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any state law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together." 21 U.S.C. 903 (2008).
As a threshold matter, 21 U.S.C. 903 merely reaffirms, for purposes of the CSA, what is inherent in the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution: that any state law that actually conflicts with federal law is preempted by federal law and therefore invalid under the supremacy clause. [Footnote 4] Section 903 also provides that, so long as the states do not enact a law relating to controlled substances that creates a positive conflict with the CSA, the states are free to enact laws regulating controlled substances which would otherwise be within their authority that will operate alongside the CSA. Thus, it would be antithetical to the text of section 903 to cite it for the proposition that state controlled substance laws that conflict with the CSA can override or frustrate the purposes of the CSA. As the Supreme Court stated in the context of marijuana possession and cultivation taking place in purported compliance with California law: "The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail." [Footnote 5]
Footnote 4: See, e.g., California Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 280-281 (1987).
Footnote 5: Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 29 (2005).
Furthermore, the CSA plainly does not assign to the states the authority to make findings relevant to CSA scheduling determinations. Rather, the CSA expressly delegates the task of making such findings - including whether a substance has any currently accepted medical use - to the Attorney General. 21 U.S.C. 811(a). The CSA also expressly tasks the Secretary of HHS to provide a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendations to inform the Attorney General's findings. 21 U.S.C. 811 (b). [Footnote 6] That Congress explicitly provided scheduling authority to these two federal entities further precludes your argument that Section 903 reserves this authority to the states.
Footnote 6: DEA regulations echo this statutory scheme. See 21 C.F.R. 1308.43.
In addition, the CSA explicitly provides that in making a scheduling determination, the Attorney General shall consider the following eight factors:
(1) The drug's actual or relative potential for abuse;
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known;
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug;
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse;
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse;
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health;
(7) The drug's psychic or physiological dependence liability; and
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under the CSA.
21 U.S.C. 811(c). These factors do not include state law. The CSA's statutory text evidences that Congress did not envision such a role for state law in establishing the schedules of controlled substances under the CSA. [Footnote 7]
Footnote 7: DEA previously conducted lengthy proceedings to review a petition to reschedule marijuana from 1995 through 2001. After requesting and reviewing a scientific and medical evaluation from HHS, the Administrator denied the petition on the grounds that marijuana has no currently accepted medical use and because it is not safe for use even under medical supervision. Notice of Denial of Petition, 66 Fed. Reg. at 20,038, pet. for review dismissed, Gettman, 290 F.3d at 436. As you note, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed a petition with the DEA in October 2002 discussing scientific and medical findings relating to the medical use of marijuana. That petition remains pending.
B. Gonzales v. Oregon and Other Recent Supreme Court Cases
You further rely on Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). See Pet. at 2-3; Mem. at 13; Notice at 4. This reliance also is misplaced. You argue that Oregon supports your petition by requiring federal authorities to defer to states' determinations on issues of medical practice. To the contrary, Oregon affirms the core federal authority of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of HHS, as to drug scheduling.
In Oregon, the United States Supreme Court considered the Attorney General's Interpretive Rule prohibiting doctors from prescribing controlled substances for use in physician-assisted suicide under an Oregon state law that permitted the procedure. Id. at 248. The Court held that the Rule was not entitled to deference because it was not issued pursuant to an explicit delegation of rule making authority. Id. at 258-69. The Court did not find the Attorney General's interpretation persuasive and invalidated the Rule because the CSA "manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally." Id. at 270.
In so holding, however, the Court repeatedly cited by contrast - as a valid and explicit delegation of authority - the Attorney General's power as to drug scheduling. [Footnote 8] The Court observed that, by the text of the CSA itself, Congress had delegated "control" authority to the Attorney General to add, remove, or reschedule substances. [Footenote 9] The Court further cited the CSA's detailed scheduling procedures, including the requirement to request a scientific and medical evaluation by the Secretary of HHS. Id. at 260. Oregon thus confirmed that, in contrast to the invalidated Rule, drug scheduling authority and the corresponding scheduling procedures are an appropriate exercise of the federal power granted in the CSA.
Footnote 8: See Oregon, 546 U.S. at 262 ("It would be anomalous for Congress to have painstakingly described the Attorney General's limited authority to ... schedule a single drug, but to have given him, just by implication, authority to declare an entire class of activity outside 'the course of professional practice' and therefore a criminal violation of the CSA.").
Footnote 9: The Court noted that the term "control" is a term of art in the CSA, meaning to "add a drug or other substance ... to a schedule ... whether by transfer from another schedule or otherwise." Oregon, 546 U.S. at 260 (quoting 21 U.S.C. 802(5)).
The Court also approvingly cited the CSA's explicit allocation of medical judgments in the scheduling context - not, as you argue, to states - but rather, to the Secretary: "The CSA allocates decision making powers among statutory actors so that medical judgments, if they are to be decided at the federal level and for the limited objects of the statute, are placed in the hands of the Secretary." Id. at 265. Whereas the invalidated Rule involved an overly broad assertion of authority, the drug scheduling context exemplified the "CSA's consistent delegation of medical judgments to the Secretary and its otherwise careful allocation of powers." Id. at 272. Thus, far from giving authority to the states, Oregon instead confirms the Attorney General's explicit authority, in conjunction with the Secretary's recommendations on scientific and medical matters, as to drug scheduling.
The two other recent Supreme Court cases you cite, see Mem. at 15-16; Notice at 3, likewise affirmed the primacy of federal law over state marijuana laws. In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001) ("OCBC"), the Court held that no medical necessity exception existed to the CSA's prohibition on manufacturing and distributing marijuana. Notwithstanding California state law authorizing possession and cultivation of marijuana for claimed medical purposes, Congress' clear determination that all schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana, have no currently accepted medical use forecloses any argument as to whether such drugs can be dispensed and prescribed for medical use. Id. at 493. The Court in OCBC was explicit in stating that "for purposes of the [CSA], marijuana has 'no currently accepted medical use' at all. 812." Id. at 491. Similarly, in Raich, 545 U.S. 1, the Court held that, even in a state that had legalized marijuana activity for claimed medical use, Congress' federal commerce clause power extended to prohibit purportedly intrastate cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with the state law. "Limiting the activity to marijuana possession and cultivation 'in accordance with state law' cannot serve to place respondents' activities beyond congressional reach." Id. at 29.
C. Whether A Drug Has A "Currently Accepted Medical Use in Treatment in the United States"
Your argument that there is no federal definition of"currently accepted medical use" also fails. In order to determine whether a substance has a "currently accepted medical use," the Administrator applies a five-part test:
1) The drug's chemistry must be known and reproducible;
2) There must be adequate safety studies;
3) There must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;
4) The drug must be accepted by qualified experts; and
5) The scientific evidence must be widely available.
Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("ACT II"). This test was approved by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language. See Id. at 1134-5, 1137 (approving the Administrator's Final Order applying these five criteria); see also Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ("ACT I"). Significantly, with respect to your petition, this test includes no reference to state law.
D. Other Arguments as to Currently Accepted Medical Use
A substantial portion of the remainder of your memorandum in support of your current petition and your notice merely rehash arguments as to "currently accepted medical use" that you unsuccessfully asserted when you petitioned DEA to reschedule marijuana in 1992 and when you sought review of DEA's denial of that petition by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals, in declining your petition for review in a per curiam order issued October 3, 1996, stated that the arguments you raised "occasion no need for an opinion." Olsen v. DEA, No. 94-1605, 1996 WL 590870 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 3, 1996). It is, therefore, unnecessary for DEA to revisit these same arguments yet again in 2008.
Nevertheless, to ensure completeness of the record, we briefly address and dismiss these contentions. First, you discuss again at length litigation relating to the 1972 petition to reschedule marijuana filed by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), see Mem. at 7-9, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's decision in Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1987). See Mem. at 9-12; Notice at 2. These cases are inapposite, however, as they were superseded by the subsequent ACT I and ACT II decisions approving the present five-factor test. See ACT II, 15 F.3d at 1133 (noting "[t]he petition to reschedule marijuana was first filed [by NORML] in 1972 and has been before this court on four prior occasions ...."); ACT I, 930 F.2d at 939-40 (explicitly distinguishing Grinspoon). [Footnote l0]
Footnote 10: The Grinspoon court never considered the present five-part test, but rather invalidated only a 1986 version of the "currently accepted medical use" test that depended on FDA approval. 828 F.2d at 884. On administrative remand, the test evolved before being replaced with the present five-part test approved in ACT I and ACT II. See Schedules of Controlled Substances, 53 Fed. Reg. 5,156, 5,157 (Feb. 22,1988) (formulating alternative eight-factor test following Grinspoon remand); Marijuana Scheduling Petition; Denial of Petition, 54 Fed. Reg. 53,767, 53,783 (Dec. 29, 1989) (applying eight-factor test); Marijuana Scheduling Petition; Denial of Petition; Remand, 57 Fed. Reg. 10,499, 10,506 (Mar. 26, 1992) (discarding eight-factor test and applying present five-part test). As to possible duplication of criteria between the 1986 version of the test Grinspoon rejected and the present test, the ACT I court explicitly distinguished Grinspoon, stating that the First Circuit "never suggested the DEA Administrator was foreclosed from incorporating and relying on those standards employed by the FDA that are relevant to the pharmaceutical qualities of the drug." 930 F.2d at 939.
Second, you reiterate arguments regarding the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, contending that it was modified in 1991 to allow for the medical use of the pharmaceutically pure primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, delta-9-THC, and that this ingredient has been rescheduled twice, from schedule I to schedule III. Mem. at 4. You further contend that plants are not typically scheduled in schedules more restrictive than the psychoactive substances that are obtained from them. Mem. at 5. Under the CSA, however, the regulation of chemicals and the plant material are distinct from each other: drugs or other substances are treated and classified differently, according to the enumerated statutory criteria. 21 U.S.C. 812(b); see also Final Order, In the Matter of Petition of Carl Eric Olsen (May 16, 1994) (rejecting petition to reschedule marijuana); Olsen, 1996 WL 590870, at *1 (denying Olsen's petition for review). Whether marijuana is a source of delta-9-THC is irrelevant to the status of marijuana under the CSA.
None of your remaining arguments as to whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use have merit. [Footnote 11] First, you reference a portion of the 1970 legislative history of the CSA relating to appointment of a commission that issued a report on marijuana in 1972, citing a portion of the 1972 report itself. See Mem. at 2-3. In the more than 36 years that have elapsed since these materials were published, however, numerous individuals and marijuana legalization advocates have pointed to the 1972 marijuana report to justify CSA violations involving marijuana, to challenge the constitutionality of the federal marijuana laws, or, as with your latest petition, to argue that marijuana should be deemed to have medical efficacy for purposes of the CSA. [Footnote 12] None of these efforts have ever succeeded for the simple reason that Congress took no action to alter the CSA in any respect as a result of the 1972 report. The fact that Congress has not rescheduled marijuana speaks for itself.
Footnote 11: Your notice in particular exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the "currently accepted medical use" standard. You argue that the DEA should have rescheduled marijuana in 1996 as soon as one state (California) passed legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana, citing Raich, OCBC, and Grinspoon. Notice at 2-3. But none of these cases support your argument. First, as you acknowledge, see Notice at 3, Raich noted that Congress classified marijuana in schedule I, that is, "Congress expressly found that [marijuana] has no acceptable medical uses." 545 U.S. at 27. Second, you ignore that OCBC specifically rejected an exception for the medical use of marijuana on the basis that Congress, and not the Attorney General, had placed marijuana in schedule I. The Court held:
It is clear from the text of the [CSA] that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception .... The statute ... includes no exception at all for any medical use of marijuana. Unwilling to view this omission as an accident, and unable in any event to override a legislative determination manifest in a statute, we reject the [plaintiff's] argument.
532 U.S. at 493. Third, you misstate the holding of Grinspoon. That court did not say, as you argue, that a controlled substance cannot be scheduled in schedule I if it has accepted medical use anywhere in the United States; rather, it said only that "Congress did not intend .. to require a fmding of recognized medical use in every state." 828 F.2d at 886 (emphasis added).
Footnote 12: See, e.g., United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 1998); NORML v. Bell, 488 F. Supp. 123, 128 (D.D.C. 1980); United States v. LaFroscia, 354 F. Supp. 1338, 1340 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).
You also observe that the federal government has supplied marijuana to medical patients through a program of compassionate use. Mem. at 5-6 (citing Kuromiya v. United States, 78 F. Supp. 2d 367 (E.D. Pa. 1999)). The existence of this exception is not a ground for rescheduling. As the federal district court held in Kuromiya, the government's decision to continue the program at all was a "means of balancing" the interests of those who had relied on the drug with the government's desire to avoid distributing marijuana. 78 F. Supp. 2d at 370-71. You further claim that one participant's primary care doctor has retired, and that she is not able to find another doctor willing to prescribe marijuana because of the stigma associated with prescribing a schedule I substance. Mem. at 6. You have not provided any evidence to support this contention. Even if you had, one individual's potential hardship to participate in a compassionate use program is not adequate legal grounds for rescheduling. See 21 U.S.C. 811(c).
Finally, you argue that the "DEA's own Administrative Law Judge [ALJ Young] has already determined that marijuana is safe for use under medical supervision." Olsen Petition at 4. As you acknowledge, however, see Pet. at 3, the DEA Administrator unambiguously rejected ALJ Young's determination in In re Marijuana Rescheduling, DEA Dkt. No. 86-22 (Sept. 6, 1998) (attached as Ex. 1 to Pet.). The D.C. Circuit later affirmed the DEA's final order (Mar. 26, 1992) in ACT II, 15 F.3d at 1135 (denying petition to review DEA's final order declining to reschedule marijuana). Nor is it accurate that the Administrator's rejection of ALJ Young's determination depended on the fact that no state had accepted the use of marijuana for medical purposes. In fact, ALJ Young's opinion had noted the efforts of a number of states to pass such legislation. See, e.g., In re Marijuana Rescheduling, DEA Dkt. No. 86-22, 21,22,28. In any case, for the reasons set forth in detail above, the existence of state legislation is not relevant to a scheduling determination.
Conclusion
Accordingly, there is no statutory basis for DEA to grant your petition to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana. Nor is there any basis to initiate any action based on your August 5th notice.
The Petitioner's request is denied.
Sincerely,
Michele M. Leonhart
Deputy Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration
Office of the Deputy Administrator
Washington, D.C. 20537
December 19, 2008
Mr. Carl Olsen
130 E Aurora Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50313-3654
Dear Mr. Olsen:
On May 12,2008, you petitioned the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to initiate rulemaking proceedings under the rescheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). You requested that DEA remove marijuana from schedule I of the CSA based on your assertion that the federal definition for a schedule I controlled substance no longer applies to it. You contend that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine accepted medical use and that marijuana, therefore, has a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" because 12 states have passed laws relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Based on these same assertions, on August 5, 2008, you filed a "Notice and Deadline to Cease and Desist Illegal Enforcement of Fraudulant [sic] Marijuana Regulation." The notice states that the DEA must "cease and desist enforcement of the illegal regulation of marijuana" within 30 days or you will file a federal civil injunction.
The Deputy Administrator finds, for the reasons stated herein, that the grounds upon which you rely are not sufficient to justify the initiation of proceedings for the removal of marijuana from schedule I ofthe CSA. Accordingly, your petition is hereby denied. For the same reasons, the Deputy Administrator finds that the notice to cease and desist also lacks merit. Accordingly, to the extent you seek action based on this filing, this request also is hereby denied.
Legal Background
When the CSA was created, Congress specified the initial scheduling of controlled substances and the criteria by which controlled substances could be rescheduled. 21 U.S.C. 811-812 (2008). Congress placed marijuana into schedule I. See Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-513, 202(c), schedule I (c)(10), 84 Stat. 1247.
The Attorney General "may by rule" transfer a drug or other substance between schedules if he finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse and makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of Section 812 for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed. 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(I). In order for a substance to be placed in schedule I, the Attorney General must find that:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse;
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1)(A)-(C). To be classified in one of the other schedules (II through V), a drug of abuse must have a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." [Footnote 1]
Footnote 1: A controlled substance in schedule II must have either "a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions." 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(2)(B); see also Notice of Denial of Petition, 66 Fed. Reg. 20,038, 20,038 (Apr. 18,2001) ("Congress established only one schedule - schedule I - for drugs of abuse with 'no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States' and a 'lack of accepted safety for use ... under medical supervision.'").
The CSA provides that, in making any rescheduling determination, the Attorney General shall consider the following eight factors:
(1) The drug's actual or relative potential for abuse;
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known;
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug;
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse;
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse;
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health;
(7) The drug's psychic or physiological dependence liability; and
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under the CSA.
21 U.S.C. 811(c). The Attorney General has delegated this authority to the Administrator of DEA, who has redelegated it to the Deputy Administrator. See 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) & 0.104, Appendix to Subpart R, sec. 12 (2008).
The CSA further provides that, before initiating proceedings to reschedule a drug, the Administrator must gather the necessary data and request from the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendations as to whether the controlled substance should be rescheduled as the petitioner proposes. 21 U.S.C. 811(b); 21 C.F.R. 130S.43(d); Gettman v. DEA, 290 F.3d 430, 432 (D.C. Cir. 2002). In making such evaluation and recommendations, the Secretary must consider the factors listed in paragraphs (2), (3), (6), (7), and (8) above, and any scientific or medical considerations involved in paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) above. 21 U.S.C. 811(b). The Secretary has delegated this function to the Assistant Secretary for Health. [Footnote 2] If the Administrator determines that the evaluations and recommendations of the Assistant Secretary and "all other relevant data" constitute substantial evidence that the drug that is the subject of the petition should be subjected to lesser control or removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings to reschedule the drug or remove it from the schedules as the evidence dictates. 21 U.S.C. 811(b); 21 C.F.R. 1308.43(e).
Footnote 2: As set forth in a memorandum of understanding entered into by HHS, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), FDA acts as the lead agency within HHS in carrying out the Secretary's scheduling responsibilities under the CSA, with the concurrence of NIDA. Memorandum of Understanding with the Nat'l Inst. on Drug Abuse, 50 Fed. Reg. 9,518 (Mar. 8, 1985).
Basis for Denial of Your Petition and Notice
Your petition and notice rest on your contention that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine, for purposes of the CSA, whether a drug has a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," and that marijuana has such a currently accepted medical use because 12 states have passed laws relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes. See Carl Olsen Petition for Marijuana Rescheduling (May 12, 200S) ("Pet."); Carl Olsen Memorandum of Law in Support ofPetition for Marijuana Rescheduling (May 25, 200S) ("Mem."); Notice and Deadline to Cease and Desist Illegal Enforcement of Fraudulant [sic] Marijuana Regulation (Aug. 5, 200S) ("Notice"). [Footnote 3] For the following reasons, your contention is not in accordance with law.
Footnote 3: You do not, in this petition or notice, dispute whether marijuana meets the frrst criterion for schedule I or schedule II, i.e., that the substance has a high potential for abuse. Nor do you purport to present new scientific or medical evidence - beyond that previously considered by DEA in its prior denial of another petition to reschedule marijuana, see Notice of Denial of Petition, 66 Fed. Reg. at 20,038 - regarding whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use. See generally Pet.; Mem.; Notice. Finally, you do not raise any religious use arguments such as those you previously raised and recently had rejected in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See Olsen v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2008) (rejecting Olsen's religious use claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and rejecting Olsen's free exercise and equal protection claims).
A. The CSA's Statutory Scheme
The CSA's statutory scheme disproves your contention that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine whether a drug has a "currently accepted medical use" within the meaning ofthe CSA. You rely on Section 903 ofthe CSA, see Pet. at 2; Mem. at 16; Notice at 1, which provides that: "No provision ofthis subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part ofthe Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any state law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together." 21 U.S.C. 903 (2008).
As a threshold matter, 21 U.S.C. 903 merely reaffirms, for purposes of the CSA, what is inherent in the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution: that any state law that actually conflicts with federal law is preempted by federal law and therefore invalid under the supremacy clause. [Footnote 4] Section 903 also provides that, so long as the states do not enact a law relating to controlled substances that creates a positive conflict with the CSA, the states are free to enact laws regulating controlled substances which would otherwise be within their authority that will operate alongside the CSA. Thus, it would be antithetical to the text of section 903 to cite it for the proposition that state controlled substance laws that conflict with the CSA can override or frustrate the purposes of the CSA. As the Supreme Court stated in the context of marijuana possession and cultivation taking place in purported compliance with California law: "The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail." [Footnote 5]
Footnote 4: See, e.g., California Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 280-281 (1987).
Footnote 5: Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 29 (2005).
Furthermore, the CSA plainly does not assign to the states the authority to make findings relevant to CSA scheduling determinations. Rather, the CSA expressly delegates the task of making such findings - including whether a substance has any currently accepted medical use - to the Attorney General. 21 U.S.C. 811(a). The CSA also expressly tasks the Secretary of HHS to provide a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendations to inform the Attorney General's findings. 21 U.S.C. 811 (b). [Footnote 6] That Congress explicitly provided scheduling authority to these two federal entities further precludes your argument that Section 903 reserves this authority to the states.
Footnote 6: DEA regulations echo this statutory scheme. See 21 C.F.R. 1308.43.
In addition, the CSA explicitly provides that in making a scheduling determination, the Attorney General shall consider the following eight factors:
(1) The drug's actual or relative potential for abuse;
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known;
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug;
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse;
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse;
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health;
(7) The drug's psychic or physiological dependence liability; and
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under the CSA.
21 U.S.C. 811(c). These factors do not include state law. The CSA's statutory text evidences that Congress did not envision such a role for state law in establishing the schedules of controlled substances under the CSA. [Footnote 7]
Footnote 7: DEA previously conducted lengthy proceedings to review a petition to reschedule marijuana from 1995 through 2001. After requesting and reviewing a scientific and medical evaluation from HHS, the Administrator denied the petition on the grounds that marijuana has no currently accepted medical use and because it is not safe for use even under medical supervision. Notice of Denial of Petition, 66 Fed. Reg. at 20,038, pet. for review dismissed, Gettman, 290 F.3d at 436. As you note, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed a petition with the DEA in October 2002 discussing scientific and medical findings relating to the medical use of marijuana. That petition remains pending.
B. Gonzales v. Oregon and Other Recent Supreme Court Cases
You further rely on Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). See Pet. at 2-3; Mem. at 13; Notice at 4. This reliance also is misplaced. You argue that Oregon supports your petition by requiring federal authorities to defer to states' determinations on issues of medical practice. To the contrary, Oregon affirms the core federal authority of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of HHS, as to drug scheduling.
In Oregon, the United States Supreme Court considered the Attorney General's Interpretive Rule prohibiting doctors from prescribing controlled substances for use in physician-assisted suicide under an Oregon state law that permitted the procedure. Id. at 248. The Court held that the Rule was not entitled to deference because it was not issued pursuant to an explicit delegation of rule making authority. Id. at 258-69. The Court did not find the Attorney General's interpretation persuasive and invalidated the Rule because the CSA "manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally." Id. at 270.
In so holding, however, the Court repeatedly cited by contrast - as a valid and explicit delegation of authority - the Attorney General's power as to drug scheduling. [Footnote 8] The Court observed that, by the text of the CSA itself, Congress had delegated "control" authority to the Attorney General to add, remove, or reschedule substances. [Footenote 9] The Court further cited the CSA's detailed scheduling procedures, including the requirement to request a scientific and medical evaluation by the Secretary of HHS. Id. at 260. Oregon thus confirmed that, in contrast to the invalidated Rule, drug scheduling authority and the corresponding scheduling procedures are an appropriate exercise of the federal power granted in the CSA.
Footnote 8: See Oregon, 546 U.S. at 262 ("It would be anomalous for Congress to have painstakingly described the Attorney General's limited authority to ... schedule a single drug, but to have given him, just by implication, authority to declare an entire class of activity outside 'the course of professional practice' and therefore a criminal violation of the CSA.").
Footnote 9: The Court noted that the term "control" is a term of art in the CSA, meaning to "add a drug or other substance ... to a schedule ... whether by transfer from another schedule or otherwise." Oregon, 546 U.S. at 260 (quoting 21 U.S.C. 802(5)).
The Court also approvingly cited the CSA's explicit allocation of medical judgments in the scheduling context - not, as you argue, to states - but rather, to the Secretary: "The CSA allocates decision making powers among statutory actors so that medical judgments, if they are to be decided at the federal level and for the limited objects of the statute, are placed in the hands of the Secretary." Id. at 265. Whereas the invalidated Rule involved an overly broad assertion of authority, the drug scheduling context exemplified the "CSA's consistent delegation of medical judgments to the Secretary and its otherwise careful allocation of powers." Id. at 272. Thus, far from giving authority to the states, Oregon instead confirms the Attorney General's explicit authority, in conjunction with the Secretary's recommendations on scientific and medical matters, as to drug scheduling.
The two other recent Supreme Court cases you cite, see Mem. at 15-16; Notice at 3, likewise affirmed the primacy of federal law over state marijuana laws. In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001) ("OCBC"), the Court held that no medical necessity exception existed to the CSA's prohibition on manufacturing and distributing marijuana. Notwithstanding California state law authorizing possession and cultivation of marijuana for claimed medical purposes, Congress' clear determination that all schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana, have no currently accepted medical use forecloses any argument as to whether such drugs can be dispensed and prescribed for medical use. Id. at 493. The Court in OCBC was explicit in stating that "for purposes of the [CSA], marijuana has 'no currently accepted medical use' at all. 812." Id. at 491. Similarly, in Raich, 545 U.S. 1, the Court held that, even in a state that had legalized marijuana activity for claimed medical use, Congress' federal commerce clause power extended to prohibit purportedly intrastate cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with the state law. "Limiting the activity to marijuana possession and cultivation 'in accordance with state law' cannot serve to place respondents' activities beyond congressional reach." Id. at 29.
C. Whether A Drug Has A "Currently Accepted Medical Use in Treatment in the United States"
Your argument that there is no federal definition of"currently accepted medical use" also fails. In order to determine whether a substance has a "currently accepted medical use," the Administrator applies a five-part test:
1) The drug's chemistry must be known and reproducible;
2) There must be adequate safety studies;
3) There must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;
4) The drug must be accepted by qualified experts; and
5) The scientific evidence must be widely available.
Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("ACT II"). This test was approved by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language. See Id. at 1134-5, 1137 (approving the Administrator's Final Order applying these five criteria); see also Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ("ACT I"). Significantly, with respect to your petition, this test includes no reference to state law.
D. Other Arguments as to Currently Accepted Medical Use
A substantial portion of the remainder of your memorandum in support of your current petition and your notice merely rehash arguments as to "currently accepted medical use" that you unsuccessfully asserted when you petitioned DEA to reschedule marijuana in 1992 and when you sought review of DEA's denial of that petition by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals, in declining your petition for review in a per curiam order issued October 3, 1996, stated that the arguments you raised "occasion no need for an opinion." Olsen v. DEA, No. 94-1605, 1996 WL 590870 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 3, 1996). It is, therefore, unnecessary for DEA to revisit these same arguments yet again in 2008.
Nevertheless, to ensure completeness of the record, we briefly address and dismiss these contentions. First, you discuss again at length litigation relating to the 1972 petition to reschedule marijuana filed by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), see Mem. at 7-9, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's decision in Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1987). See Mem. at 9-12; Notice at 2. These cases are inapposite, however, as they were superseded by the subsequent ACT I and ACT II decisions approving the present five-factor test. See ACT II, 15 F.3d at 1133 (noting "[t]he petition to reschedule marijuana was first filed [by NORML] in 1972 and has been before this court on four prior occasions ...."); ACT I, 930 F.2d at 939-40 (explicitly distinguishing Grinspoon). [Footnote l0]
Footnote 10: The Grinspoon court never considered the present five-part test, but rather invalidated only a 1986 version of the "currently accepted medical use" test that depended on FDA approval. 828 F.2d at 884. On administrative remand, the test evolved before being replaced with the present five-part test approved in ACT I and ACT II. See Schedules of Controlled Substances, 53 Fed. Reg. 5,156, 5,157 (Feb. 22,1988) (formulating alternative eight-factor test following Grinspoon remand); Marijuana Scheduling Petition; Denial of Petition, 54 Fed. Reg. 53,767, 53,783 (Dec. 29, 1989) (applying eight-factor test); Marijuana Scheduling Petition; Denial of Petition; Remand, 57 Fed. Reg. 10,499, 10,506 (Mar. 26, 1992) (discarding eight-factor test and applying present five-part test). As to possible duplication of criteria between the 1986 version of the test Grinspoon rejected and the present test, the ACT I court explicitly distinguished Grinspoon, stating that the First Circuit "never suggested the DEA Administrator was foreclosed from incorporating and relying on those standards employed by the FDA that are relevant to the pharmaceutical qualities of the drug." 930 F.2d at 939.
Second, you reiterate arguments regarding the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, contending that it was modified in 1991 to allow for the medical use of the pharmaceutically pure primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, delta-9-THC, and that this ingredient has been rescheduled twice, from schedule I to schedule III. Mem. at 4. You further contend that plants are not typically scheduled in schedules more restrictive than the psychoactive substances that are obtained from them. Mem. at 5. Under the CSA, however, the regulation of chemicals and the plant material are distinct from each other: drugs or other substances are treated and classified differently, according to the enumerated statutory criteria. 21 U.S.C. 812(b); see also Final Order, In the Matter of Petition of Carl Eric Olsen (May 16, 1994) (rejecting petition to reschedule marijuana); Olsen, 1996 WL 590870, at *1 (denying Olsen's petition for review). Whether marijuana is a source of delta-9-THC is irrelevant to the status of marijuana under the CSA.
None of your remaining arguments as to whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use have merit. [Footnote 11] First, you reference a portion of the 1970 legislative history of the CSA relating to appointment of a commission that issued a report on marijuana in 1972, citing a portion of the 1972 report itself. See Mem. at 2-3. In the more than 36 years that have elapsed since these materials were published, however, numerous individuals and marijuana legalization advocates have pointed to the 1972 marijuana report to justify CSA violations involving marijuana, to challenge the constitutionality of the federal marijuana laws, or, as with your latest petition, to argue that marijuana should be deemed to have medical efficacy for purposes of the CSA. [Footnote 12] None of these efforts have ever succeeded for the simple reason that Congress took no action to alter the CSA in any respect as a result of the 1972 report. The fact that Congress has not rescheduled marijuana speaks for itself.
Footnote 11: Your notice in particular exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the "currently accepted medical use" standard. You argue that the DEA should have rescheduled marijuana in 1996 as soon as one state (California) passed legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana, citing Raich, OCBC, and Grinspoon. Notice at 2-3. But none of these cases support your argument. First, as you acknowledge, see Notice at 3, Raich noted that Congress classified marijuana in schedule I, that is, "Congress expressly found that [marijuana] has no acceptable medical uses." 545 U.S. at 27. Second, you ignore that OCBC specifically rejected an exception for the medical use of marijuana on the basis that Congress, and not the Attorney General, had placed marijuana in schedule I. The Court held:
It is clear from the text of the [CSA] that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception .... The statute ... includes no exception at all for any medical use of marijuana. Unwilling to view this omission as an accident, and unable in any event to override a legislative determination manifest in a statute, we reject the [plaintiff's] argument.
532 U.S. at 493. Third, you misstate the holding of Grinspoon. That court did not say, as you argue, that a controlled substance cannot be scheduled in schedule I if it has accepted medical use anywhere in the United States; rather, it said only that "Congress did not intend .. to require a fmding of recognized medical use in every state." 828 F.2d at 886 (emphasis added).
Footnote 12: See, e.g., United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 1998); NORML v. Bell, 488 F. Supp. 123, 128 (D.D.C. 1980); United States v. LaFroscia, 354 F. Supp. 1338, 1340 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).
You also observe that the federal government has supplied marijuana to medical patients through a program of compassionate use. Mem. at 5-6 (citing Kuromiya v. United States, 78 F. Supp. 2d 367 (E.D. Pa. 1999)). The existence of this exception is not a ground for rescheduling. As the federal district court held in Kuromiya, the government's decision to continue the program at all was a "means of balancing" the interests of those who had relied on the drug with the government's desire to avoid distributing marijuana. 78 F. Supp. 2d at 370-71. You further claim that one participant's primary care doctor has retired, and that she is not able to find another doctor willing to prescribe marijuana because of the stigma associated with prescribing a schedule I substance. Mem. at 6. You have not provided any evidence to support this contention. Even if you had, one individual's potential hardship to participate in a compassionate use program is not adequate legal grounds for rescheduling. See 21 U.S.C. 811(c).
Finally, you argue that the "DEA's own Administrative Law Judge [ALJ Young] has already determined that marijuana is safe for use under medical supervision." Olsen Petition at 4. As you acknowledge, however, see Pet. at 3, the DEA Administrator unambiguously rejected ALJ Young's determination in In re Marijuana Rescheduling, DEA Dkt. No. 86-22 (Sept. 6, 1998) (attached as Ex. 1 to Pet.). The D.C. Circuit later affirmed the DEA's final order (Mar. 26, 1992) in ACT II, 15 F.3d at 1135 (denying petition to review DEA's final order declining to reschedule marijuana). Nor is it accurate that the Administrator's rejection of ALJ Young's determination depended on the fact that no state had accepted the use of marijuana for medical purposes. In fact, ALJ Young's opinion had noted the efforts of a number of states to pass such legislation. See, e.g., In re Marijuana Rescheduling, DEA Dkt. No. 86-22, 21,22,28. In any case, for the reasons set forth in detail above, the existence of state legislation is not relevant to a scheduling determination.
Conclusion
Accordingly, there is no statutory basis for DEA to grant your petition to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana. Nor is there any basis to initiate any action based on your August 5th notice.
The Petitioner's request is denied.
Sincerely,
Michele M. Leonhart
Deputy Administrator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
