Medical Cannabis Policy Update: Summer 2012
Americans
for Safe Access |
|
| Summer 2012 | National Policy Newsletter |
NATIONAL
|
FEDERALASA's Appeal of Cannabis Rescheduling to be HeardDC Circuit Schedules Oral Arguments for October 16
The scientific evidence on medical cannabis will be considered by a federal appeals court this fall as the result of a lawsuit that could force the government to change its policies.
The challenge by Americans for Safe Access to the government's denial of a rescheduling petition has been granted a hearing by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Oral arguments in Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration, scheduled for October 16 at 9:30am, will be the first opportunity in decades for a federal court to hear the full scope of scientific evidence on the therapeutic applications of cannabis. ASA had filed suit to force government action on the petition, setting the stage for next October's court hearing. The DEA is the final arbiter on petitions to reclassify controlled substances, but other agencies are also involved in the review process. 
"Medical cannabis patients will finally get a chance to debunk politically motivated decision-making with scientific facts in open court," said Joe Elford, ASA's Chief Counsel. "Much is at stake – our country's scientific integrity, the medical needs of millions of patients, and an escalating conflict between the federal government and state health programs."
The U.S. federal government classifies cannabis as a highly dangerous drug with no medical uses, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. After nearly a decade of delay, the DEA last July rejected the petition brought by the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC), of which ASA is a member. ASA filed its appeal of the DEA's rescheduling denial in January. ASA's appeal argues that cannabis is treated unlike any other controlled substance in that rescheduling petitions are encumbered by political considerations, and medical research on cannabis in the US is subjected to a unique and overly rigorous approval process. ASA's brief to the court says the federal government has acted arbitrarily and capriciously and should not be allowed “to apply different criteria to marijuana than to other drugs, ignore critical scientific data, misrepresent social science research, or rely upon unsubstantiated assumptions, as the DEA has done in this case." ASA is urging the court to "require the DEA to analyze the scientific data evenhandedly," and order "a hearing and findings based on the scientific record." Hearing the case in Washington, D.C. are Senior Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards and Circuit Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Merrick B. Garland. The original petition on behalf the CRC was filed by attorneys David Holland and Michael Kennedy. The CRC is comprised of several individual patients and advocacy groups, including Patients Out of Time and ASA. Since 1970, two other rescheduling petitions have sought to restore cannabis to the list of recognized medicines, but the medical record was reviewed only once by the courts in 1994. Since then thousands of peer reviewed articles have been published on research exploring the medical applications and potential of cannabis and the cannabinoids that are its constituent chemicals. Currently federal rules of evidence prevent medical cannabis defendants from presenting any medical facts or a state law defense in federal court. If the rescheduling lawsuit is successful and cannabis is reclassified consistent with the scientific consensus on its safety and efficacy, federal defendants will have a basis for a medical necessity defense. More Information: D.C. Circuit announcement of oral arguments ASA appeal brief DEA denial of CRC petition CRC rescheduling petition |
|
|
FEDERAL"Truth in Trials" Act Reintroduced in House with 19 Co-SponsorsBill Would Lift Ban on Medical, State Law Evidence in Federal Court
If a bipartisan bill before Congress becomes law, medical cannabis patients and providers will no longer be prevented from presenting medical or state law evidence in federal trials.
In what has become an annual ritual over the past decade, the “Truth in Trials” Act, HR 6134, was reintroduced last month by Rep. Sam Farr (D, CA-17) with 18 bipartisan co-sponsors.  “The federal government has tilted the scales of justice towards conviction by denying medical marijuana defendants the right to present all of the evidence at trial,” said Rep. Farr. “My bill would restore due process rights to law-abiding citizens acting within the parameters of state and local laws. Juries should hear the entire story of a patient’s medical marijuana use before choosing to convict, not the heavily edited version they currently hear.”
Under the Obama Administration, more than 70 state-authorized individuals have been indicted on federal marijuana charges, despite the President’s promise that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.” “Defendants in medical marijuana states deserve fair trials.” said Steph Sherer, ASA Executive Director. “It’s absurd to claim patients or providers were not complying with state law but prevent them from proving they were.” Federal sentencing rules mean that state-authorized medical cannabis patients and providers face harsh mandatory sentences of up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted. Most state programs require providers and patients to provide information on their cannabis possession and cultivation that ensure conviction in federal court. As a result, federal charges typically result in patients and providers accepting plea bargains to reduce federal prison time. The House bill was first introduced by Rep. Farr in 2003 following the federal conviction of an Oakland man who had been deputized by the city to provide small starter plants to patients. More Information: Text of "Truth in Trials" Act Fact sheet on the "Truth in Trials" Act |
FEDERALNew Bill Would Protect Landlords of State-authorized Medical Cannabis BusinessesNine co-sponsors introduce HR 6335 to stop forfeiture actions by DOJ
Federal property forfeiture actions targeting state-authorized medical cannabis businesses would be stopped if a new bill becomes law.
 HR 6335, the States’ Medical Marijuana Property Rights Protection Act, was introduced in the House of Representatives on August 2 by Rep. Barbara Lee (D, CA-9) with eight initial co-sponsors representing districts in Massachusetts, Oregon, New York, and California.
The bill comes in response to escalating forfeiture actions and threats against landlords of licensed medical cannabis dispensaries. Less than a month ago, U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag served an asset forfeiture lawsuit against the Harborside Health Center’s locations in Oakland and San Jose. The prominent dispensary is one of California’s largest and was the subject of a Discovery Channel series. The action by the U.S. Attorney is the latest in a series targeting state-compliant facilities in Northern California and sparked an outcry from local and state officials, including City Council members, the Oakland City Attorney, and the state Board of Equalization Federal prosecutors have sent more than 300 letters threatening forfeiture to property owners across California, as well as more in Colorado and other states with medical cannabis programs. The threats have resulted in the closure of more than 400 dispensaries in California alone, including nine recently in San Francisco. HR 6335 would prohibit the Justice Department from using the civil asset forfeiture statute, 21 U.S.C. 881(7), against real property owners only if their tenants are in compliance with state medical cannabis law. While property owners have an opportunity to retrieve seized property in civil court, they are not afforded many of the constitutional rights granted to criminal defendants, such as the right to an attorney and a jury trial. In addition, the burden of proof is on the property owner to show their innocence rather than the government having to prove their guilt. One in three Americans lives in a state with medical cannabis laws. More Information: Copy of HR 6335 ASA Fact Sheet on Asset Forfeiture and HR 6335 |
| FEDERAL |
Advocates Rally at Obama Fundraiser, Demand End to Federal Attacks
President Obama was greeted at a California fundraiser by more than 300 medical cannabis patients and advocates protesting federal attacks on local dispensaries.
The peaceful rally across the street from a fundraiser for the President's re-election campaign was in response to recent federal actions that targeted two of Oakland's most prominent, permitted medical cannabis facilities.  As the President's motorcade took him through Oakland, the more than 300 medical cannabis patients and advocates marched peacefully through downtown to City Hall. Many local businesses flew green flags to show support.
The night before the President's arrival, advocates projected on the outside of the campaign's Oakland headquarters his promise from his last campaign not to use federal resources to interfere with state medical cannabis programs. ASA and other advocates held a press conference two blocks from the President's fundraiser at Oaksterdam University, an educational facility for training medical cannabis professionals that was the site of an April DEA raid that shut down its licensed dispensary, Blue Sky.  "We're here to let the President know that shutting down law-abiding dispensaries carries costs for not just our community but his campaign," said Steph Sherer, ASA's Executive Director. "Patients are losing access, workers are losing jobs, the city is losing tax revenue, and he is losing supporters."
The most recent federal action in the Bay Area is a move to shut the two locations of its largest and most well-known dispensary, Harborside Health Center. Harborside employs over 100 people and is Oakland's second largest retail tax payer. Harborside has a city permit to operate and has been serving the community since 2006 without incident. "An attack on the access to patients is an attack on the patients themselves," Don Duncan, California Director of Americans for Safe Access, one of the groups that organized the rally, told the crowd. Other speakers included patient Yvonne Westbrook-White, who received medicine from Oaksterdam's student garden that she used to treat her multiple sclerosis, and Jason David, whose young son suffers from a severe form of epilepsy called Dravet syndrome that is effectively managed with cannabis tinctures David obtains from Harborside. The attempt to close Harborside elicited outrage from both patients and public officials at a July 12 press conference at Oakland City Hall, including Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker, State Assembly member Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), and Betty Yee of the State Board of Equalization, which collects more than $100 million in annual sales tax revenue from California's dispensaries. Harborside Health Center was served with a federal civil complaint for "forfeiture of property" earlier that week at their locations in Oakland and San Jose. The dispensary has a city permit to operate and has been serving the community since 2006 without incident. The forfeiture action is against the "third-party" property owner, Real Property and Improvements. Harborside employs over 100 people and is Oakland's second largest retail tax payer. Last year, the dispensary paid combined taxes in excess of $3 million, over a million dollars of which went directly to the City of Oakland. Since the four U.S. Attorneys in California announced last October that they would be targeting medical cannabis distribution centers, more than 400 dispensaries in the state have shut down, mostly under threat of federal criminal prosecution or asset forfeiture. Federal prosecutors have sent at least 300 letters to property owners in California, threatening federal action if they don't evict their dispensary tenants. In May, the Alameda County Democratic Party Central Committee unanimously adopted a resolution decrying the federal raids as "a breach of promise and ill-directed use of taxpayer dollars" and calling on the federal government "to adhere to Administration promises about respecting state laws on medical marijuana by directing federal agencies to cease and desist from any further such action in California." More Information: Asset forfeiture civil complaint for Oakland property Asset forfeiture civil complaint for San Jose property Video of the images projected onto Obama's Oakland Campaign HQ |
FEDERALElected Officials Decry Federal Raids on Licensed FacilitiesA host of elected federal, state and local officials denounced raids and other actions targeting licensed medical cannabis facilities following the raid on the nation's first medical cannabis school.US Marshals and agents from the DEA and IRS wielding sledgehammers and chainsaws searched Oaksterdam University's downtown Oakland, California location in the early morning hours of April 2. Also raided was the apartment of the school's founder, prominent activist Richard Lee, and his medical cannabis dispensary, Coffee Shop Blue Sky, one of four licensed by the city. The federal agents called Oakland police to escort them from the the Oaksterdam building after scores of protestors with signs and bullhorns, including ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer, gathered to protest the raid. Sherer and other activists held a press conference and rally that afternoon at Oakland City Hall to denounce the raids. Lee, 49, who is confined to a wheelchair due to a spinal injury, founded Oaksterdam University in 2007 and has served on the City of Oakland Cannabis Regulation and Revenue Ordinance Commission since 2005. Oakland City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan called Lee an "exemplary community member" in an interview with the East Bay Express, saying, "His involvement in Oakland has been overwhelmingly positive."  That raid and other recent federal actions targeting state-licensed medical cannabis providers have drawn official rebuke from local and state officials in five states. Lawmakers representing California, Colorado, Maine, New Mexico, and Washington sent a bipartisan letter to the White House urging President Obama to respect state laws.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi(D-Calif.) and San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee each issued statements condemning the raids, and the Democratic Party Committees of both San Francisco and Alameda counties adopted resolutions asking federal agencies to cease interfering with regulated dispensaries. Since January, five licensed dispensaries in San Francisco have been forced to close after receiving threatening letters from U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag. Lee's Coffeeshop Blue Sky had moved twice in recent months after the dispensary's original landlord was threatened with property forfeiture by the area’s US Attorney, Melinda Haag. More information: Letter from state lawmakers Statement by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Statement by SF Mayor Edwin Lee San Francisco Democratic Party resolution |
|
|
FEDERALAG Holder Denies Reality of Medical Cannabis Raids, Threats
Attorney General Eric Holder faced tough questions before the House Judiciary Committee at the beginning of June over the crackdown on state medical cannabis programs.
 Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. pressed Holder on why there have been more than 200 federal raids on state-authorized medical cannabis providers since 2009, given that as a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama had promised that he wouldn't use "Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue."
While Holder acknowledged the Justice Department had pledged not to go after anyone acting within state law, he flatly denied that anyone in compliance has been targeted. Holder claimed that the DOJ is only interested in people who have "come up with ways in which they are taking advantage of these state laws and going beyond that which the states have authorized." He insisted that “the only cases that we have been going after” are “those individuals (and) organizations that are acting out of conformity ... with state laws." The DEA has conducted at least 200 raids and federal prosecutors have brought at least 60 indictments against medical cannabis providers in states that have authorized their operation. “Either the Attorney General doesn’t know what his people are doing, or he’s a bald-faced liar,” said ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer. “His prosecutors have threatened not just every landlord of a medical cannabis provider they can find but a host of state and local elected officials trying to implement the law.” |
|
|
FEDERAL4 Governors File Bipartisan Petition to Reclassify Cannabis
The governors of four medical cannabis states have asked the federal government to reclassify cannabis so it may be legally distributed like other medicines.
 Governors Christine Gregoire (D) of Washington and Lincoln Chafee (I) of Rhode Island held a press conference late last year to publicize their petition, which they decided to send after each received threatening letters from federal prosecutors, warning that state employees would be at risk for criminal prosecution if they were involved with licensing the distribution of medical cannabis.
Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) added his name in December, and Colorado's Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) filed his own petition to reclassify medical cannabis. As a result of the threats, Gov. Gregoire in April vetoed sections of a bill that would have permitted dispensaries in Washington because of federal threats, and in September Gov. Chafee suspended implementation of Rhode Island's dispensary licensing law but has since restarted it. "It is time to show compassion and common sense," said Gov. Gregoire. "The people getting hurt in all of this are patients." Gov. Chafee called today's filing a "bi-coastal, bipartisan effort." The two say they have briefed other governors on their strategy and urged them to join the petition. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia currently have medical cannabis laws. In the rescheduling petition, the governors cite nearly 700 peer-reviewed research studies and reports on medical cannabis, and ask for public hearings "so that the government can hear from doctors and scientists." Federal prosectors have sent threatening letters to state and local officials throughout the nation. Many officials, such as those in Maine and many cities in California, have forged ahead regardless. More Information: Gregoire/Chafee press release Gregoire/Chafee rescheduling petition DOJ letter to Governor Gregoire DOJ letter to Governor Chafee |
|
|
CONNECTICUTNew Medical Cannabis Law SignedFederal Threats No Deterrent to State Lawmakers
On May 31, Connecticut Governor Daniel Malloy signed a bill creating a medical cannabis program in the state. Connecticut becomes the nation’s 17th state to remove criminal penalties for patients who use cannabis on a doctor’s advice.
 The Connecticut legislature passed the measure earlier in the month despite threats against state lawmakers from federal prosecutors. The US Attorneys in many jurisdictions across the country – including Connecticut, California, Rhode Island, and Washington – have warned state and local officials not to pass or implement medical cannabis laws or face federal prosecution.
"We are encouraged elected officials are moving ahead with important public health laws that benefit their communities," said Steph Sherer, Executive Director of Americans for Safe Access, which worked with local advocates to help pass the Connecticut law. "Lawmakers in other states should follow their lead in rejecting the intimidation tactics of the Department of Justice." Under the new law, qualifying patients may possess up to a one-month supply of usable cannabis. Conditions for which Connecticut residents at least 18 years of age may qualify to register with the state include cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson’s, MS, Crohn’s disease, spinal injury and PTSD. The Department of Consumer Protection may add other conditions at its discretion. “We hope to soon see the list of qualifying conditions expanded to include chronic pain and others that we know are helped by medical cannabis,” said Sherer. “Removing the prohibition on patients cultivating their own medicine would also be a further step forward. Too many states that rely on centralized distribution have seen delays.” Connecticut is one of 17 states, plus the District of Columbia, that have passed medical cannabis laws. The others are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. In addition, Maryland has a medical cannabis law that reduces penalties for authorized medical use but does not make it completely legal. More Information: Text of HB 5389 |
|
|
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADistribution and Cultivation Centers Approved by Department of Health
Four medical cannabis distribution locations in the District of Columbia were approved in June by the Department of Health’s Health Regulation and Licensing Administration. That means that more than 13 years after District voters approved it, safe access should be a reality by year’s end for DC residents whose doctors recommend cannabis for medical treatment.
Applicants for distribution center licenses were required to meet a minimum score on a set of restrictive criteria, and only four qualified under the guidelines. With four dispensaries, DC will have one for every 125,000 residents. Six cultivation centers were approved separately by the Department of Health in March. Each cultivation center is restricted to cultivating no more than 95 plants, or less than a single plant for every 1,000 residents. The cultivation centers are all located in the Northeast neighborhood of D.C. The cultivation location operators were selected by a six-member panel in consultation with Advisory Neighborhood Commission members based on criteria devised with input from ASA. The District Council has amended the initiative approved by voters to limit access to those with cancer, HIV/AIDS, glaucoma or severe muscle spasms, though there are provisions for expanding the list. Qualifying patients or their caregivers will be required to obtain their medicine from one of the licensed distribution centers and may possess no more than two ounces at any one time. The D.C. Council created the implementation process in May 2010 after Congress lifted a ban on a 1998 initiative passed with 69% of the vote. All laws in the District are subject to congressional approval. |
|
|
NEW JERSEYDistribution Centers to be Operating by Fall 2012
After more than two years of delays by Governor Chris Christie, medical cannabis is now being cultivated under state regulation in New Jersey. Greenleaf Compassion Center, the first of six slated to operate in the state, is producing the medicinal plants in a secure 5,000 square-foot warehouse in a secret location. The center expects to begin serving qualified patients at its Montclair location by September.
Another center, the Compassionate Care Foundation, expects to open by November, but finding suitable locations to operate for the other four has proven difficult, in what has turned into a battle over land use with local zoning officials. State lawmakers want answers on why implementation of the program has been so delayed from the original July 2011 projected launch. Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Trenton) in July called for hearings. Gov. Jon Corzine signed the Compassionate Care Act in January 2010. |
|
|
RHODE ISLAND State Authorizes Dispensaries after Governor’s Reversal
|
|
|
ARIZONALottery Picks Dispensary Operators, Health Dept. Wants Research
|
|
|
ARKANSASInitiative Petitions Submitted for November Ballot
A coalition of patient advocates in Arkansas in July submitted petitions to place a medical cannabis initiative on the November ballot.
Arkansans for Compassionate Care, the advocacy group leading the effort, says they have more than 67,800 signatures. They need 62,507 to qualify for the November ballot. The Arkansas Secretary of State has 30 days to verify the signatures. An initiative effort in 2004 gathered the number necessary but then had 17,000 invalidated due to a notary public error on some of the petitions. Medical cannabis bills have been presented in the legislature in 2003, 2005 and 2011 but never come to a vote. |
|
|
NEW HAMPSHIREMedical Cannabis Bill Vetoed Again, Override Fails
For the second time in three years, New Hampshire governor John Lynch (D) has thwarted state lawmakers’ effort to provide safe access to patients in the state. The state Senate fell two votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override the governor’s veto of the bill passed in June. Lynch vetoed a similar bill in 2009.
The Republican-sponsored bill, which enjoyed broad bipartisan support, would have allowed qualified patients or designated caregivers to cultivate and possess up to six ounces of marijuana, as well as four mature plants and 12 immature plants. The measure, SB 409, passed in the state house by an overwhelming vote of 236-96 but by a narrower margin in the senate. Lynch said he vetoed the bill because allowing personal cultivation would prevent the state from limiting the number of cultivation sites and make it impossible to control distribution and prevent illegal use. SB 409 originally called for distribution through "Alternative Treatment Centers," but that provision was dropped from the bill during deliberations. "Our hearts go out to all the medical cannabis patients in New Hampshire who remain criminals under the law despite the best efforts of their elected representatives to protect them," said Steph Sherer, Executive Director of Americans for Safe Access. "A lame-duck governor has no business thwarting the will of the people, particular when it inflicts further hardship on the sick and suffering." More information: Text of SB 409 |
|
|
MARYLANDVeto Threat Kills 3 Bills to Expand Access
Three separate state legislative proposals to provide medical cannabis access points for patients were presented in Maryland this spring but were abandoned after a veto threat from Governor Martin O’Malley. The bills were a follow up to the interim medical cannabis law passed last year that directed the legislature to find ways to provide safe access.
 Gov. O'Malley opposes any bill that puts a state agency in charge of regulating the program, over fears state employees could face federal charges. US Attorneys have sent threatening letters to lawmakers in many states, including neighboring Delaware, warning them not to attempt to implement state medical cannabis laws or regulate distribution.
Montel Williams, the Emmy-award-winning talkshow host and former Marine who suffers from MS, was among those who testified before Maryland state lawmakers on the need for better legislation, saying “Cannabis…gives relief to millions of people.” |
|
|
NEVADAState Supreme Court to Rule on Distribution
|
|
|
MONTANAState Supreme Court Considers Distribution Dilemma
The Montana Supreme Court is considering whether the initiative passed by the state’s voters provides a constitutional right to sell medical cannabis. In July the court ruled that caregivers may not exchange cannabis with other caregivers, share cultivation services, or transport cannabis on behalf of other caregivers.
Registered caregivers are currently allowed to sell cannabis to cardholders in the state medical cannabis program. The legal challenges stem from changes the 2011 state legislature made to the initiative passed by voters in 2004 and an earlier revision made by lawmakers in 2009. A lower-court last year ruled unconstitutional the portion of the 2011 law that effectively banned sales of medical cannabis, saying it deprived Montanans of their fundamental rights to pursue their health and livelihoods. The Montana Attorney General has asked the state Supreme Court to find there is no constitutional right to sell products that are illegal under federal law. A year ago, more than 30,000 Montanans were registered with the state medical cannabis program as patients and 4,848 as providers. As of June 2012, that number had dropped to fewer than 8,681 patients and 390 providers. |
|
|
CALIFORNIAState Supreme Court Reviewing Dispensary Cases
The California Supreme Court let stand a landmark Court of Appeal ruling supporting the operation of storefront medical cannabis collectives under state law. The court declined to review a decision that says a collective’s members need not participate in its operations, that collectives can cultivate and transport cannabis on behalf of their members, and that cannabis extracts and concentrates are legal.
"The California Supreme Court has recognized, as the appeals court did, that those most in need of medical cannabis are those least able to do the work of cultivating and distributing it,” said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford. "Allowing collective members to rely on each other, transport their medicine, and use more effective extracts is a commonsense approach to safe access.” The California Supreme Court also vacated lower court rulings that some dispensary regulations may be preempted by federal law and a finding that local governments could legally ban distribution. The court is reviewing those cases, along with others that affect how medical cannabis distribution is handled in California. “The California Supreme Court has stopped local governments from using these rulings to deny access to medical cannabis for patients in their communities,” said Elford, who had filed a brief along with the American Civil Liberties Union, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the County of Santa Cruz requesting review of one of the cases. "Local governments should not be able to ban activities the legislature has said are legal, particularly when they affect the health and welfare of so many Californians.” It may be two or more years before the Supreme Court rules on the cases. More Information: ASA, et al amicus brief urging review by the California Supreme Court Text of California MMPA |
|
|
MEDICALMedical Cannabis Patient Denied Liver Transplant DiesOncologist’s Recommendation Trumped by Transplant Rules
A medical cannabis patient who was removed from a liver transplant list for using the cannabis his oncologist recommended has died.
 Norman B. Smith, 63, was diagnosed with inoperable liver cancer in 2009 and listed for a transplant at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles in Sept. 2010. But after testing positive for cannabis in February 2012, he was removed from the transplant list even though his oncologist had recommend he use cannabis to manage his symptoms.
The hospital had told Smith he had to test clean for six months before being reconsidered. He complied, but Cedars-Sinai refused to relist him. Because cannabis is an illegal drug under federal law, anyone testing positive for it is deemed a drug abuser and high risk for transplants. Smith underwent chemotherapy and radiation treatments for cancer, both of which entail harsh side effects for which cannabis is routinely recommended. An independent research study has shown that cannabis use has no adverse impact on the survival rate of transplant recipients. Americans for Safe Access had sent a letter to the Cedars-Sinai Transplant Department urging them to change the transplant eligibility policy and re-list Smith for a liver transplant. His situation received considerable media attention, including a documentary by Reason TV. Smith is not the only patient in the U.S. who has been denied a transplant because they use cannabis on a doctor's advice. ASA received reports from two other Cedars-Sinai patients who say they were kicked off the transplant list because of authorized medical cannabis use. In the past four years, ASA has received reports of patients being denied transplants in California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington. In 2008, Seattle patient Timothy Garon died after being denied a liver transplant by the University of Washington Medical Center. In 2009, Hawaii patient Kimberly Reyes died at Hilo Hospital after being denied a liver transplant. Both were authorized to use medical cannabis through their state programs. More Information: Video of Norman Smith ASA letter to Cedars-Sinai Cedars-Sinai transplant denial letter to Norman Smith Liver transplant study |
|
|
MEDICAL Cannabinoids Fight HIV Spread, Researchers Find
Cannabinoids that activate CB2 receptors have now been shown to inhibit HIV infection at the cellular level by up to 50%.
While many HIV/AIDS patients rely on cannabis to ease the symptoms of the disease or side effects of harsh anti-viral medications, this is the first indication that cannabinoids have a direct therapeutic effect on disease progression. The new research from Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York focused on antiviral cannabinoid action on CD4+ T cells which are critical to immune function and a target of the virus. Previous research has shown that the use of cannabinoid drugs in patients with HIV is associated with an increase in CD4+ T cell number and has been shown to reduce viral load in an animal model of HIV. The new study found that a synthetic cannabinoid that targets CB2 receptors produced a dose-specific reduction of HIV infection of 40% to 50% . Cannabinoids that selectively interact with the CB2 receptors can be non-psychoactive but still provide relief for the cachexia, nausea or neuropathic pain that cannabis has been shown to treat effectively. The researchers say that the therapeutic use of cannabinoids may help fight the spread of the virus to uninfected T cells in late stages of HIV-1 infection and suggest further cannabinoid research “may result in the discovery of new anti-viral drugs that can also mitigate AIDS-associated symptoms.” More Information: Costantino CM, Gupta A, Yewdall AW, Dale BM, Devi LA, et al. (2012) Cannabinoid Receptor 2-Mediated Attenuation of CXCR4-Tropic HIV Infection in Primary CD4+ T Cells. PLoS ONE 7(3): e33961. |
|
|
After a three-year wait, medical cannabis dispensaries will soon be operating in Rhode Island. Federal threats had prompted Gov. Lincoln Chafee to halt approval of three dispensaries, but he subsequently reached an agreement with legislative leaders to move forward with licensing the compassion centers.
The legislation to create compassion centers was passed in 2009 when the General Assembly overrode the veto of then-Gov. Donald Carcieri. Last year, Gov. Chafee stopped implementation of the law after federal prosecutors began threatening state and local officials with criminal prosecution if they regulated the distribution of medical cannabis.
Arizona officials conducted a lottery August 7 to determine who among the 486 applicants will get each of the regional dispensary licenses. State law allows for a total of up to 126 medical cannabis distribution centers in the state, with the total for each of the designated areas depending on population. The Arizona Department of Health Services received only one applicant for 22 of the 99 areas and is conducting the lottery to pick operators for the other 77.
A Nevada state lawmaker said in July that he will introduce legislation next year to establish state-licensed medical cannabis dispensaries and cultivation cites that would be taxed by the state.
