Certain marijuana components may suppress the tumors of highly invasive cancers, a new study finds.
In laboratory tests, cannabinoids, the active components in marijuana, were found to slow the spread of lung and cervical cancer tumors, according to researchers Robert Ramer and Burkhard Hinz of the University of Rostock in Germany.
Proponents of medical marijuana believe that cannabinoids reduce the side effects of cancer treatment, such as pain, weight loss and vomiting.
The study, published in the Jan. 2 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, finds that the compounds may also have an anticancer effect; however, more research is needed to determine whether the laboratory results will hold true in humans, the authors wrote.
Click here for the study.
In addition to suppressing tumor cell invasion, cannabinoids also stimulated the expression of TIMP-1, an inhibitor of a group of enzymes involved in tumor cell invasion.
"To our knowledge, this is the first report of TIMP-1-dependent anti-invasive effects of cannabinoids," the authors wrote. "This signaling pathway may play an important role in the antimetastatic action of cannabinoids, whose potential therapeutic benefit in the treatment of highly invasive cancers should be addressed in clinical trials."
Fox News
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Jury Nullification !
During Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws, possibly as often as 60% of the time.
This resistance is considered to have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing the Eighteenth amendment which established Prohibition.
In the 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center around drug laws that some consider unjust either in principle or because they are seen to discriminate against certain groups.
A jury nullification advocacy group estimates that 3–4% of all jury trials involve nullification, and a recent rise in hung juries is seen by some as being indirect evidence that juries have begun to consider the validity or fairness of the laws themselves.
MARIJUANA TRIAL: Swift found not guilty; jurors shake hands with defendant
A couple of courthouse observers speculated after the verdict that jurors had engaged in "jury nullification," meaning jurors believed Swift was guilty, but did not believe he deserved punishment, so voted not guilty.
The Words of the Founding Fathers
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...
if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty
they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong.
-- Alexander Hamilton, 1804
It is not only the juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.
--John Adams, 1771
I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man
by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1789
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made
by men of their choice, if the laws are so voluminous that they
cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood;
if they... undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows
what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow
-- James Madison
This resistance is considered to have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing the Eighteenth amendment which established Prohibition.
In the 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center around drug laws that some consider unjust either in principle or because they are seen to discriminate against certain groups.
A jury nullification advocacy group estimates that 3–4% of all jury trials involve nullification, and a recent rise in hung juries is seen by some as being indirect evidence that juries have begun to consider the validity or fairness of the laws themselves.
MARIJUANA TRIAL: Swift found not guilty; jurors shake hands with defendant
A couple of courthouse observers speculated after the verdict that jurors had engaged in "jury nullification," meaning jurors believed Swift was guilty, but did not believe he deserved punishment, so voted not guilty.
The Words of the Founding Fathers
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...
if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty
they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong.
-- Alexander Hamilton, 1804
It is not only the juror's right, but his duty to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.
--John Adams, 1771
I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man
by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1789
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made
by men of their choice, if the laws are so voluminous that they
cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood;
if they... undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows
what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow
-- James Madison
Monday, January 12, 2009
Obama Administration: Surgeon General Nominee Gupta Hates Marijuana, Sort of Supports Medical Use
Drug reformers busily poring over the tea leaves in an effort to discern the drug policy intentions of the incoming Obama administration have found little solace in the announcement that it will nominate Dr. Sanjay Gupta for the position of surgeon general. One of America's most famous doctors, Gupta is a neurosurgeon who also doubles as a correspondent for CNN and CBS News.
The Obama administration offer came after a two-hour meeting between Gupta and Obama in Chicago in November. At that meeting, Obama told Gupta he would have an expanded role in providing health policy advice and would be the highest-profile surgeon general in history.
Gupta has a history in health policy. He served as a White House fellow in the 1990s, writing speeches and advising Hillary Clinton on health policy issues. He is also an accomplished, telegenic communicator.
While he has received criticism from some quarters for being too friendly with big pharmaceutical companies and from others for wrongly accusing filmmaker Michael Moore of falsehoods in his documentary "Sicko," it is his old-school views on marijuana that are raising hackles in drug reform circles. Most famously, in a November 2006 editorial in Time magazine, Gupta, while acknowledging marijuana's medical benefits for some patients, went on to repeat a raft of long-debunked anti-marijuana myths as reasons for opposing marijuana reform initiatives on the ballot in Nevada and Colorado that week. In Gupta's words:
"Maybe it's because I was born a couple of months after Woodstock and wasn't around when marijuana was as common as iPods are today, but I'm constantly amazed that after all these years -- and all the wars on drugs and all the public-service announcements -- nearly 15 million Americans still use marijuana at least once a month. California and 10 other states have already decriminalized marijuana for medical use. Two states -- Colorado and Nevada -- are considering ballot initiatives that would legalize up to an ounce of pot for personal use by people 21 and older, whether or not there is a medical need.
"What do voters need to know before going to the polls?
"The first is that marijuana isn't really very good for you. True, there are health benefits for some patients. Several recent studies, including a new one from the Scripps Research Institute, show that THC, the chemical in marijuana responsible for the high, can help slow the progress of Alzheimer's disease. (In fact, it seems to block the formation of disease-causing plaques better than several mainstream drugs.) Other studies have shown THC to be a very effective antinausea treatment for people -- cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, for example -- for whom conventional medications aren't working. And medical cannabis has shown promise relieving pain in patients with multiple sclerosis and reducing intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients.
"But I suspect that most of the people eager to vote yes on the new ballot measures aren't suffering from glaucoma, Alzheimer's or chemo-induced nausea. Many of them just want to get stoned legally. That's why I, like many other doctors, am unimpressed with the proposed legislation, which would legalize marijuana irrespective of any medical condition.
"Why do I care? As Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, puts it, "Numerous deleterious health consequences are associated with [marijuana's] short- and long-term use, including the possibility of becoming addicted."
"What are other health consequences? Frequent marijuana use can seriously affect your short-term memory. It can impair your cognitive ability (why do you think people call it dope?) and lead to long-lasting depression or anxiety. While many people smoke marijuana to relax, it can have the opposite effect on frequent users. And smoking anything, whether it's tobacco or marijuana, can seriously damage your lung tissue.
"The Nevada and Colorado marijuana initiatives have gained support from unlikely places. More than 33 religious leaders in Nevada have endorsed the measure, arguing that permissive legalization, accompanied by stringent regulations and penalties, can cut down on illegal drug trafficking and make communities safer.
"Perhaps. But I'm here to tell you, as a doctor, that despite all the talk about the medical benefits of marijuana, smoking the stuff is not going to do your health any good. And if you get high before climbing behind the wheel of a car, you will be putting yourself and those around you in danger."
Whether Gupta if confirmed will support medical marijuana -- as opposed to mere THC-based pharmaceuticals such as Marinol -- or do good for drug policy reform in other ways, remains to be seen. And he did demonstrate a willingness to acknowledge some of the arguments made by the other side. But his apparent blindness to the harm caused to marijuana users by arrest and incarceration is not a great first sign. Change we can believe in for drug policy? Only time will tell.
(here)
The Obama administration offer came after a two-hour meeting between Gupta and Obama in Chicago in November. At that meeting, Obama told Gupta he would have an expanded role in providing health policy advice and would be the highest-profile surgeon general in history.
Gupta has a history in health policy. He served as a White House fellow in the 1990s, writing speeches and advising Hillary Clinton on health policy issues. He is also an accomplished, telegenic communicator.
While he has received criticism from some quarters for being too friendly with big pharmaceutical companies and from others for wrongly accusing filmmaker Michael Moore of falsehoods in his documentary "Sicko," it is his old-school views on marijuana that are raising hackles in drug reform circles. Most famously, in a November 2006 editorial in Time magazine, Gupta, while acknowledging marijuana's medical benefits for some patients, went on to repeat a raft of long-debunked anti-marijuana myths as reasons for opposing marijuana reform initiatives on the ballot in Nevada and Colorado that week. In Gupta's words:
"Maybe it's because I was born a couple of months after Woodstock and wasn't around when marijuana was as common as iPods are today, but I'm constantly amazed that after all these years -- and all the wars on drugs and all the public-service announcements -- nearly 15 million Americans still use marijuana at least once a month. California and 10 other states have already decriminalized marijuana for medical use. Two states -- Colorado and Nevada -- are considering ballot initiatives that would legalize up to an ounce of pot for personal use by people 21 and older, whether or not there is a medical need.
"What do voters need to know before going to the polls?
"The first is that marijuana isn't really very good for you. True, there are health benefits for some patients. Several recent studies, including a new one from the Scripps Research Institute, show that THC, the chemical in marijuana responsible for the high, can help slow the progress of Alzheimer's disease. (In fact, it seems to block the formation of disease-causing plaques better than several mainstream drugs.) Other studies have shown THC to be a very effective antinausea treatment for people -- cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, for example -- for whom conventional medications aren't working. And medical cannabis has shown promise relieving pain in patients with multiple sclerosis and reducing intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients.
"But I suspect that most of the people eager to vote yes on the new ballot measures aren't suffering from glaucoma, Alzheimer's or chemo-induced nausea. Many of them just want to get stoned legally. That's why I, like many other doctors, am unimpressed with the proposed legislation, which would legalize marijuana irrespective of any medical condition.
"Why do I care? As Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, puts it, "Numerous deleterious health consequences are associated with [marijuana's] short- and long-term use, including the possibility of becoming addicted."
"What are other health consequences? Frequent marijuana use can seriously affect your short-term memory. It can impair your cognitive ability (why do you think people call it dope?) and lead to long-lasting depression or anxiety. While many people smoke marijuana to relax, it can have the opposite effect on frequent users. And smoking anything, whether it's tobacco or marijuana, can seriously damage your lung tissue.
"The Nevada and Colorado marijuana initiatives have gained support from unlikely places. More than 33 religious leaders in Nevada have endorsed the measure, arguing that permissive legalization, accompanied by stringent regulations and penalties, can cut down on illegal drug trafficking and make communities safer.
"Perhaps. But I'm here to tell you, as a doctor, that despite all the talk about the medical benefits of marijuana, smoking the stuff is not going to do your health any good. And if you get high before climbing behind the wheel of a car, you will be putting yourself and those around you in danger."
Whether Gupta if confirmed will support medical marijuana -- as opposed to mere THC-based pharmaceuticals such as Marinol -- or do good for drug policy reform in other ways, remains to be seen. And he did demonstrate a willingness to acknowledge some of the arguments made by the other side. But his apparent blindness to the harm caused to marijuana users by arrest and incarceration is not a great first sign. Change we can believe in for drug policy? Only time will tell.
(here)
Monday, December 8, 2008
German Patients to Receive Medical Marijuana
(from MPP Blog)
by Bruce Mirken
Germany is about to become the fifth country to allow at least some patients to use natural marijuana as medicine. According to a report from the International Association for Cannabis as Medicine, the German government recently notified four patients that they would be allowed to receive medical marijuana produced under the Dutch government’s medical marijuana program. The German program remains limited to special cases.
Other German patients have been allowed to use a liquid extract made from Dutch cannabis, but for some patients the extract proved unsatisfactory. The patients are expected to receive their supply of whole marijuana around mid-January.
Other than the Netherlands, nations that have some sort of medical marijuana program sanctioned by their national governments — with varying levels of restrictions and limitations — include Canada and Israel. Oh, and the U.S., which still provides medical marijuana to a handful of surviving patients in a program that was closed to new enrollment in 1992. (link)
by Bruce Mirken
Germany is about to become the fifth country to allow at least some patients to use natural marijuana as medicine. According to a report from the International Association for Cannabis as Medicine, the German government recently notified four patients that they would be allowed to receive medical marijuana produced under the Dutch government’s medical marijuana program. The German program remains limited to special cases.
Other German patients have been allowed to use a liquid extract made from Dutch cannabis, but for some patients the extract proved unsatisfactory. The patients are expected to receive their supply of whole marijuana around mid-January.
Other than the Netherlands, nations that have some sort of medical marijuana program sanctioned by their national governments — with varying levels of restrictions and limitations — include Canada and Israel. Oh, and the U.S., which still provides medical marijuana to a handful of surviving patients in a program that was closed to new enrollment in 1992. (link)
Michigan's Proposition 1 Takes Effect Legalizing Medicinal Marijuana
Dec-04-2008 20:39 (salem-news.com)
Michigan's Proposition 1 Takes Effect Legalizing Medicinal Marijuana
Physician Authorizes First Patients for Medical Marijuana in Michigan
(SOUTHFIELD, Mich.) - A national nonprofit organization, THCF Medical Clinics, opened a new medical marijuana clinic Thursday at 2000 Town Center in Southfield. Eric Eisenbud, MD, along with the executive director of THCF, Douglas P. Stanford and several medical marijuana patients, held a press conference this morning in Southfield.
Michigan's marijuana law took effect today, and Dr. Eisenbud issued the first authorizations for patients who have qualifying conditions under the new law.
THCF Medical Clinics have helped over 45,000 patients obtain their state's permit for medical marijuana. The Hemp & Cannabis Foundation (THCF) has offices and has helped implement the medical marijuana laws in seven other states: Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Montana, Hawaii, Nevada and California. Dr. Eisenbud has helped over 3,000 medical marijuana patients in Colorado and Montana.
THCF Medical Clinics does not provide medical marijuana to patients, but provides physicians who can help qualified patients get state authorization. Initially, our patients will receive a physician's statement that exempts them from prosecution and allows them to raise an affirmative defense for medical marijuana if they are currently being prosecuted.
In April 2009, the Michigan Community Health Department will issue new forms and procedures to begin issuing Michigan Medical Marijuana Registry Identification cards.
When those forms are available, Dr. Eisenbud will complete them for all Michigan patients of THCF Medical Clinics.
Medical marijuana was approved in Michigan by 63 percent of voters in Prop 1 in November. Michigan becomes the 13th state to allow medical marijuana, in addition to California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Montana, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island and New Mexico. (link)
Michigan's Proposition 1 Takes Effect Legalizing Medicinal Marijuana
Physician Authorizes First Patients for Medical Marijuana in Michigan
(SOUTHFIELD, Mich.) - A national nonprofit organization, THCF Medical Clinics, opened a new medical marijuana clinic Thursday at 2000 Town Center in Southfield. Eric Eisenbud, MD, along with the executive director of THCF, Douglas P. Stanford and several medical marijuana patients, held a press conference this morning in Southfield.
Michigan's marijuana law took effect today, and Dr. Eisenbud issued the first authorizations for patients who have qualifying conditions under the new law.
THCF Medical Clinics have helped over 45,000 patients obtain their state's permit for medical marijuana. The Hemp & Cannabis Foundation (THCF) has offices and has helped implement the medical marijuana laws in seven other states: Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Montana, Hawaii, Nevada and California. Dr. Eisenbud has helped over 3,000 medical marijuana patients in Colorado and Montana.
THCF Medical Clinics does not provide medical marijuana to patients, but provides physicians who can help qualified patients get state authorization. Initially, our patients will receive a physician's statement that exempts them from prosecution and allows them to raise an affirmative defense for medical marijuana if they are currently being prosecuted.
In April 2009, the Michigan Community Health Department will issue new forms and procedures to begin issuing Michigan Medical Marijuana Registry Identification cards.
When those forms are available, Dr. Eisenbud will complete them for all Michigan patients of THCF Medical Clinics.
Medical marijuana was approved in Michigan by 63 percent of voters in Prop 1 in November. Michigan becomes the 13th state to allow medical marijuana, in addition to California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Montana, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island and New Mexico. (link)
U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law
Medical marijuana case appealed by the City of Garden Grove was denied review today
(from safeaccessnow.org- 12-1-08)
Washington, DC -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws." The case, involving Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove, was the result of a wrongful seizure of medical marijuana by local police in June 2005. Medical marijuana advocates hailed today's decision as a huge victory in clarifying law enforcement's obligation to uphold state law. Advocates assert that better adherence to state medical marijuana laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and seizures. In turn, this will allow for better implementation of medical marijuana laws not only in California, but in all states that have adopted such laws.
"It's now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the contrary federal law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that represented the defendant Felix Kha in a case that the City of Garden Grove appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Perhaps, in the future local government will think twice about expending significant time and resources to defy a law that is overwhelmingly supported by the people of our state."
California medical marijuana patient Felix Kha was pulled over by the Garden Grove Police Department and cited for possession of marijuana, despite Kha showing the officers proper documentation. The charge against Kha was subsequently dismissed, with the Superior Court of Orange County issuing an order to return Kha's wrongfully seized 8 grams of medical marijuana. The police, backed by the City of Garden Grove, refused to return Kha's medicine and the city appealed. Before the 41-page decision was issued a year ago by California's Fourth District Court of Appeal, the California Attorney General filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Kha's right to possess his medicine. The California Supreme Court then denied review in March.
"The source of local law enforcement's resistance to upholding state law is an outdated, harmful federal policy with regard to medical marijuana," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "This should send a message to the federal government that it's time to establish a compassionate policy more consistent with the 13 states that have adopted medical marijuana laws." (from)
(from safeaccessnow.org- 12-1-08)
Washington, DC -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws." The case, involving Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove, was the result of a wrongful seizure of medical marijuana by local police in June 2005. Medical marijuana advocates hailed today's decision as a huge victory in clarifying law enforcement's obligation to uphold state law. Advocates assert that better adherence to state medical marijuana laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and seizures. In turn, this will allow for better implementation of medical marijuana laws not only in California, but in all states that have adopted such laws.
"It's now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the contrary federal law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that represented the defendant Felix Kha in a case that the City of Garden Grove appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Perhaps, in the future local government will think twice about expending significant time and resources to defy a law that is overwhelmingly supported by the people of our state."
California medical marijuana patient Felix Kha was pulled over by the Garden Grove Police Department and cited for possession of marijuana, despite Kha showing the officers proper documentation. The charge against Kha was subsequently dismissed, with the Superior Court of Orange County issuing an order to return Kha's wrongfully seized 8 grams of medical marijuana. The police, backed by the City of Garden Grove, refused to return Kha's medicine and the city appealed. Before the 41-page decision was issued a year ago by California's Fourth District Court of Appeal, the California Attorney General filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Kha's right to possess his medicine. The California Supreme Court then denied review in March.
"The source of local law enforcement's resistance to upholding state law is an outdated, harmful federal policy with regard to medical marijuana," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "This should send a message to the federal government that it's time to establish a compassionate policy more consistent with the 13 states that have adopted medical marijuana laws." (from)
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
UK scientists decry moves to toughen cannabis laws
LONDON: A group of senior British scientists has condemned the government's push to toughen the penalties for possessing marijuana, saying in a letter published Tuesday the move ignores scientific evidence.
Britain's House of Lords voted to reclassifying the drug Tuesday, and the House of Commons, Britain's powerful lower house, already approved the measure earlier this month and the Lords' vote is seen as a formality.
The Home Office said it expected the change to come into effect in January.
In Britain, drugs are classified into three different categories with "Class A" the most dangerous. Marijuana is currently classified as a "Class C" drug and the change will upgrade it to "Class B" — something the government argues is necessary in part because of the increasing potency of some cannabis varieties.
The change would reverse the relaxation of British cannabis laws in 2004 and ignore the recommendations of a government drug advisory council.
(more)
Britain's House of Lords voted to reclassifying the drug Tuesday, and the House of Commons, Britain's powerful lower house, already approved the measure earlier this month and the Lords' vote is seen as a formality.
The Home Office said it expected the change to come into effect in January.
In Britain, drugs are classified into three different categories with "Class A" the most dangerous. Marijuana is currently classified as a "Class C" drug and the change will upgrade it to "Class B" — something the government argues is necessary in part because of the increasing potency of some cannabis varieties.
The change would reverse the relaxation of British cannabis laws in 2004 and ignore the recommendations of a government drug advisory council.
(more)
California Supreme Court Unanimously Limits Medical Marijuana Defense
Monday, November 25, 2008
Roger Mentch, a medical marijuana patient who provided medical marijuana and advice to several other medical marijuana patients was arrested in 2003 for distribution of marijuana. During his trial, he was not allowed to put forth a defense that his actions were protected as a primary caregiver under California’s Compassionate Use Act. Mentch was convicted and given three years of probation.
He later appealed his case, but this Monday the California Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s original ruling in a 7-0 decision. The Court has narrowly defined who is a legitimate caregiver under the Compassionate Use Act, and according to the Court, someone whose caregiving consisted primarily of providing marijuana and counseling on its use is not protected.
As a result of this decision, individuals who assist patients with cultivation and administration of medical marijuana are now more vulnerable to arrest and prosecution under California law. Other states—such as New Mexico—recognize the important role that caregivers play in providing and advising patients regarding medical marijuana and have wisely drafted their laws with broader, more protective caregiver language than California.
(more)
Roger Mentch, a medical marijuana patient who provided medical marijuana and advice to several other medical marijuana patients was arrested in 2003 for distribution of marijuana. During his trial, he was not allowed to put forth a defense that his actions were protected as a primary caregiver under California’s Compassionate Use Act. Mentch was convicted and given three years of probation.
He later appealed his case, but this Monday the California Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s original ruling in a 7-0 decision. The Court has narrowly defined who is a legitimate caregiver under the Compassionate Use Act, and according to the Court, someone whose caregiving consisted primarily of providing marijuana and counseling on its use is not protected.
As a result of this decision, individuals who assist patients with cultivation and administration of medical marijuana are now more vulnerable to arrest and prosecution under California law. Other states—such as New Mexico—recognize the important role that caregivers play in providing and advising patients regarding medical marijuana and have wisely drafted their laws with broader, more protective caregiver language than California.
(more)
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Court ruling will limit solo pot providers
(11-24) 14:41 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Someone who supplies marijuana to a patient who has a doctor's approval for it can be prosecuted for dealing drugs, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday in a narrow interpretation of California's medical marijuana law.
Advocates on both sides of the case agreed that the unanimous ruling will encourage Californians to obtain medical marijuana from patient cooperatives, which are authorized by a 2003 state law, rather than from an individual supplier.
"Ideally, it (the ruling) won't have a tremendous effect," said Joseph Elford, a lawyer for Americans for Safe Access, a pro-medical marijuana group. "Patients will now increasingly get their medication through collectives and cooperatives."
The 2003 law "provides an alternative outlet for patients," agreed Deputy Attorney General Michele Swanson, the state's lawyer. She said Monday's ruling applies only to a category of suppliers - those who are not the patient's caretaker or fellow cooperative member - whom the voters never intended to protect when they passed Proposition 215 in 1996.
But Lawrence Gibbs, attorney for the Santa Cruz County man who appealed his marijuana-dealing convictions, said the court "made it much, much more difficult for qualified patients to get their medical marijuana."
Although patients can turn to cooperatives or clubs, Gibbs said, the resulting centralization of cultivation and supply will make raids and prosecutions much easier for federal authorities, who are not bound by Prop. 215. President-elect Barack Obama said during the campaign that he supports a state's right to legalize the medical use of marijuana, but believes it should be subject to regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The ruling is the second time this year the state Supreme Court has limited the scope of Prop. 215, which allowed patients to grow and use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.
(more)
Advocates on both sides of the case agreed that the unanimous ruling will encourage Californians to obtain medical marijuana from patient cooperatives, which are authorized by a 2003 state law, rather than from an individual supplier.
"Ideally, it (the ruling) won't have a tremendous effect," said Joseph Elford, a lawyer for Americans for Safe Access, a pro-medical marijuana group. "Patients will now increasingly get their medication through collectives and cooperatives."
The 2003 law "provides an alternative outlet for patients," agreed Deputy Attorney General Michele Swanson, the state's lawyer. She said Monday's ruling applies only to a category of suppliers - those who are not the patient's caretaker or fellow cooperative member - whom the voters never intended to protect when they passed Proposition 215 in 1996.
But Lawrence Gibbs, attorney for the Santa Cruz County man who appealed his marijuana-dealing convictions, said the court "made it much, much more difficult for qualified patients to get their medical marijuana."
Although patients can turn to cooperatives or clubs, Gibbs said, the resulting centralization of cultivation and supply will make raids and prosecutions much easier for federal authorities, who are not bound by Prop. 215. President-elect Barack Obama said during the campaign that he supports a state's right to legalize the medical use of marijuana, but believes it should be subject to regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The ruling is the second time this year the state Supreme Court has limited the scope of Prop. 215, which allowed patients to grow and use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.
(more)
Marijuana expert speaks at university
By Hannah Guzik
Tidings correspondent
Ed Rosenthal stood before 400 pot plants on the stage Sunday at Southern Oregon University, as he taught locals how to successfully grow medical marijuana and grew heated himself as he railed against state laws restricting how many plants a patient can have.
There was no actual pot present at the gathering, save for the occasional smell of it on people's clothes; instead, Rosenthal projected photographs of the plants onto a large screen to a crowd of about 50 at Meese Auditorium.
Rosenthal, considered an expert in the field and author of more than a dozen books on marijuana, traveled from California to give the lecture, which raised money for SOU's Students For Truth group and Voter Power, an Oregon medical marijuana activist organization with an office in Medford.
Voter Power is working to collect 130,000 signatures to get a measure on the state's 2010 ballot that, if passed, would allow medical marijuana dispensaries to be set up, like in California. Under existing laws, Oregon patients can grow up to six plants for themselves, or have a registered grower cultivate the same amount for them.
"It's high time that people in Oregon have access to medicine when they need it," Rosenthal said before his lecture. "Nobody should be deprived of medicine when they need it."
One of the benefits of the dispensary system is that patients have access to pharmaceutical-grade pot and different tinctures of marijuana, he said.
"Patients need the best medicine they can get," Rosenthal added. (more)
Tidings correspondent
Ed Rosenthal stood before 400 pot plants on the stage Sunday at Southern Oregon University, as he taught locals how to successfully grow medical marijuana and grew heated himself as he railed against state laws restricting how many plants a patient can have.
There was no actual pot present at the gathering, save for the occasional smell of it on people's clothes; instead, Rosenthal projected photographs of the plants onto a large screen to a crowd of about 50 at Meese Auditorium.
Rosenthal, considered an expert in the field and author of more than a dozen books on marijuana, traveled from California to give the lecture, which raised money for SOU's Students For Truth group and Voter Power, an Oregon medical marijuana activist organization with an office in Medford.
Voter Power is working to collect 130,000 signatures to get a measure on the state's 2010 ballot that, if passed, would allow medical marijuana dispensaries to be set up, like in California. Under existing laws, Oregon patients can grow up to six plants for themselves, or have a registered grower cultivate the same amount for them.
"It's high time that people in Oregon have access to medicine when they need it," Rosenthal said before his lecture. "Nobody should be deprived of medicine when they need it."
One of the benefits of the dispensary system is that patients have access to pharmaceutical-grade pot and different tinctures of marijuana, he said.
"Patients need the best medicine they can get," Rosenthal added. (more)
Monday, November 24, 2008
Fuck the Feds
Modesto men sentenced in medical pot case
The Associated Press
Posted: 11/21/2008 07:08:05 PM PST
FRESNO, Calif.—Two men who ran a medical marijuana dispensary in Modesto are headed to prison after being convicted of running a criminal enterprise.
A federal judge in Fresno on Friday sentenced 28-year-old Luke Scarmazzo to nearly 22 years and 28-year-old Ricardo Montes to 20 years for manufacturing marijuana and possessing it with intent to distribute.
Drug Enforcement Administration officials say records at the clinic, called the California Healthcare Collective, showed the pair made more than $4.5 million in marijuana sales from October 2004 to June 2006.
Two jurors said last month they wanted the men to get a new trial after voting for conviction, then learning later that the punishment was so steep. (here)
The Associated Press
Posted: 11/21/2008 07:08:05 PM PST
FRESNO, Calif.—Two men who ran a medical marijuana dispensary in Modesto are headed to prison after being convicted of running a criminal enterprise.
A federal judge in Fresno on Friday sentenced 28-year-old Luke Scarmazzo to nearly 22 years and 28-year-old Ricardo Montes to 20 years for manufacturing marijuana and possessing it with intent to distribute.
Drug Enforcement Administration officials say records at the clinic, called the California Healthcare Collective, showed the pair made more than $4.5 million in marijuana sales from October 2004 to June 2006.
Two jurors said last month they wanted the men to get a new trial after voting for conviction, then learning later that the punishment was so steep. (here)
Fresno County Issues Medical Marijuana ID Cards
By Gene Haagenson
11/22/2008 Fresno, CA, USA -- Five years after voters in the state approved a measure allowing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, Fresno County has agreed to issue marijuana ID cards.
If you have a note from a doctor saying you need pot, and $107, you can get a card allowing you to be in possession of a small quantity of marijuana, for medical use.
Jena Adams, Fresno County Health Department, says "The card will allow them to possess and to grow a certain amount of marijuana and to use for their medical purposes."
It's welcome news to Diana Kirby. She uses marijuana for pain management and other medical problems. She'll be first in line to get a marijuana card. It will keep her from being arrested. "Actually it makes the police officers life a little easier and it takes a little of the fright from most of us who have to travel somewhere to get our medication."
The Fresno County Health Department is offering a packet of information on how to get a card. The information is also online. They key is a Doctor's note saying the patient needs marijuana. "We do not need to know the diagnosis, just that they qualify," says Adams.
While California law enforcement officers will not arrest someone who has pot and a valid card, it's still a federal crime. But Action News legal analyst and attorney, Tony Capozzi says the feds won't get involved unless someone has a lot of pot, or is selling it. "The federal government won't come in an prosecute someone who is using it for medical purposes, so long as the possession of that marijuana is in small quantities," says Capozzi.
Those who operate marijuana dispensaries are still subject to federal prosecution. In Fresno County possession of 6 mature, or a dozen immature plants and 8 ounces of pot will be allowed with a valid marijuana card. Cards can be applied for now. They won't be issued until December 2nd.
The intent of the law is to allow those who have a medical need for marijuana to be able to get it. It's not for recreational users. (here)
11/22/2008 Fresno, CA, USA -- Five years after voters in the state approved a measure allowing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, Fresno County has agreed to issue marijuana ID cards.
If you have a note from a doctor saying you need pot, and $107, you can get a card allowing you to be in possession of a small quantity of marijuana, for medical use.
Jena Adams, Fresno County Health Department, says "The card will allow them to possess and to grow a certain amount of marijuana and to use for their medical purposes."
It's welcome news to Diana Kirby. She uses marijuana for pain management and other medical problems. She'll be first in line to get a marijuana card. It will keep her from being arrested. "Actually it makes the police officers life a little easier and it takes a little of the fright from most of us who have to travel somewhere to get our medication."
The Fresno County Health Department is offering a packet of information on how to get a card. The information is also online. They key is a Doctor's note saying the patient needs marijuana. "We do not need to know the diagnosis, just that they qualify," says Adams.
While California law enforcement officers will not arrest someone who has pot and a valid card, it's still a federal crime. But Action News legal analyst and attorney, Tony Capozzi says the feds won't get involved unless someone has a lot of pot, or is selling it. "The federal government won't come in an prosecute someone who is using it for medical purposes, so long as the possession of that marijuana is in small quantities," says Capozzi.
Those who operate marijuana dispensaries are still subject to federal prosecution. In Fresno County possession of 6 mature, or a dozen immature plants and 8 ounces of pot will be allowed with a valid marijuana card. Cards can be applied for now. They won't be issued until December 2nd.
The intent of the law is to allow those who have a medical need for marijuana to be able to get it. It's not for recreational users. (here)
Monday, August 11, 2008
Pulling the lid off pot
(from the Seattle Times)
Marijuana has an image problem.
That's not the only problem with it, but its image probably keeps it lurking in the shadows: People who smoke pot are unkempt, unruly, counterculture. Best just to drink scotch or pop OxyContin.
If marijuana had the ad agencies that cigarettes have had, it would be legal, too.
I'm not craving a joint. It's not my thing, but I noticed that Hempfest is coming up this weekend.
Speakers at the Seattle festival will try mightily to pull the weed from darkness.
I agree with them that it makes sense to decriminalize marijuana use.
Bring it out into the light, regulate it, tax it, put trafficking gangs out of business and let police and courts do more important work.
Rick Steves, the travel entrepreneur from Edmonds, will be one of the main speakers at Hempfest.
We had a story in our paper Friday about a television program he and the ACLU made to get people talking about marijuana laws (marijuanaconversation.org).
Some local television stations were not willing to air the TV show, though I can't think of a station that hasn't carried entertainment programs in which weed played a part.
I guess it's like sex, which you can display a bit, but not discuss seriously.
Outlawing grass doesn't seem to have the intended effect, assuming the intent is to keep people from using.
According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, more than 83 million Americans older than 12 have used marijuana.
Marijuana production earns billions every year.
Think of what we could do with the taxes on legal marijuana. And we'd save the $7.5 billion a year the nation spends enforcing pot laws.
One of the big raps against pot is the idea that using it leads to using more dangerous drugs.
The other day, I asked a roomful of people about marijuana. One man, an educator, said that when he was in high school in 1972, he had a drug-education class.
The kids were told marijuana was the same as heroin.
The ones who experimented with it found out it wasn't, and some went on to try heroin figuring that since marijuana hadn't done them in and heroin was the same, it wouldn't hurt either. How's that for a gateway effect?
I'm sure arresting people for using pot has a gateway effect. A little time in jail gives a person the opportunity to learn more about other drugs and bigger crimes.
But if marijuana were legal, we could institute some controls and even have serious conversations about it.
I spoke with Steves, who is in Belgium. He said his interest started with "knowing so many people who were closet smokers but couldn't talk about it. I thought, 'What if everybody agreed [it should be decriminalized] but was too afraid to speak out.' "
He figured maybe people would listen to a straight-laced businessman.
Steves is pushing democracy, not pot. It bothers him that Americans shrink from discussing drug laws.
That's a truly sorry image.
Jerry Large's column appears Monday and Thursday. Reach him at 206-464-3346 or jlarge@seattletimes.com.
Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company
Marijuana has an image problem.
That's not the only problem with it, but its image probably keeps it lurking in the shadows: People who smoke pot are unkempt, unruly, counterculture. Best just to drink scotch or pop OxyContin.
If marijuana had the ad agencies that cigarettes have had, it would be legal, too.
I'm not craving a joint. It's not my thing, but I noticed that Hempfest is coming up this weekend.
Speakers at the Seattle festival will try mightily to pull the weed from darkness.
I agree with them that it makes sense to decriminalize marijuana use.
Bring it out into the light, regulate it, tax it, put trafficking gangs out of business and let police and courts do more important work.
Rick Steves, the travel entrepreneur from Edmonds, will be one of the main speakers at Hempfest.
We had a story in our paper Friday about a television program he and the ACLU made to get people talking about marijuana laws (marijuanaconversation.org).
Some local television stations were not willing to air the TV show, though I can't think of a station that hasn't carried entertainment programs in which weed played a part.
I guess it's like sex, which you can display a bit, but not discuss seriously.
Outlawing grass doesn't seem to have the intended effect, assuming the intent is to keep people from using.
According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, more than 83 million Americans older than 12 have used marijuana.
Marijuana production earns billions every year.
Think of what we could do with the taxes on legal marijuana. And we'd save the $7.5 billion a year the nation spends enforcing pot laws.
One of the big raps against pot is the idea that using it leads to using more dangerous drugs.
The other day, I asked a roomful of people about marijuana. One man, an educator, said that when he was in high school in 1972, he had a drug-education class.
The kids were told marijuana was the same as heroin.
The ones who experimented with it found out it wasn't, and some went on to try heroin figuring that since marijuana hadn't done them in and heroin was the same, it wouldn't hurt either. How's that for a gateway effect?
I'm sure arresting people for using pot has a gateway effect. A little time in jail gives a person the opportunity to learn more about other drugs and bigger crimes.
But if marijuana were legal, we could institute some controls and even have serious conversations about it.
I spoke with Steves, who is in Belgium. He said his interest started with "knowing so many people who were closet smokers but couldn't talk about it. I thought, 'What if everybody agreed [it should be decriminalized] but was too afraid to speak out.' "
He figured maybe people would listen to a straight-laced businessman.
Steves is pushing democracy, not pot. It bothers him that Americans shrink from discussing drug laws.
That's a truly sorry image.
Jerry Large's column appears Monday and Thursday. Reach him at 206-464-3346 or jlarge@seattletimes.com.
Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company
Saturday, July 19, 2008
State Supreme Court narrows probable-cause grounds in pot case
Law-enforcement officers who smell marijuana coming from a vehicle can't arrest all of the occupants, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
By Leslie Anne Jones
Seattle Times staff reporter
Law-enforcement officers who detect the odor of marijuana from a vehicle can't arrest all of the occupants, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
In a unanimous ruling, the court determined the smell of pot isn't enough probable cause to warrant the arrest and search of everyone inside a car. While smell alone may be reason for a vehicle search, the court determined, it doesn't warrant handcuffing passengers without other supporting evidence.
Defense attorneys on Thursday called it a right-to-privacy victory. Law-enforcement officers say it won't greatly affect the way they make arrests.
The ruling stems from a traffic stop in April 2006 in Skagit County.
Jeremy Grande was riding in a car driven by Lacee Hurley when they were pulled over by State Patrol Trooper Brent Hanger, court documents said. Hanger stopped the car for windows too darkly tinted, he testified.
Hanger said he smelled pot in the car, so he arrested and handcuffed Grande and Hurley, court documents said.
A search of Grande revealed a glass pipe with marijuana in his pocket, according to court papers. Hanger searched the car and found a joint in an ashtray, which Hurley said belonged to her, court documents said. Both were charged with marijuana possession. Grande was also charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, court documents said.
The case initially came before the Skagit County District Court, which found there was no probable cause for Grande's arrest. But the state appealed the ruling and the county's Superior Court reversed the order, court documents said. The case was appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Summing up the state Supreme Court's decision, Justice Charles W. Johnson wrote: "Our state constitution protects our individual privacy, meaning that we are free from unnecessary police intrusion into our private affairs unless a police officer can clearly associate the crime with the individual." In the case of the Skagit County traffic stop, the court found the mere presence of the odor of marijuana was not enough probable cause to warrant the arrest of Grande.
Attorney David Zuckerman, who brought the case before the state Supreme Court, said the problem is that arresting someone based solely on the odor of marijuana can affect innocents.
"The smell of marijuana smoke can linger for weeks," Zuckerman said. "You could have a perfectly innocent citizen get into a car where somebody smoked marijuana at some point ... and an officer can just pull you out of a car and book you based on that."
Zuckerman said Grande was delighted with the decision. (more)
By Leslie Anne Jones
Seattle Times staff reporter
Law-enforcement officers who detect the odor of marijuana from a vehicle can't arrest all of the occupants, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
In a unanimous ruling, the court determined the smell of pot isn't enough probable cause to warrant the arrest and search of everyone inside a car. While smell alone may be reason for a vehicle search, the court determined, it doesn't warrant handcuffing passengers without other supporting evidence.
Defense attorneys on Thursday called it a right-to-privacy victory. Law-enforcement officers say it won't greatly affect the way they make arrests.
The ruling stems from a traffic stop in April 2006 in Skagit County.
Jeremy Grande was riding in a car driven by Lacee Hurley when they were pulled over by State Patrol Trooper Brent Hanger, court documents said. Hanger stopped the car for windows too darkly tinted, he testified.
Hanger said he smelled pot in the car, so he arrested and handcuffed Grande and Hurley, court documents said.
A search of Grande revealed a glass pipe with marijuana in his pocket, according to court papers. Hanger searched the car and found a joint in an ashtray, which Hurley said belonged to her, court documents said. Both were charged with marijuana possession. Grande was also charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, court documents said.
The case initially came before the Skagit County District Court, which found there was no probable cause for Grande's arrest. But the state appealed the ruling and the county's Superior Court reversed the order, court documents said. The case was appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Summing up the state Supreme Court's decision, Justice Charles W. Johnson wrote: "Our state constitution protects our individual privacy, meaning that we are free from unnecessary police intrusion into our private affairs unless a police officer can clearly associate the crime with the individual." In the case of the Skagit County traffic stop, the court found the mere presence of the odor of marijuana was not enough probable cause to warrant the arrest of Grande.
Attorney David Zuckerman, who brought the case before the state Supreme Court, said the problem is that arresting someone based solely on the odor of marijuana can affect innocents.
"The smell of marijuana smoke can linger for weeks," Zuckerman said. "You could have a perfectly innocent citizen get into a car where somebody smoked marijuana at some point ... and an officer can just pull you out of a car and book you based on that."
Zuckerman said Grande was delighted with the decision. (more)
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Medical Marijuana: Employment Rights Bill Passes California Assembly
A medical marijuana employment rights bill that would protect California patients from being fired because their medication is marijuana passed the California Assembly Wednesday. Introduced by leading legislative medical marijuana defender Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), and cosponsored by Assemblymembers Patty Berg (D-Eureka), Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) and Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego), the bill, AB 2279, would overturn a January California Supreme Court decision, Ross v. Raging Wire.
In that case, the state Supreme Court upheld the ability of employers to fire employees who test positive for marijuana even if they are patients. That decision left the state's estimated 150,000 registered medical marijuana patients facing renewed job insecurity.
AB 2279 would undo that ruling. It would "declare it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person, if the discrimination is based upon the person's status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver, or a positive drug test for marijuana, except as specified."
The bill also provides authorization for those who have been discriminated against by employers because of their medical marijuana use to sue for damages, seek injunctions and other appropriate relief. It would not prevent an employer from firing an employee who is impaired on the job because of medical marijuana use.
"AB 2279 is not about being under the influence while at work. That's against the law, and will remain so," said Leno, the bill's author. "It's about allowing patients who are able to work safely and who use their doctor-recommended medication in the privacy of their own homes, to not be arbitrarily fired from their jobs. The voters who supported Proposition 215 did not intend for medical marijuana patients to be forced into unemployment in order to benefit from their medicine," Leno continued.
"The California Assembly has acted to protect the right of patients to work and be productive members of society," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access, the medical marijuana advocacy group that argued the case before the Court and is now a supporter of the bill. "The state Senate now has the important task of passing this bill with the aim to protect the jobs of thousands of Californians with serious illnesses such as
cancer and HIV/AIDS."
"It's important that we not allow employment discrimination in California," said Gary Ross, the former plaintiff in Ross v. Raging Wire. "If the Court is going to ignore the need for protection, then it's up to the legislature to ensure that productive workers like me are free from discrimination."
The bill has broad support from labor, business, civil rights, and medical groups. It now heads to the state Senate.
(more)
In that case, the state Supreme Court upheld the ability of employers to fire employees who test positive for marijuana even if they are patients. That decision left the state's estimated 150,000 registered medical marijuana patients facing renewed job insecurity.
AB 2279 would undo that ruling. It would "declare it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person, if the discrimination is based upon the person's status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver, or a positive drug test for marijuana, except as specified."
The bill also provides authorization for those who have been discriminated against by employers because of their medical marijuana use to sue for damages, seek injunctions and other appropriate relief. It would not prevent an employer from firing an employee who is impaired on the job because of medical marijuana use.
"AB 2279 is not about being under the influence while at work. That's against the law, and will remain so," said Leno, the bill's author. "It's about allowing patients who are able to work safely and who use their doctor-recommended medication in the privacy of their own homes, to not be arbitrarily fired from their jobs. The voters who supported Proposition 215 did not intend for medical marijuana patients to be forced into unemployment in order to benefit from their medicine," Leno continued.
"The California Assembly has acted to protect the right of patients to work and be productive members of society," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access, the medical marijuana advocacy group that argued the case before the Court and is now a supporter of the bill. "The state Senate now has the important task of passing this bill with the aim to protect the jobs of thousands of Californians with serious illnesses such as
cancer and HIV/AIDS."
"It's important that we not allow employment discrimination in California," said Gary Ross, the former plaintiff in Ross v. Raging Wire. "If the Court is going to ignore the need for protection, then it's up to the legislature to ensure that productive workers like me are free from discrimination."
The bill has broad support from labor, business, civil rights, and medical groups. It now heads to the state Senate.
(more)
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Editorial: Dying over drug politics
Past time to resolve conflict
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The conflict over state and federal medical marijuana laws must be resolved.
California and 12 other states now allow the use of medical marijuana, yet the federal government does not.
That means sick people with authorization from their doctors to use marijuana are still in legal jeopardy, that California employers can fire workers who use marijuana recommended by a physician, and that people in need of an organ transplant can be barred from organ-transplant waiting lists.
Too bad there is not a common-sense transplant.
The Star wrote last month about a Seattle man, Timothy Garon, denied a spot on an organ-transplant list because he had used medical marijuana, authorized by his physician, for symptoms related to Hepatitis C.
The University of Washington Medical Center, which has strict rules about organ recipients' drug use, denied Mr. Garon a shot at a new liver, in part, because marijuana is illegal under federal law.
He died May 1.
Now, the University of Washington Medical Center is using the same sorry reason to deny a spot on its organ-transplant list to Jonathon Simchen, 33, of Seattle, according to a May 19 article in The Los Angeles Times.
The Times reported Mr. Simchen, a diabetic with failing kidneys and pancreas, was also denied a spot in Seattle's Virginia Mason Hospital transplant program because of his use of medical marijuana.
Mr. Simchen cannot afford to wait for Congress to get around to resolving the state-federal law conflict. It has already been three years since the U.S. Supreme Court recommended that Congress act.
However, medical centers do not have to base life-and-death decisions on the federal government's inane, outdated 1970s drug-war policies.
There is no reason why, in 2008, marijuana is listed as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning it is deemed to have no medical use, when drugs such as cocaine and morphine are listed as Schedule 2 drugs, available by prescription.
Medical-marijuana use, authorized by a physician, should never be a reason for denying anyone a shot at receiving a life-saving organ transplant. Indeed, people in need of organ transplants are some of the most-likely people to benefit from medical marijuana.
We understand there might be political risks to a member of Congress who takes this on. What we don't understand is why any physician would put politics before patients.
more
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The conflict over state and federal medical marijuana laws must be resolved.
California and 12 other states now allow the use of medical marijuana, yet the federal government does not.
That means sick people with authorization from their doctors to use marijuana are still in legal jeopardy, that California employers can fire workers who use marijuana recommended by a physician, and that people in need of an organ transplant can be barred from organ-transplant waiting lists.
Too bad there is not a common-sense transplant.
The Star wrote last month about a Seattle man, Timothy Garon, denied a spot on an organ-transplant list because he had used medical marijuana, authorized by his physician, for symptoms related to Hepatitis C.
The University of Washington Medical Center, which has strict rules about organ recipients' drug use, denied Mr. Garon a shot at a new liver, in part, because marijuana is illegal under federal law.
He died May 1.
Now, the University of Washington Medical Center is using the same sorry reason to deny a spot on its organ-transplant list to Jonathon Simchen, 33, of Seattle, according to a May 19 article in The Los Angeles Times.
The Times reported Mr. Simchen, a diabetic with failing kidneys and pancreas, was also denied a spot in Seattle's Virginia Mason Hospital transplant program because of his use of medical marijuana.
Mr. Simchen cannot afford to wait for Congress to get around to resolving the state-federal law conflict. It has already been three years since the U.S. Supreme Court recommended that Congress act.
However, medical centers do not have to base life-and-death decisions on the federal government's inane, outdated 1970s drug-war policies.
There is no reason why, in 2008, marijuana is listed as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning it is deemed to have no medical use, when drugs such as cocaine and morphine are listed as Schedule 2 drugs, available by prescription.
Medical-marijuana use, authorized by a physician, should never be a reason for denying anyone a shot at receiving a life-saving organ transplant. Indeed, people in need of organ transplants are some of the most-likely people to benefit from medical marijuana.
We understand there might be political risks to a member of Congress who takes this on. What we don't understand is why any physician would put politics before patients.
more
Los Angeles Times: marijuana and organ transplants don't mix
Patients who have used doctor-prescribed pot are being turned away from
hospital transplant programs.
By Stuart Glascock
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 19, 2008
SEATTLE — Should using doctor-prescribed marijuana be a deal-breaker for
someone needing an organ transplant? It is not a theoretical question but a
pressing and emotional one confronting hospitals and patients in states
where medical use of marijuana is legal.
This month, Timothy Garon, 56, a Seattle musician, died after being turned
down for a liver transplant. He was rejected partly because he had used
medical marijuana.
Now, a second critically ill patient in Washington state says he has been
denied a spot in two organ transplant programs because he uses
doctor-prescribed marijuana.
Jonathon Simchen, 33, of Fife, a town south of Seattle, is a diabetic whose
kidneys and pancreas have failed.
He said he was removed from the transplant program at Virginia Mason
Hospital in Seattle because he admitted using medical marijuana. Later, he
said, University of Washington Medical Center transplant officials refused
to accept him because of the medical marijuana issue.
"I'm just so discouraged," said the community college student, who wants to
be a teacher. "I've lost all remnants of hope. I look at my life right now
as if it is a prison term. I just have to serve each day."
The lawyer who represented Garon has taken on Simchen's case.
Douglas Hiatt argues that his clients are the victims of a loosely defined
transplant policy, one not based on science.
"They are really killing people over this," he said. (more)
hospital transplant programs.
By Stuart Glascock
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 19, 2008
SEATTLE — Should using doctor-prescribed marijuana be a deal-breaker for
someone needing an organ transplant? It is not a theoretical question but a
pressing and emotional one confronting hospitals and patients in states
where medical use of marijuana is legal.
This month, Timothy Garon, 56, a Seattle musician, died after being turned
down for a liver transplant. He was rejected partly because he had used
medical marijuana.
Now, a second critically ill patient in Washington state says he has been
denied a spot in two organ transplant programs because he uses
doctor-prescribed marijuana.
Jonathon Simchen, 33, of Fife, a town south of Seattle, is a diabetic whose
kidneys and pancreas have failed.
He said he was removed from the transplant program at Virginia Mason
Hospital in Seattle because he admitted using medical marijuana. Later, he
said, University of Washington Medical Center transplant officials refused
to accept him because of the medical marijuana issue.
"I'm just so discouraged," said the community college student, who wants to
be a teacher. "I've lost all remnants of hope. I look at my life right now
as if it is a prison term. I just have to serve each day."
The lawyer who represented Garon has taken on Simchen's case.
Douglas Hiatt argues that his clients are the victims of a loosely defined
transplant policy, one not based on science.
"They are really killing people over this," he said. (more)
Monday, May 5, 2008
Death of Medical Marijuana Patient Denied Organ Transplant Shines a Light on the Federal Government's Absurd Marijuana Policy
ACLU
Timothy Garon, a 56-year old Seattle-based musician, died last night from liver failure due to hepatitis C. Like so many critically ill people in the United States, he needed an organ transplant to survive. Unfortunately, the University of Washington Medical Center decided to deny Garon a new liver. Because donated organs are in such scarce supply, patients often remain on long transplant waiting lists or are denied an organ altogether if they fail to meet certain criteria established by transplant committees. Some common reasons for denial are that alcoholic patients continue to drink, those addicted to cigarettes continue to smoke, and those addicted to illegal drugs continue to use.
But Garon was not an alcoholic or drug addict. He did not get a new liver because he used a medicine recommended by his doctor to ease severe abdominal pain, nausea and lack of appetite. Were this medicine any other pill or prescription, Garon would have likely had his new liver and a chance to live out a full life. The problem is that Garon’s medicine was marijuana. The Associated Press reported Garon’s story on April 26:
Timothy Garon's face and arms are hauntingly skeletal, but the fluid building up in his abdomen makes the 56-year-old musician look eight months pregnant. His liver, ravaged by hepatitis C, is failing. Without a new one, his doctors tell him, he will be dead in days.
But Garon's been refused a spot on the transplant list, largely because he has used marijuana, even though it was legally approved for medical reasons.
If Garon was legally using medical marijuana, what’s the problem? Medical marijuana is legal under Washington’s state law, but remains illegal under federal law. There’s the rub. The federal government has refused to ease its criminal prohibition on the medical use of marijuana despite the fact that twelve states have made medical marijuana legal, the vast majority (upwards of 70 percent) of the American public thinks that medical marijuana should be made legally available to patients, and the American College of Physicians recently called on the federal government to acknowledge the medical uses of marijuana and remove it from its classification as a “Schedule I” drug, which subjects users to stiff criminal penalties.(more)
Timothy Garon, a 56-year old Seattle-based musician, died last night from liver failure due to hepatitis C. Like so many critically ill people in the United States, he needed an organ transplant to survive. Unfortunately, the University of Washington Medical Center decided to deny Garon a new liver. Because donated organs are in such scarce supply, patients often remain on long transplant waiting lists or are denied an organ altogether if they fail to meet certain criteria established by transplant committees. Some common reasons for denial are that alcoholic patients continue to drink, those addicted to cigarettes continue to smoke, and those addicted to illegal drugs continue to use.
But Garon was not an alcoholic or drug addict. He did not get a new liver because he used a medicine recommended by his doctor to ease severe abdominal pain, nausea and lack of appetite. Were this medicine any other pill or prescription, Garon would have likely had his new liver and a chance to live out a full life. The problem is that Garon’s medicine was marijuana. The Associated Press reported Garon’s story on April 26:
Timothy Garon's face and arms are hauntingly skeletal, but the fluid building up in his abdomen makes the 56-year-old musician look eight months pregnant. His liver, ravaged by hepatitis C, is failing. Without a new one, his doctors tell him, he will be dead in days.
But Garon's been refused a spot on the transplant list, largely because he has used marijuana, even though it was legally approved for medical reasons.
If Garon was legally using medical marijuana, what’s the problem? Medical marijuana is legal under Washington’s state law, but remains illegal under federal law. There’s the rub. The federal government has refused to ease its criminal prohibition on the medical use of marijuana despite the fact that twelve states have made medical marijuana legal, the vast majority (upwards of 70 percent) of the American public thinks that medical marijuana should be made legally available to patients, and the American College of Physicians recently called on the federal government to acknowledge the medical uses of marijuana and remove it from its classification as a “Schedule I” drug, which subjects users to stiff criminal penalties.(more)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
