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)
Monday, December 8, 2008
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
