It's been a big week for marijuana at the statehouse in Providence, with lawmakers Tuesday introducing a decriminalization bill and hearing testimony on the effects of marijuana prohibition Wednesd

Stunned at the rapid increase in the number of registered medical marijuana patients in the state, the Colorado Senate voted overwhelmingly Monday to impose new restrictions on physicians who make

New Jersey became the 14th state to establish protections for patients who use cannabis on the advice of their doctors. The "New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act" signed into law by Governor Jon Corzine shields qualified patients from arrest and prosecution for possession and transportation, and mandates distribution of medical cannabis by state-regulated "Alternative Treatment Centers." As the 11th most populous state in the nation, New Jersey is the third largest state to pass medical cannabis legislation, after California and Michigan.

"The passage of New Jersey's medical cannabis law is a victory for commonsense health policies," said Caren Woodson, ASA's government affairs director. "It's only a matter of time before the federal government catches up."

The bill was passed by a 48-14 vote by the General Assembly and a 25-13 vote by the State Senate after years of lobbying by patients and advocates. New Jersey officials must now develop regulations for administering the program that will go into effect in six months. The law prohibits patients from cultivating their own medicine, requiring them to purchase their medicine from one of the six distribution centers to be established by the state.

The number of patients who will qualify for access through the state-run program is unclear, since lawmakers intentionally excluded the primary condition for which patients use cannabis: chronic pain. Among the qualifying conditions for which a doctor may recommend cannabis are cancer, HIV/AIDS, Lou Gehrig's disease, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis.

Following the signing of his state's medical cannabis bill, U.S. Representative Donald Payne (NJ-10) added his name to the list of co-sponsors on the federal Truth in Trials bill, which would allow medical cannabis patients who face federal marijuana charges that they were acting in compliance with state law. Currently, federal rules of evidence prevent cannabis patients from using any type of medical defense.

The "New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act" can be downloaded here.

Maryland to Consider Medical Cannabis Bill

Maryland Delegate Dan Morhaim announced at a January 26 press conference that he will be introducing a bi-partisan bill to protect the state's medical cannabis patients.

The bill would reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug under state law and allow eligible patients to obtain and possess medical cannabis when recommended by a physician. Similar to New Jersey's recently enacted law, patients would be required to purchase their medicine from designated centers run and regulated by the state.
Morhaim estimates that Maryland could register 1,000 qualified patients per month, if the bill is passed.

District of Columbia Takes Up Implementation

Medical cannabis patients in Washington, D.C. are edging closer to legal protection, in the wake of a lifting of the Congressional ban on implementing the medical cannabis initiative passed overwhelmingly by city voters in 1998. City Councilmember David Catania has introduced a bill, co-sponsored by nine of the 13 council members, that would put Initiative 59 into effect.

The council will consider regulations on how many dispensaries to allow, whether they'll be nonprofit, for which conditions patients can qualify, and rules for cultivation. Catania has said he anticipates five to 10 nonprofit dispensaries in the city, restricted to locations at least 1,000 feet from schools, parks and other dispensaries.
A council spokesperson predicted the council will pass the bill by late spring, and may be approved in Congress by the end of summer.

California Supreme Court Nixes Quantity Limits on Medical Marijuana

Protection from arrest upheld for state-issued ID cardholders
In a unanimous ruling, the California Supreme Court said lawmakers cannot impose limits on how much cannabis qualified patients may possess or cultivate. The published decision in People v. Kelly struck down plant and possession guidelines established by the state legislature in 2003, declaring the limits to be an unconstitutional change to the Compassionate Use Act approved by voters in 1996. Under the ruling, California patients are entitled to quantities consistent with their reasonable personal use.

The court left intact the legislature's voluntary ID card program, which provides protection from arrest and prosecution for card-carrying patients who are within state or local guidelines for personal-use quantities. Californians who exceed those guidelines may still have to go to court to prove their compliance with state law.

"The California Supreme Court did the right thing by abolishing arbitrary limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation," said Joe Elford, ASA Chief Counsel. "At the same time, the court may have left too much discretion to law enforcement. Qualified patients should not fear arrest and prosecution."

The ruling affirms the decision of an appellate court to overturn the conviction of a southern California man, Patrick Kelly, who uses cannabis to treat a number of serious medical conditions, including hepatitis C, chronic back pain, and cirrhosis. A jury had concluded that the 12 ounces of dried cannabis and 7 plants Kelly had at his home exceeded the limits of 8 ounces and six mature plants established by the legislature's 2003 Medical Marijuana Program Act.

In an unusual twist, attorneys for both Kelly and the State of California told the court that the legislative limits on medical marijuana should be abolished as unconstitutional. Both parties also opposed the appellate court's invalidation of the entire statute, Health & Safety Code Section 11362.77, which protects ID cardholders from arrest and prosecution if they are in compliance with local or state guidelines. The state high court agreed, and reversed the appellate decision on the ID card program.

The California Supreme Court decision can be downloaded here.

Appeals Court Requests More Briefs on Dispensary Bans

In a critical case that addresses the right of medical cannabis dispensaries to operate, a California appeals court has asked for additional briefs. The case of Qualified Patients Association v. City of Anaheim, brought by attorney Anthony Curiale and argued at appeal by ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, raises the question of whether the legislature's 2003 Medical Marijuana Program Act preempts municipalities from banning dispensaries. ASA argues that it does, but the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District has asked for additional arguments on the legislature's intent, as the law specifies exemptions from statutes that could be the basis for such bans. A favorable ruling would mean legal challenges to any local ordinances that ban collectives and cooperatives from dispensing cannabis to qualified patients.

LA to Regulate Medical Cannabis Dispensaries

Restrictions on Locations May Be "Poison Pill"

The second largest city in the U.S. has adopted regulations for the operation of medical cannabis dispensaries. After more than two years of lobbying by ASA and other patient advocates, the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance establishing rules for the operation of patient collectives and cooperatives that dispense medical cannabis.

"This is a bittersweet victory for medical marijuana patients in Los Angeles," said Don Duncan, who led the lobbying effort as ASA's California director. "We've fought hard for sound regulations, but this ordinance includes "poison-pill" restrictions that threaten to wipe out nearly all of the dispensaries in the city."

More than 500 medical cannabis dispensaries currently serve Los Angelenos. The new regulations limit the number of dispensaries that may operate in the city to 70, though the 137 dispensaries that were registered with the city two years ago, when the city council established an Interim Control Ordinance, can apply to remain open.

Among the new rules with which dispensaries must comply are restrictions on location. The ordinance establishes buffer zones of 1,000 feet around schools, parks, and other "sensitive use" locations, and prevents any dispensaries from being located adjacent to residential or mixed-use buildings.

"Dispensaries will be unable to locate in virtually any of the commercial zones in the city," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "They will be relegated to remote industrial zones, making access unnecessarily onerous for many patients."

The vast majority of registered dispensaries cannot comply with the ordinance's proximity restrictions and may be forced to move, but a concession won by ASA creates an exception for operators who can demonstrate they have been "good neighbors" in their current location.

Los Angeles joins more than 40 other cities and counties in California that have adopted regulations for the distribution of medical cannabis through patient collectives and cooperatives.

ASA Affiliate Packs Sheriff Candidates Forum

At a recent forum, candidates for sheriff in Sacramento County, California, faced questions on medical cannabis from a host of patients and advocates organized by Crusaders for Patients Rights (CPR), an ASA affiliate. The January 20 forum was sponsored by the League of Women Voters, the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association and the Sacramento County Law Enforcement Managers' Association.

Prior to the forum, Lanette Davies of CPR urged members at the organization's meeting to attend, which she then followed up with an announcement of the forum on the ASA Sacramento email list. The result was that of the 50 people in attendance at the forum, a dozen were patients or advocates.

Questions for the candidates were selected by the League of women Voters from cards submitted by attendees. Thanks to the strong showing by CPR, 25-30 of the cards submitted had questions about medical cannabis, with two being presented to the candidates for sheriff.

Bret Daniels, a former sheriff's deputy, gave his full support. Jim Cooper, a captain in the department who is currently the mayor of Elk Grove, said he supports legitimate patients but feels there is too much abuse. Scott Jones, also a department captain, states he supports the law. The three men are seeking to replace Sheriff John McGinness, who is retiring after one term.

The forum has been broadcast twice on local cable channels.

All are welcome at the Hope Support Group Meeting. Responsible onsite medication is allowed for legal medical cannabis patients.

Comedian Howard Rover, The Comedy Store, NUG Magazine and San Diego Americans for Safe Access presents:

Medical Marijuana ExtravaGANJA! A night of comedy!

Long time gay rights and cannabis activist Dennis Peron founded California's dispensary in San Francisco in 1990.

Stunned at the rapid increase in the number of registered medical marijuana patients in the state, the Colorado Senate voted overwhelmingly Monday to impose new restrictions on physicians who make medical marijuana recommendations. The Senate voted 34-1 to pass SB 109.

Sponsored by Sens. Chris Romer (D-Denver) and Nancy Spence (R-Centennial), the bill would require physicians who make medical marijuana recommendations to have a "bona fide" relationship with patients, including treating a patient before he applies for medical marijuana, conducting a thorough physical exam, and providing follow-up care. The bill would also bar doctors from being paid by dispensaries to write recommendations and require that they not have any restrictions on their medical licenses. Doctors would have to keep records of all medical marijuana recommendations and provide them to state health agencies seeking to investigate doctors for violating state laws.

The bill would also require persons between 18 and 21 to get recommended by two different physicians.

Colorado began registering medical marijuana patients in June 2001 after voters approved a constitutional amendment legalizing its use. For years, the number of patients hovered around 2,000, but after state courts last year threw out a regulation limiting the number of patients caregivers could provide for to five and the Obama administration signaled that it was not going to interfere in medical marijuana states, the numbers exploded. By last September, there were more than 17,000 registered patients, and now the number is near 40,000. A similar boom has gone on with dispensaries, with Colorado now second only to California in their numbers.

The bill was supported by Colorado law enforcement and the Colorado Medical Association, but was opposed by most medical marijuana patients and providers.

"This is the beginning of the end of the Wild West" for the state's booming medical-marijuana industry, said bill sponsor Sen. Chris Romer.

"This bill is an unprecedented assault on the doctor-patient privilege that would hold medical marijuana doctors to a higher standard than any other doctor," medical marijuana attorney Robert Correy told lawmakers. "This would cause human suffering. The most sick and the most poor would be disproportionately harmed. You're going to see the Board of Medical Examiners conducting witch hunts against medical marijuana providers."

The bill now moves to the House.

The Los Angeles City Council voted 9-3 Tuesday to approve a medical marijuana dispensary ordinance

The Obama administration announced this week that it is nominating acting

Monthly Public Meeting Agenda
Lawrence Twp. Library (Mercer County) Room #2
Tuesday, February 9, 2010; 7:00 PM -- 9:00 PM

7:00 PM: Call meeting to order. Approve January 2010 minutes. Discuss:

- The New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act was signed into law on January 18, 2010. Thank you to all the patients, activists and volunteers who made this possible. The law is scheduled to take effect in six months (July 2010). Emergency regulations are expected to be put out by the NJ Departments of Health (DHSS), and Law & Public Safety (LPS) in three months. No info will be available about how to apply for ID cards or how to become an Alternative Treatment Center (ATC) before that.

- CMMNJ is committed to working for safe and legal access to marijuana for all qualified NJ patients. CMMNJ meetings will continue in 2010, same time, same place.

- Public support at MS patient John Wilson's sentencing by Judge Reed on 2/5/10 at 9:00 AM at the Somerset County Court House in Somerville, NJ. Write to the judge asking for leniency. Write to the governor and ask him to pardon John altogether. Even State Senators urge Gov. Corzine to pardon him.

- Recent events: Medical Marijuana Breakfast at the New Jersey State Nurses Association on 2/5/10 (8:30 AM -- 10:30 AM) with speakers Reed Gusciora (D-Prnceton), and Ken Wolski, RN ($30 members, $50 non-members). PhillyNORML Fundraiser at The Rotunda on Walnut St., Philadelphia on 1/29/10 at 7 PM ($5 cover).

- Treasury report: Checking: $3,138.60; PayPal: $838.51. Please consider a tax-deductible donation to CMMNJ, a 501(c)(3) public charity, to fund education about medical marijuana. Donations may be made securely through Paypal or checks made out to "CMMNJ" and sent to the address below. Get a free t-shirt for a donation above $15—specify size. Thank you for your support.

CMMNJ's scheduled meetings are Feb. 9, & March 9, 2010 (the second Tuesday of each month) at the Lawrence Twp. Library from 7:00 PM until 9:00 PM. All are welcome. Snacks are served. The library is at 2751 Brunswick Pike, Lawrence Twp., Tel. #609.882.9246. (Meeting at the library does not imply their endorsement of our issue.)

For more info, contact:

Ken Wolski, RN, MPA
Executive Director, Coalition for Medical Marijuana--New Jersey, Inc. www.cmmnj.org
219 Woodside Ave., Trenton, NJ 08618
(609) 394-2137
ohamkrw@aol.com

The Los Angeles City Council voted 9-3 today to approve a medical marijuana dispensary ordinance that, if enforced, will shut down more than 80% of the city's estimated nearly one thousand dispensaries. The ordinance also bars dispensaries from operating within a thousand feet of schools, parks, day care centers, religious institutions, drug treatment centers, or other dispensaries.

The ordinance allows for only 70 dispensaries to operate in the city, but grandfathers in 137 dispensaries that were licensed before the council imposed a moratorium on new dispensaries. The number of allowed dispensaries could shrink even further if suitable locations that do not violate the 1,000-foot rule cannot be found.

With this vote, the city council will effectively push thousands of dispensary employees onto the unemployment rolls.

Look for a feature article on the council vote and its ramifications on Friday.

Please join New Jersey State Nurses Association/Interested Nurses Political Action Committee at this important breakfast series event.

Last Chance to Register for NJSNA/INPAC Breakfast Series...Registration Closes Wed. 1/27/10

Hear directly from elected leaders who make decisions on the issues impacting your nursing practice. NJSNA will bring together top officials, committee chairs, and candidates for insightful briefings and question and answer sessions.

Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010

Time: 8:30 AM to 10:30 AM

Session Topic: Medical Marijuana

Location: NJSNA HQ - 1479 Pennington Road, Trenton NJ

Speakers:

Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-15)
Ken Wolski, RN Executive Director Coalition for Medical Marijuana-New Jersey, Inc.

Price: NJSNA Members $30 ~ Non-Members $50

*** Registrations will not be processed without proper payment. Pre-registration is required - there will be no on-site registration for this event ***

Register On-Line at www.NJSNA.org

As the Nation's Capital moves quickly towards implementing our very long-awaited medical marijuana law, we suddenly find ourselves obsessing over the sorts of local regulations many of us have only observed from afar. As one might imagine, the D.C. City Council is less than thoroughly experienced when it comes to regulating the distribution of medical marijuana, resulting in proposed amendments like this one:

No person with a misdemeanor conviction for a drug-related offense or felony conviction shall own or work for a registered dispensary

Whoa, slow down there. Naturally, none of us want to see D.C.'s first dispensaries run by a bunch of thugged-out ex-cons, but let's all just stop and think about this for a second. Would you ban someone from working in the medical marijuana industry because they have an arrest on their record for…medical marijuana?

It just so happens that many people in the patient and caregiver community have been arrested, not because of their own character flaws, but because of long-standing character flaws in the criminal law itself that turn sick people into criminals. We've waited an unbelievable 11 years for Congress to step aside and allow this law to take effect. Certainly, anyone who's accumulated battle scars during that time shouldn't be sanctioned again now that their past actions will finally be protected under the law.  

If the people of the District of Columbia can agree, as they emphatically did back in 1998, that it's wrong to arrest patients for medical marijuana, then we really shouldn’t be closing new doors to those who've had the misfortune of being arrested for their medicine. This is by no means the most significant regulatory hurdle to be overcome in D.C., but I find it noteworthy for the ironic prejudice it exhibits towards the exact people this law is designed to protect.

In 2006, voters in South Dakota become the first -- and the only -- in the nation to reject a state initiative legalizing medical marijuana, defeating it by a margin of 52% to 48%.

It's becoming difficult to keep up with all the marijuana bills being filed at statehouses around the county.

Outgoing New Jersey Gov.

Medical marijuana has public support approaching motherhood and apple pie levels, while nearly half of Americans support legalization for personal use, according to a newly released national poll.

It's impossible to rank in order of severity the numerous lies that have long formed the foundation of the federal government's position on medical marijuana. But one of the most calculated and audacious deceptions deployed in this debate is certainly the manufactured myth that insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate the drug's medical efficacy.

That's why this NYT article should be required reading for anyone in the habit of expressing opinions on the scientific merits of medical marijuana:

Marijuana is the only major drug for which the federal government controls the only legal research supply and for which the government requires a special scientific review.
…
But federal officials have repeatedly failed to act on marijuana research requests in a timely manner or have denied them, according to a 2007 ruling by an administrative law judge at the Drug Enforcement Administration.

What an impressively cynical and corrupt political strategy it is to literally block research while simultaneously citing the absence of said research as an excuse for prohibition. The whole situation is so maliciously dishonest that it's disturbing to think how many government agencies were complicit in manufacturing it.

Meanwhile, medical marijuana's enemies condemn state-level reforms by reflexively insisting that the ballot box is not the place to formulate health policy. Our response is pretty straightforward:

"The more it becomes clear to people that the federal government is blocking these studies, the more people are willing to defect by using politics instead of science to legalize medicinal uses at the state level," said Rick Doblin, executive director of a nonprofit group dedicated to researching psychedelics for medical uses.

We did what we had to do, and it reflects well on the American public that this issue has been so well understood despite a massive federal conspiracy to make it confusing.

Much like every other bad thing that's ever been said about marijuana, complaints about the role of medical dispensaries in creating crime have turned out to be wild exaggerations. If you don't believe me, try asking someone a little more qualified to opine on the matter, like, for example, the frickin' Police Chief of Los Angeles:

Despite neighborhood complaints, most medical marijuana clinics are not typically the magnets for crime that critics often portray, according to Los Angeles police Chief Charlie Beck.

"Banks are more likely to get robbed than medical marijuana dispensaries," Beck said at a recent meeting with editors and reporters of the Los Angeles Daily News.

Opponents of the pot clinics complain that they attract a host of criminal activity to the neighborhoods, including robberies. But a report that Beck recently had the department generate looking at citywide robberies in 2009 found that simply wasn't the case. [LA Daily News]

Well, how do you like that? Banks are robbed constantly by angry gun-wielding assholes, but you've never heard anyone lobbying to keep them 1,000 feet away from schools and parks. Meanwhile, the biggest security threat at the dispensaries has typically been the DEA (and yes, they were routinely grabbing money from dispensaries at gunpoint until the DOJ told them to find something better to do)

The very notion of dispensaries attracting crime is largely illogical on its face, given that the whole purpose of their existence is to remove sick people from the black-market marijuana economy. Legal medical marijuana providers reduce crime on a massive scale simply by opening their doors each day. Even The Washington Post has observed the role of dispensaries in undermining cartel profits, and one couldn’t possibly calculate the cumulative crime-control benefits of millions of marijuana transactions that would otherwise have occurred in the shadows.

Cheap and unfounded claims about dispensaries attracting crime have served only to discredit their authors, while infusing needless controversy and confusion into the regulatory process. As advocates for medical marijuana, we have no opposition to sensible regulations, but policy debates should be aimed at serving the interests of patients and the community, not indulging fictitious fears at the expense of helping real people.