Medical Cannabis: Voices from the Frontlines

The Los Angeles City Attorney’s office has filed a complaint (download sections 1- 2 -3 – 4) asking for a Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction closing 135 pre-moratorium medical cannabis collectives deemed ineligible to register under the city’s new ordinance. The complaint is City Attorney Carmen Trutanich’s latest escalation in his campaign to roll back safe access to medical cannabis in the city. His aggressive posture has already raised the ire of patients, legal collective operators, and advocates in the state’s largest city – including many who played an instrumental role in developing and promoting regulation in the city.

Yesterday, the City Clerk’s office surprised collective operators by publishing a “Preliminary Priority List,” which indicated that less than 25% of the collectives which applied to register with the city were eligible to do so. Each ineligible collective will receive a letter explaining why they were excluded this week. Early reports indicate that unauthorized relocations, changes in ownership or management, and problematic background checks are leading causes for ineligibility.

That only 25% of the collectives survived the initial vetting speaks to the severity of the city’s ordinance and the narrow interpretation championed by the City Attorney. City Councilmembers can expect renewed controversy over the escalation when they return from recess in September. There will also be new litigation, as “ineligible” collectives seek relief based on a myriad of individual circumstances.

The development and implementation of medical cannabis regulations in Los Angeles has been a case study in what not to do. The long delay in writing regulations, botched moratorium, indecision on interim operating policies, reckless 11th-hour amendments, and absolute breakdown in enforcement have left patients in a state of confusion and fear. It did not have to be this way. Other cities and counties have successfully regulated medical cannabis already. Angelinos hope that their elected officials will realize that there is a better way to achieve the proven benefits of regulation – reduced crime, fewer complaints, and increased revenue – and abandon this costly path of obstruction and delay.

ShareThis

Our sister organization, Canadians for Safe Access (CSA), reports a second raid of Cannabis as Living Medicine (CALM), one of the most well-established medical cannabis dispensaries in Canada.  Officers claimed they were responding to “community complaints” and seized a large quantity of medical grade cannabis and hashish.  Today, the website indicates that the peer-run collective, which serves more than 3,000 Canadians who suffer serious and chronic illness, is temporarily closed.

This unfortunate event is a reminder that Americans are not alone in our pursuit of safe and legal access.

From their press release:

For Immediate Release: August 5, 2010

Police Raid of Medical Cannabis Dispensary Puts Patients at Risk

Yesterday, Cannabis as Living Medicine (CALM), one of the most well- established medical cannabis dispensaries in Canada, was raided by police in Toronto for the second time in five months. In the last couple of months, a dispensary in Guelph, another in Iqaluit, and several in the province of Quebec were also raided.

Canadians for Safe Access, a national patient advocacy organization, is denouncing these raids. The result is that thousands of Canadians suffering from MS, Cancer, HIV/AIDS, arthritis and other critical and chronic illnesses have lost an important source of their medicine, laments Rielle Capler, a researcher and co-founder of the organization. They will have to go to the streets or suffer without their medicine. Capler adds, Rather than leave these dispensaries vulnerable to police raids, CSA is calling on Health Canada to work with them to develop regulations that would ensure their protection as well as the highest quality of care for patients. Our government should be supporting patients to access the best possible medicine, and supporting the organizations that are providing this vital service.”

While the use of cannabis for medical purposes is constitutionally legal in Canada, the Federal Governments program, which provides licenses to patients for legal possession of cannabis, does not provide an adequate legal source of this medicine. Government statistics show that only about 800 of the 4000 licensed medical cannabis users access the governments supply, which is considered by many to be inferior. Research indicates that over half of license holders acquire their cannabis from dispensaries, which currently supply high quality medicine to an estimated 20,000 Canadians with critical and chronic medical conditions.

Medical cannabis dispensaries, also know as compassion clubs, have played a vital role supplying safe access to cannabis for the critically and chronically ill in Canada for over 12 years. These organizations provide access to a variety of high quality cannabis strains and preparations that can effectively alleviate pain, muscle spasms, nausea, anxiety, and other serious symptoms. Compassion clubs are also at the forefront of academic peer-reviewed research on medical cannabis in Canada. Well-run dispensaries are appreciated by patients, accepted within communities, and their work has been lauded by various court  rooms across the country.

Media Contacts:

Rielle Capler 604-818-4082- rielle@telus.net

Philippe Lucas 250-884-9821 phil@drugsense.org

ShareThis

A new documentary by Len Richmond, “What if Cannabis Cured Cancer,” is starting to turn heads. Dr. Andrew Weil recently reviewed Richmond’s film, calling it “excellent,” and last week answered a question about medical cannabis on his web site.

[E]xciting new research suggests that the cannabinoids found in marijuana may have a primary role in cancer treatment and prevention. A number of studies have shown that these compounds can inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animal models. In part, this is achieved by inhibiting angiogenesis, the formation of new blood vessels that tumors need in order to grow. What’s more, cannabinoids seem to kill tumor cells without affecting surrounding normal cells. If these findings hold true as research progresses, cannabinoids would demonstrate a huge advantage over conventional chemotherapy agents, which too often destroy normal cells as well as cancer cells.

Though not referenced in Dr. Weil’s answer, much of the recent investigation into inhibiting cancer growth using cannabis comes from Dr. Sean D. McAllister, of the California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco and medical cannabis researcher Jahan Marcu, who is also on the Medical & Scientific Advisory Board of Americans for Safe Access (ASA).

Richmond’s film is narrated by Emmy-winning actor Peter Coyote and has a host of medical cannabis experts, including Dr. McAllister, Dr. Donald Abrams, Professor of Clinical Medicine and Integrative Oncology at UCSF, Dr. Robert Melamede, University of Colorado Biology Chairman and ASA Advisory Board member, as well as researchers from Spain and Israel.

Richmond’s film asks:

Could the chemicals found in marijuana prevent and even heal several deadly cancers? Could the tumor-regulating properties of “cannabinoids” someday replace the debilitating drugs, chemotherapy, and radiation that harms as often as it heals?

The film also includes a bonus comedy puppet short, “Kurt Cannabis Meets Connie Cancer,” with the voices of Roseanne Barr and Malcolm McDowell.

Drawing attention to the federal government’s outdated position that “marijuana has no currently accepted medical use,” Dr. Weil concluded in his review of Richmond’s film:

If we need more evidence that our current policy on cannabis is counterproductive and foolish, here it is.

Richmond’s film will be screening at the Sausalito Film Festival on Sunday, August 15th, at 1:30 pm, followed by a panel discussion on cannabis and cancer with Richmond, Dr. Donald Abrams, Dr. Jeffery Hergenrather, Dr. Sean McAllister.

For additional information, go to Len Richmond’s web site: http://LenRichmondFilms.com.

ShareThis

Late last week, ASA received word from Michael Krawitz, Executive Director of Veterans for Medical Cannabis Access , of a significant victory for veterans who utilize medical marijuana in the states that have adopted such laws.

According to a letter to Mr. Krawitz from Robert A. Petzel, MD, Under Secretary for Health of the Department of Veterans Affairs, “If a Veteran obtains and uses medical marijuana in a manner consistent with state law, testing positive for marijuana would not preclude the Veteran from receiving opioids for pain management in a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facility.”

THIS IS A VICTORY FOR VETERANS!

ASA applauds the tenacity and hard work of Veterans for Medical Cannabis Access that led to this victory. Also, we extend our appreciation to the VA for providing some much needed clarity on this matter. If you’re a vet and have encountered this issue, please print a copy of the letter and bring it with you on your next visit to your local VA clinic.

ShareThis

This month, The AIDS Beacon, ran a two-part series about the therapeutic use of marijuana for the treatment of symptoms related to HIV and the pharmaceutical drugs designed to keep the disease in check.  The Beacon is an independent news and information resource for people living with HIV/AIDS and their families.

Part 1: Legal Support For Medical Marijuana Use Gains Steam, provides a broad review of the current legal environment, and, Part 2: Science Is Mostly Positive On Medical Marijuana For People With HIV, reviews some of the current scientific literature.

Read the articles, share with friends, and, if you are so inclined, provide a comment on the pages to let the editors know you appreciate an honest reporting of the facts.

ShareThis

Earlier this week, U.S. District Court Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz denied a defense for James Stacy, a San Diego-area medical marijuana provider raided in September 2009 by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA),  just one month before the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a new policy concerning medical marijuana enforcement.  Tell your Member of Congress to support important legislation that would permit Truth in Trials!

James Stacy with San Diego ASA

Despite the DOJ’s new policy, medical marijuana patients and providers in states that have adopted medical marijuana laws are still vulnerable to federal arrest and prosecution.  Worse yet, these patients and providers are denied the opportunity present evidence during federal court proceedings that might demonstrate medical need and/or compliance with state and local laws.

The denial of medical marijuana defenses in federal court has attracted the attention of some Members of Congress who are working to end this unfair practice. “Despite a new Justice Department policy on medical marijuana enforcement, James Stacy was still denied a defense in federal court,” said Congressman Sam Farr (D-CA), author of HR3939, the Truth in Trials Act, legislation that would allow defendants like Stacy to use evidence of state law compliance in federal court. “The Truth in Trials Act would correct this aberration of justice and ensure that no one else will needlessly face years in prison without the means to defend themselves.”

Now is the time for change!  Please urge your Member of Congress to support this very important legislation.

ShareThis

Two California Senate committees approved a bill this week that will require a 600-foot buffer zone between medical cannabis collectives and schools statewide. AB 2650 was approved by the Senate Health Committee and the Local Government Committee over the objection of Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and other medical cannabis advocates. However, ASA and allies can claim a victory in the bills march towards final approval by the Senate. The initial draft would have required a 1,000-foot buffer zone around a laundry list of sensitive uses. Pressure from the medical cannabis community forced the author, Assemblymember Joan Buchanan (D-Alamo), to retreat to the less onerous provision.

AB 2650 is expected to win final approval in the Senate this session. Cities and counties can adopt smaller buffer zones before January 1, 2011, when the new legislation takes effect. Local governemnt retains the right to adopt larger buffer zones at any time. The bill is sponsored by the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), a law enforcement lobbyist group that opposes medical cannabis.

ShareThis

Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich was one of more than sixty people who gathered last night for a candlelight vigil for the victims of two violent attacks at medical cannabis collectives this week.  Two people were killed and one was seriously injured in two separate incidents on Thursday. The tragedies occurred in the midst of ongoing controversy about the city’s tough new medical cannabis ordinance.

Trutanich told a reporter from West Coast Cannabis Magazine that he understood this was “not something [the victims] brought on themselves,” and said the police department would not rest until the murderers were brought to justice. Trutanich’s words are reassuring for patients and the victims’ loved ones, who fear this human tragedy may be politicized by medical cannabis opponents in the often emotional debate about regulating safe access in Los Angeles.  Fear of crime around medical cannabis facilities fueled efforts to adopt the state’s toughest medical cannabis ordinance earlier this year, but Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck told City Councilmembers and the media that reports of increased crime around collectives did not bear out.

Unfortunately, Thursday’s tragedies differ little from similar crimes that occur at convenience stores, gas stations, or grocery stores in Los Angeles. These murders are not medical cannabis crimes. Trutanich is correct to keep the blame on the perpetrators, instead of the victims. His presence at last night’s vigil and sensible comments speak volumes to patients and advocates, most of whom take issue with his adversarial posture towards medical cannabis.

Americans for Safe Access (ASA) would like to commend the City Attorney on his presence, and extend our heart-felt sympathies to the families of the victims. We call on the Los Angeles Police Department and City Council to do everything in their power to bring the murderers to justice, and ask that anyone who can help in their arrest or prosecution cooperate fully in that effort.

ShareThis

Update June 23 – Sen. Calderon has withdrawn SBX6 16. Thanks to everyone who helped get this done!

California Senator Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) wants to add a new tax medical cannabis in California. If adopted, SBX6 16 would tax legal medicine at the same rate as tobacco – forty one percent!  ASA opposes this unreasonable burden on legal patients, who already pay sales tax on their medicine. Medical cannabis is expensive and usually not covered by insurance. ASA is calling on Senator Calderon’s colleagues on the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee to reject SBX6 16 at a hearing on Wednesday, June 23.

ASA appreciates the state’s need for additional tax revenue during these tough economic times. A more reasonable approach would be to seek wider compliance with the Board of Equalization (BOE) ruling from October of 2005, which requires patients’ collectives and cooperatives to pay sales tax at the normal rate. This could bring large sums of money into state coffers without creating additional economic hardships for sick and dying Californians who lawfully use medical cannabis.

(ASA opposes the application of sales tax to medical cannabis, but supports compliance with the BOE ruling until the law changes.)

Research conducted by ASA shows that regulating medical cannabis is beneficial for communities, and revenue issues should be a part of a comprehensive regulatory strategy. However, SBX6 16 is a premature effort. Revenue issues must be addressed along with other crucial issues – (1) inconsistencies in local policies on sales of cannabis, (2) clarity on the scope and nature of conduct permitted under the law, (3) licensing and legal protection for cannabis growers, and (4) protection for patients’ civil rights. ASA is willing to work with lawmakers on sensible and comprehensive legislation in the future.

Please join ASA in opposing SBX6 16 before Wednesday’s hearing. You can contact members of the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee from the committee web page. Tell them to vote no on SBX6 16.

ShareThis

A troubling trend of excessive bails in medical marijuana cases has begun to occur over the past month. The operators of a long-standing Santa Barbara dispensary, currently held on $1 million bail each, are the latest victims of this unprovoked attack on medical marijuana providers. On Friday, the Santa Barbara Police Department and Sheriff’s Department raided HortiPharm, a medical marijuana dispensary operated by Joshua and Dayli Braun. Police also raided a restaurant owned by Dayli Braun, and several other locations, seizing large amounts of medical marijuana and growing equipment, and arresting a total of 7 people. According to reports received today by Americans for Safe Access, the District Attorney has issued a warrant for HortiPharm’s bookkeeper and also intends to hold him on $1 million bail.

Less than three weeks ago, on May 26th, a San Fernando Valley dispensary operator was held on $1 million bail after Sheriffs from Los Angeles and Ventura raided two of his distribution facilities and Ventura County home.

Needless to say, holding people on $1 million bail is rare and typically reserved for people accused of seriously violent acts, not for those simply providing medicine to patients. In theory, we are supposed to be protected from unreasonable bail under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Arguably, the excessive bails we are seeing in recent medical marijuana cases are a violation of those rights. The Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office claims that HortiPharm violated the terms of the Compassionate Use Act, but has failed to provide any evidence. And, do such claims even justify holding people on million dollar bails?

Two recent acquittals of dispensary operators by jury trial in San Diego have shown that criminal prosecution may not be the best way to address the issue of medical marijuana distribution. Local officials in Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, Ventura and elsewhere would do better to approach alleged local or state law violations with civil, not criminal, actions. Keeping people needlessly locked up using excessive bail is not the right approach for a public health issue like medical marijuana.

ShareThis

Stooping to a new low, local law enforcement in California has resorted to identity theft in order to entrap, arrest and prosecute law-abiding medical marijuana providers. The Calaveras County Sheriff’s Department has admitted to using the physician’s recommendation and identity of legal medical marijuana patient Robert Shaffer in order to entrap and arrest Jay Smith, operator of the local “K Care Alternative Collective” dispensary. The Sheriff’s Department was in possession of Shaffer’s documentation as a result of an unrelated arrest.

Despite complying with state law by refusing to sell Deputy Sheriff Steve Avila any medical marijuana before verifying the recommendation that he fraudulently used, Smith is still being prosecuted for felony marijuana sales and transportation. Surprisingly, at a recent hearing, Calaveras County Superior Court Judge Douglas Mewhinney overlooked Smith’s compliance with the law and said there was sufficient evidence for the case to proceed to trial.

Shaffer’s physician, Dr. Philip A. Denney of Carmichael, verified that Shaffer was indeed a patient when K Care contacted Dr. Denney’s office after Deputy Avila deceptively used Shaffer’s valid medical marijuana recommendation. Dr. Denney, upset that his patient, Robert Shaffer, did not authorize such use of his medical records, told The Record that the investigation against Smith “smacks of entrapment and sleaziness.”

Dr. Philip Denney: The prosecution of Smith “smacks of entrapment and sleaziness.”

Calaveras Sheriff Dennis Downum defended the actions of Deputy Avila, but seemed confused about the letter of the law. In an appearance before the Calaveras Board of Supervisors, Sheriff Downum claimed erroneously that, “to provide medical marijuana to someone, there has to be a caregiver relationship.” In fact, if Sheriff Downum had brushed up on the law, he would have realized that for Smith to be in compliance with state law, he must operate as a collective or cooperative, not as a “caregiver.”

While Sheriff Downum has no excuse to be ignorant of the law he’s upheld to enforce, Calaveras District Attorney Jeff Tuttle has no excuse to falsely prosecute Smith based on the same flawed interpretation of state law. In an interview with the Calaveras Enterprise, Tuttle echoed Sheriff Downum and said that his “understanding of the law is that…you have to be a primary caregiver to provide [patients] with marijuana.”

In response to accusations of impropriety, District Attorney Tuttle said:

Law enforcement officers and investigations are allowed to do many things that as citizens we would be penalized criminally for, but the reason they are is that they are doing it as part of an investigation. They can mislead people, they can lie they can try to trick people.

Smith’s attorney, Ean Vizzi, called Tuttle’s assertions “absolutely incorrect,” not knowing whether Tuttle was just “mistaken or [if] he’s purposefully ignoring the law.”

Sheriff Downum and Distriact Attorney Tuttle should not be let off the hook so easily. At best, they have seriously misinterpreted California’s medical marijuana law, and at worst the Sheriff could be responsible for “investigatorial misconduct” against Smith and Shaffer. If it’s determined that the Sheriff’s Department has violated any ethical or legal standards by assuming Shaffer’s identity to entrap Smith, the case against Smith should be promptly dismissed and Sheriff Downum should have to face the legal consequences.

ShareThis

LA City Hall

Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation of the new medical cannabis ordinance in Los Angeles on Friday. The appeal challenges the Zoning Administrator’s position on parking and nonconforming use status for medical cannabis collectives.

In an interpretation published on May 6, Zoning Administrator Michael Logrande states that collectives “operate in a way that is similar to medical offices and clinics,” and should therefore have one parking space per two hundred square feet of floor space.  That is a tough standard for collectives to meet, especially in combination with the other restrictions on where they can be located. ASA argues that the parking requirement should be based on the square footage of the facility used for retail and manufacturing use – a computation that would make finding a new location easier.

ASA’s appeal also challenges the Zoning Administrator’s position that medical cannabis collectives have no status as prior nonconforming uses, vested land use rights that may make it possible to challenge the applicability of the new ordinance. Nonconforming status is a significant component of the lawsuit filed by ASA on March 2 seeking to overturn some portions of the city’s medical cannabis ordinance. It is also expected to be a significant part of litigation filed by other groups.

This appeal is part of an ongoing effort to improve the State’s most severe medical cannabis ordinance. Our research and experience show that sensible regulations reduce crime and complaints around collectives, while preserving access for legal patients. We must not let those who oppose medical cannabis or misguided city staff use the regulatory process to roll back safe access to medicine. That is why ASA remains committed to fighting for reasonable regulations in Los Angeles and other jurisdictions.

ShareThis

Rep. Polis, one of the newest members of the House Judiciary Committee, asked AG Eric Holder to clarify more questions about the DOJ’s medical marijuana policy.

Building on Rep. Cohen’s questions to AG Holder,  Rep. Polis first offered his applause and support for the DOJ memo disseminated last fall to US Attorneys discouraging prosecution of individuals in clear and unambiguous compliance with state law.  Then, Rep. Polis asked the following:

Will you describe the objective processes DEA and US Attorneys are using in order to make a determination about whether individuals are in “clear and unambiguous” compliance with state law?

To which, AG Holder provided the following response:

I hate to keep saying this over and over, but it happens on a case by case basis.

We look at the state law,  the restrictions,  and how the law is constructed.  A number of other factors in the memo provide additional guides; is marijuana being sold consistent with state law? Are firearms associated with the sales?  These and other factors contained in the the memo are what US Attorney are supposed to consider when trying to determine whether federal resources are going to be used to go after somebody.

To which Mr. Polis responded:

Well, I would certainly encourage that the question of whether or not its consistent with state law be left to state enforcement actions.

Following that excellent line of questioning,  Mr. Polis set out to clarify what steps AG Holder was taking to ensure that the spirit of the enforcement mechanisms outlined in the memo are not contradicted by field agents (like Jeffery Sweetin) which can strike fear in legitimate businesses in the states.

Accepting this responsibility, AG Holder replied:

It is incumbent upon me as the Attorney General to make sure that what we’ve set out as policy is being followed. To the extent DEA or US Attorneys are not following that policy, my responsibility is to make sure the policy is clear, disseminated, and that employees of the Justice Department act accordingly.

Not wanting to let Mr. Holder off that easily,  Rep. Polis then asked:

Are these statements (by DEA Agent Jeffrey Sweetin) contrary to the DOJ’s policy?

To which, AG Holder said:

If the entity was compliant with state law and didn’t involve any other factors outlined in memo, then that would be inconsistent with the policy we’ve laid out.

ShareThis

Moments ago, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, AG Holder was asked about the Department’s approach to the rescheduling issue.

Rep. Cohen asked Mr. Holder the following:

On April 29, Federal District Court Judge George H. Wu issued a 41-page written sentencing order stating that medical marijuana provider Charles C. Lynch was “caught in the middle of the shifting positions” on the question of marijuana for medical use, and that “much of the problems could be ameliorated…by the reclassification of marijuana from Schedule I.” Will you share your thoughts with the Committee about how your Department will approach the rescheduling question?

AG Holder’s response was rather predictable (if you’ve been paying attention):

Our approach is to look at the marijuana issue in it’s totality.  Mexican cartels get most of the revenue from trafficking marijuana. So far as state medical marijuana laws are concerned, we will not use federal resources to target medical marijuana patients or their providers. Instead, we will be focusing on major traffickers.

It’s not exactly the answer we had hoped for.  However,  we applaud Rep. Cohen for taking the issue up during this time.  (Note: This was an especially timely question because the rescheduling petition is waiting for DOJ review).

ShareThis

After seven hours of debate, and in the wake of firebombings on two medical marijuana businesses in Billings, Montana, the City Council voted this morning to impose a six-month moratorium on new medical marijuana businesses in the city.  As a result:

1. New marijuana businesses will not be issued business licenses;
2. Existing businesses are frozen in their current locations; and
3. The 12 existing businesses within 1,000 feet of schools will not be required to move

The early morning vote followed debate on several interim options, including an all-out ban on all medical marijuana sales in the city.  However, dozens of activists defended appropriate regulation of the medical marijuana businesses and warned that an all-out ban on marijuana businesses may force costly litigation to recover loss investments.  Consequently,  the Council adopted a less-controversial moratorium whereby the City government will have about six months to study and make recommendations about appropriate ordinances, zoning or otherwise, to appropriately control and regulate these necessary establishments.

According to City Planning Director, Candi Beaudry, the city has issued 89 licenses for medical marijuana businesses, but less than half were in operation and several licenses were still “under review.”

For more information about how to get involved,  please check out ASA’s Montana affiliate, Patients and Families United.

ShareThis