Extended Summer issue deadline: May 18. 510-275-9311

By Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director

Exposure to moderate levels of cannabis smoke — even over the long-term — is not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function, according to clinical trial data published in the January 2012 Journal of the American Medical Assn.

Investigators at UC San Francisco analyzed the association between marijuana exposure and pulmonary function over a 20-year period in a cohort of 5,115 men and women in four US cities.

The data “confirmed the expected reductions in FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration) and FVC (forced vital capacity)” in tobacco smokers. By contrast, “Marijuana use was associated with higher FEV1 and FVC at the low levels of exposure typical for most marijuana users. With up to 7 joint-years of lifetime exposure (e.g., 1 joint/d for 7 years or 1 joint/week for 49 years), we found no evidence that increasing exposure to marijuana adversely affects pulmonary function.”

They conclude, “Our findings suggest that occasional use of marijuana … may not be associated with adverse consequences on pulmonary function.”

The results are consistent with other reports finding no significant decrease in pulmonary function associated with moderate cannabis smoke exposure. A 2007 literature review conducted by researchers at the Yale University School of Medicine and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that cannabis smoke exposure is not associated with airflow obstruction (emphysema), as measured by airway hyperreactivity, forced expiratory volume, or other measures.

The largest case-controlled study ever to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking reported in 2006 that cannabis use was not associated with lung-related cancers, even among subjects who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints over their lifetime. “We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use,” stated its lead researcher, Dr. Donald Tashkin of California’s UCLA. “What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect,” in that marijuana smokers had lower incidences of lung cancer than non-users.

Separate studies of cannabis smoke and pulmonary function indicate that chronic use may be associated with an increased risk of certain respiratory complications, such as cough, bronchitis and phlegm. However, alternative ingestion methods such as edibles, liquid tinctures, sprays or vaporizers virtually eliminate consumers’ exposure to such unwanted risk factors and have been determined to be ‘safe and effective’ methods of ingestion in clinical trial settings.

* “Association between marijuana exposure and pulmonary function over 20 years,” JAMA, January 2012.

Legislature may adopt it first

By Alison Holcomb, New Approach Washington Campaign Director

The Washington Secretary of State certified Initiative 502 on Jan. 27, 2012 after receiving 354,608 petition signatures — well above the required 241,153 — from the New Approach Washington PAC.

The ballot measure would legalize, tax, and regulate the purchase and possession of cannabis for adults 21 and over and decriminalizes industrial hemp by redefining marijuana as cannabis possessing “a THC concentration greater than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” It makes no changes to Washington’s Medical Use of Cannabis Act, except it affords patients new protections from arrest, search, and prosecution, and creates a new system of safe, regulated access to cannabis for all adults, regardless of their medical status.

State Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, one of I-502′s sponsors, said, “Washington can be the first state in the country to do this, and I fully believe that other states will follow, and then Congress will finally get the message.”
The Legislature held a Feb. 9 joint-committee work session on I-502. The Senate Government Operations, Tribal Relations and Elections Committee and House State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee received supporting testimony from former US Attorney John McKay; Charles Mandigo, former Special Agent in Charge of the Seattle office of the FBI; former Spokane Regional Health Director Kim Thorburn, M.D., MPH; and Roger Roffman, DSW, cannabis dependence treatment professional and professor emeritus of social work at University of WA. McKay, Thorburn, and Roffman are all sponsors of I-502, and Mandigo publicly endorsed it last November.

Legislators have until March 9 to take action on I-502. If they pass it, adult possession of up to one ounce of useable cannabis, 16 oz. of cannabis-infused product in solid form, 72 oz. of cannabis-infused product in liquid form, or any combination of these amounts will immediately be decriminalized and not subject to any civil penalty. This would be the most progressive decriminalization law in the US. Every other state that has decriminalized cannabis possession has replaced criminal penalties with civil infractions that still permit police to stop people on suspicion of possession and levy a fine. The sole exception is Alaska, where possession of one ounce within the confines of one’s home is protected from government interference under the state constitution as a matter of privacy.

The measure also tasks Washington’s Liquor Control Board with developing and adopting rules regarding licensing and regulation of cannabis producers, processors, and retailers by Dec. 1, 2013. It specifies that cannabis growing, processing and selling in compliance with I-502 and rules adopted to implement it “shall not constitute criminal or civil offenses under Washington state law.”

If the legislature fails to take action, it will go onto the November 2012 general election ballot. A SurveyUSA poll conducted in November 2011 found that 57% of Washington voters supported “a proposal to legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana … and subject the purchase of marijuana to a 25% tax.” Greater turnout of younger voters in a Presidential election year may prove critical.

By William Dolphin, Americans for Safe Access

The California Supreme Court is taking up the issue of medical cannabis dispensaries. The court announced in Jan. 2012 that it is reviewing four cases involving dispensaries, including two controversial 2011 cases that led to the suspension of some local ordinances.

In one case, Pack v City of Long Beach, a lower court ruled that some dispensary regulations may be preempted by federal law. In City of Riverside v Inland Empire Patient’s Health and Wellness Ctr., a lower court held that local governments could legally ban distribution. Those rulings have now been vacated while the state Supreme Court considers them.

“It’s no surprise these cases are being reviewed, as both flew in the face of established decisions,” said Americans for Safe Access (ASA) Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who filed a brief along with the ACLU, the Drug Policy Alliance and Santa Cruz County to request the review of Pack. “Most importantly, by vacating the rulings, the Court has stopped local governments from using them to deny patients access to medical cannabis.”

It may be two or more years before the Supreme Court rules on the cases.

Several cities and counties across California have cited the October 2011 Pack decision in suspending regulatory ordinances or banning local distribution entirely. The US Justice Department even cited Pack in an effort to pressure local officials not to regulate distribution.

Other appellate court rulings contradict the decision, among them the November 2011 Riverside ruling, also under review, which held that, while medical cannabis distribution law is not preempted by federal law, cities can lawfully ban it as a type of regulation.

“Now that these bad rulings are set aside, it’s important that local officials help their communities by establishing sound dispensary regulations,” said ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer. “Dispensaries provide safe access for those with the most serious medical conditions who have few other options.”

The other two medical cannabis dispensary cases granted review by the California Supreme Court are Traudt v City of Dana Point and People v G3 Holistic.

By Allison Greenstein

Voters in Colorado may have a chance to vote this year on an initiative that would end the state’s marijuana prohibition.

The measure would make it legal for adults 21 and up to possess a limited amount of cannabis, establish a system to regulate it similarly to alcohol, and allow cultivation of industrial hemp. Along with generating state and local sales tax revenue, it calls on the legislature to enact a wholesale excise tax, of which the first $40 million annually is directed to the public-school construction fund.

“We will win because the voters understand that marijuana prohibition is a policy long overdue for repeal,” said Mason Tvert, co-director of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol. “Polls show more Coloradans consistently support making marijuana legal than oppose it, and we are confident they will pass this measure and make history this November.”

In January, proponents submitted more than 163,000 signatures in support of the measure but fell about 2,400 valid signatures short of the 86,105 needed to qualify for the ballot. They were allotted a 15-day period to collect more signatures for the petition, and submitted 14,000 additional signatures in February, all but guaranteeing the measure will appear on the November 2012 ballot.

At its second signature turn-in, the campaign was joined by former Republican two-term New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, who formally endorsed the initiative and discussed its significance.

“Coloradans have the chance to end marijuana prohibition for the entire country,” Johnson told KUSA NBC 9 News in Denver. “There has to be a first state, and Colorado has that opportunity.”

Sustained, systematic use of virtually all federal resources

By Morgan Fox, Marijuana Policy Project

The last few months have seen a dramatic increase in federal suppression in medical marijuana states. The latest in a growing trend of federal actions that began last year in Montana has reform advocates wondering just what this election year is going to look like.

While US attorneys in California and Colorado continue their brutal assault on specific sectors of the medical marijuana industry, the federal prosecutor for Delaware recently gave similar warnings. In response to a query from state lawmakers, US Attorney Charles Oberly III issued a letter Feb. 9, 2012, reminding authorities that the federal government is ready and able to prosecute marijuana violations regardless of state law, including state employees involved with licensing and regulating dispensaries.

In response, Gov. Jack Markell suspended Delaware’s fledgling medical use program, mirroring the actions of Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee when he halted implementation of his state’s new dispensary program. Both cited potential prosecution of state employees as a primary concern, as did the governors of Washington and Arizona. To date, no state employee has been arrested or charged with a crime for carrying out his or her job under state medical marijuana laws.

Despite the warnings from US attorneys that they could arrest and prosecute state employees, there is little indication that they intend to do so. The Dept. of Justice reiterated this point in its dismissal of Gov. Jan Brewer’s lawsuit against the medical use law passed by Arizona voters in 2010. Arizona is now in the process of implementing its regulated dispensary system, as is the District of Columbia, set to open dispensaries this summer. Neither they nor the other places with state-licensed dispensary systems (Maine, Colorado and New Mexico) have had individual state employees threatened.

Aside from gubernatorial delays, the state-level response to the Feds has been one of perseverance. To their credit, the governors of RI, WA, Vermont, and CO have officially requested that the federal government reclassify cannabis as a Schedule II or III drug. This call was joined by 48 lawmakers in WA, but it is doubtful how much impact this will have on the conflicts between state and federal law.

State lawmakers continue to press for marijuana reform legislation in the face of federal interference. So far this year, legislators in 17 states in all areas of the country have introduced bills to protect can­na­bis patients from arrest, and several of these still stand a good chance of passing during this session. Several states with existing medical use laws are considering legislation to add protections to their laws, such as regulating dispensary systems regardless of the reticence of some state executives. Three other states are considering legislation that recognize the medical uses of marijuana but would not protect patients from arrest.

While federal actions present challenges to reformers, States appear undaunted when it comes to considering new marijuana laws. As more and more States pass reforms, the federal pariah will be increasingly marginalized by its policy of interfering with state marijuana laws.

Medical Marijuana Regulation Initiative

By Dale Gieringer, California NORML Director

A comprehensive initiative to revamp California’s medical marijuana laws, the Medical Marijuana Regulation, Control and Taxation Act, has been filed by a statewide coalition of reform advocates. Organizers include ASA, the United Food and Commercial Workers Local #5, Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform, California NORML, Emerald Growers Association, California Cannabis Association, DPA, MPP and others.

The initiative is designed to address widespread public concern over the confusing and chaotic state of medical marijuana distribution laws in California. It would establish a new state agency, the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Enforcement, to regulate medical marijuana production, manufacture, distribution, testing and sale. The bureau would have broad power to develop regulations for the medical cannabis industry, pre-empting all local regulation except for zoning of dispensaries. The initiative requires at least one dispensary per 50,000 residents unless limited or banned by local voter initiative. Ambiguous provisions in existing law would be clarified to make clear that sales by state-registered collectives and other business entities were legal.

The initiative protects all existing rights of individual patients and caregivers accorded by Prop 215 and SB 420, and expands them to include civil rights not recognized by the courts under Prop. 215. Patients and caregivers would be free to cultivate their own medicine at home. However, anyone seeking to commercially produce, sell, distribute, process or transport would be required to register with the Bureau as of July, 2013. Facilities that are already recognized by local governments would be automatically grandfathered for the first three years. Registered facilities would be liable for civil instead of criminal penalties if they violated regulations.

The initiative would assess a 2.5% supplemental sales tax on sales of medical cannabis. Funds would be allocated to medical cannabis research, patient education, low-income assistance, emergency room health services and research on best cultivation practices. Local governments could assess additional taxes of no more than 2.5%.

The initiative also reduces penalties for certain offenses that are now mandatory felonies to “wobblers,” or alternative misdemeanors, in order to reduce enforcement costs in minor cases. New wobblers would include cultivation, possession for sale, transportation, distribution and sales. Felony penalties for possession of hashish or concentrated cannabis would be abolished.

The Legislative Analyst’s office estimates savings of up to “several tens of millions per dollars per year” in reduced law enforcement costs from the initiative.

Sponsors believe that MMRCTA is the most pressing and realistic proposal for marijuana reform in California in 2012. A poll by EMC Research found that 77% of California voters support uniform state rules for regulating, controlling and taxing medical marijuana, well above the 60% threshold that is considered necessary for a successful initiative. In contrast, a slim 52% majority support full-scale legalization.

Proponents are seeking to raise $2 million for the petition drive in order to qualify for the November ballot. The deadline for signature turn-in is April 20.
More MMRCTA info at regulatemedicalmarijuana.org.