Next issue: Spring 2012 • Deadline Feb. 10, 2012: Call us at 510-275-9311

By Drs. David Ostrow and David Berman

American Academy of Cannabinoid Medicine

The largest state medical society in the US, the California Medical Association (CMA), has called for the legalization of cannabis in order to allow physicians to prescribe it to patients, to expand research and advance scientific knowledge of its therapeutic applications and mechanisms of action. CMA can now request the American Medical Assn. (AMA) to reconsider its own policy recommendations on cannabis and debate whether the AMA should take a similar position.

“CMA may be the first organization of its kind to take this position, but we won’t be the last,” said Dr. James T. Hay, CMA president-elect, in an Oct. 16, 2011 news release. “This was a carefully considered, deliberative decision made exclusively on medical and scientific grounds. As physicians, we need to have a better understanding about the benefits and risks of medicinal cannabis so that we can provide the best care possible to our patients.”

While the CMA’s new position does not recognize the extensive body of scientific research on the proven therapeutic uses of cannabis for multiple conditions, including neuropathic pain, muscle spasticity, glaucoma and chronic pain and wasting associated with terminal conditions such as advanced cancer, it is consistent with the American Academy of Cannabinoid Medicine (AACM) and the Academy of Clinical Medicine’s positions that adequate access to cannabis is necessary for a better understanding of its therapeutic mechanisms and the discovery of further medicinal uses.

Noting that CMA’s endorsement of the legalization of cannabis goes much further than its previous position supporting the development of a science-based approach to cannabinoid medicine, the AACM Board applauded the “courageous leadership of the CMA in challenging one of the central tenants of widely discredited propaganda [used to rationalize] a failed War on Drugs that has cost over one trillion dollars and countless lives.” As over 1,000 drug policy reform advocates were meeting in LA, federal agents were raiding legally licensed medicinal cannabis growers and suppliers and confiscating medical cannabis, often without cooperation or oversight by state and local authorities, some of whom condemned the raids.

“The CMA’s leadership on this critical issue should encourage all physicians and other qualified caregivers to lobby their professional associations to take a similar stand against cannabis prohibition,” the AACM statement continued, “in order that clinical use and research can be unleashed from unsubstantiated fears and Draconian measures [despite] the growing scientific and popular opinion that cannabis and many of its hundreds of active ingredients are both safer and less addictive than FDA-approved medications.“

If the AMA adopts the CMA position, it will restore the principles laid out by the AMA leadership in 1937 that the federal prohibition against the prescription of cannabis by physicians was a direct assault on the medical profession’s development of improved pharmacological therapy.

By Gaynell Rogers

Less than three weeks after US Attorneys announced an escalation in the federal assault on California’s medical cannabis providers, President Obama held a high-dollar fundraising luncheon in San Francisco — the birthplace of the national medical cannabis movement.

Outraged by the timing of the fundraising visit, Northern Cal cannabis community leaders united with Bay Area elected officials, patients and business professionals at a press conference and rally to demand Obama end his administration’s latest attack on state medical marijuana laws.

The press conference included speeches from California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), San Francisco Supervisor David Campos, Executive Director of the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) Aaron Smith, Executive Director Steve DeAngelo of Harborside Health Center, Dale Gieringer of California NORML, Dale Sky Jones of Oaksterdam University, Lynette Shaw of Marin Alliance, Fairfax Mayor Larry Bragman and representatives of UFCW Local 5.

“With national polls showing support for marijuana at an all-time high, it defies common sense that the Department of Justice would return to the failed policies of the past. Instead of supporting state efforts to effectively regulate medical marijuana in accordance with Prop 215, the Obama administration seems committed to re-criminalizing it,” said Ammiano. “This destructive attack on medical marijuana patients is a waste of limited law enforcement resources and will cost the state millions in tax revenue and harm countless lives. President Obama needs to reverse this bad policy decision and respect California’s right to provide medicine to its residents.”

“Obama needs to immediately rein in the Justice Dept. for defying his administration’s stated policy to respect state medical marijuana laws. Using federal resources to undermine California law and target lawful businesses is not only horrible public policy, it’s just bad politics,” said Aaron Smith, executive director for the National Cannabis Industry Assn., a group representing the legitimate medical marijuana industry in Washington, DC. “It’s baffling that the administration would seek to eliminate an industry that not only enjoys the support of the American public, but has created thousands of jobs and significant tax revenues for state and local governments — and in an election season, no less.”

State officials join SF press conference

“The federal war on medical marijuana threatens to force patients to purchase their medicine from criminals, drug dealers, and violent gangs instead of from state-sanctioned, locally-regulated facilities that are safe and create decent jobs for Californians,” said Matthew Witemyre, Special Projects Union Representative for UFCW Local 5, the labor union representing many of the state’s medical cannabis workers.

“If the federal government closes commercial dispensaries and collectives in California, thousands of hardworking and taxpaying citizens across the state will lose their jobs in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”

By Paul Armentano, NORML.com

A record 50% of Americans agree that marijuana ought to be legalized for adult use, according to a nationwide Gallup poll of 1,005 adults.

This is the highest percentage ever recorded by Gallup, which has tracked public opinion data on marijuana policy since 1969. Since 2005, support for legalization has increased in every demographic polled by Gallup. Support has grown by four percent just since 2010, when California’s Prop 19 lost by 3.5%.

The survey results released Oct 19, 2011 also mark the first time ever that Gallup has reported more Americans support legalizing cannabis (50%) than oppose it (46%).

Gallup reported that support for legalizing cannabis was highest among self-described liberals (69%) and those between the ages of 18 to 29 (62%). Support was weakest among Republicans (35%), self-described conservatives (34%), and those over the age of 65 (31%).

Fifty-five percent of male respondents said they favored legalization, compared to only 46% of female respondents. Support for legalization was greatest in the West and Midwest regions of the country and weakest in the South.

“When Gallup first asked about legalizing marijuana in 1969, 12% of Americans favored it. … Support remained in the mid-20s … from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, but has crept up since, passing 30% in 2000 and 40% in 2009 before reaching the 50% level in this year’s Oct. 6-9 annual crime survey,” the polling firm stated in a press release. “If this current trend on legalizing marijuana continues, pressure may build to bring the nation’s laws into compliance with the people’s wishes.”

The poll results are based on telephone interviews conducted October 6-9, 2011 and have a 4% margin of error.

For more information, please contact  at (202) 483-5500, or Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org.

By Kris Hermes, Americans for Safe Access

The RAND Corporation issued a research study Sept. 20, 2011 that countered law enforcement claims that medical cannabis dispensaries attract crime. “[W]e found no evidence that medical marijuana dispensaries in general cause crime to rise,” said Mireille Jacobson, the study’s lead author and a senior economist at RAND.

The study affirmed the assessment of Americans for Safe Access that local officials who regulated medical marijuana distribution in their communities had seen a decrease in crime around dispensaries. “We reached the same conclusions as RAND,” said ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer. “Unfortunately, law enforcement has largely ignored or refuted these findings.”

According to a statement from RAND, the study “examined crime reports for the 10 days prior to and the 10 days following June 7, 2010, when the city of Los Angeles ordered more than 70 percent of the city’s 638 medical marijuana dispensaries to close.” Researchers analyzed crime reports within a few blocks around dispensaries that closed and compared that to crime reports for neighborhoods where dispensaries remained open. In total, RAND sa, “Researchers examined 21 days of crime reports for 600 dispensaries in Los Angeles County — 170 dispensaries remained open while 430 were ordered to close.”

City Attorney Carmen Trutanich’s office called RAND’s conclusions “highly suspect and unreliable,” and its public condemnation of the report was so great that a month after it was issued, the study was gone.

Apparently caving in to political pressure, RAND officially retracted its study Oct. 24, claiming that some crime data from the LA Police Dept. was overlooked. RAND spokesperson Warren Robak told the LA Times that, “We took a fresh look at the study, based in part upon questions raised by some folks following publication.” He noted that, “The LA City Attorney’s Office has been the organization most vocal in its criticism of the study.”

Few believe that RAND, a highly respected think tank, would have overlooked data from 2009. More to the point, a 2009 study was conducted by LA Police Chief Charlie Beck that compared crime data and reported, “Banks are more likely to get robbed than medical marijuana dispensaries,” and the claim that dispensaries attract crime “doesn’t really bear out.”

It seems that RAND could combine its own data with that of Chief Beck and ASA and still reach the same conclusion.

Read the RAND study at AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/RAND_Study.pdf

ASA sues Justice Dept.

By Kris Hermes, Americans for Safe Access

Americans for Safe Access sued the federal government Oct. 27, 2011 over recent attacks on medical cannabis in California. Its lawsuit, filed in San Francisco District Court on behalf of ASA’s 20,000 members in California, alleges that the Dept. of Justice (DoJ) is illegally coercing local and state officials with threats of prosecution for implementing state law. The lawsuit argues that US Attorneys are trying to dismantle the state’s medical cannabis law.

“Medical cannabis patients are not exempt from federal laws, but the 10th Amendment forbids the federal government from using coercive tactics to commandeer the law-making functions of the state,” said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford. “The recent intimidation tactics of the DoJ are nothing if not coercive.”

State Senator Mark Leno, co-author of California’s Medical Marijuana Program Act, also urged the federal government to “stand down in its massive attack on medical marijuana dispensaries.”

In recent weeks, US Attorneys in California have threatened local elected officials and city staff with criminal prosecution if they implement medical cannabis dispensary regulations in their communities. Federal prosecutors have even threatened to seize the city buildings out of which dispensary licenses are administered and issued. Several localities have rescinded or suspended their regulations because of federal interference, including Arcata, Chico, El Centro, Eureka and Sacramento.

Prosecutor Benjamin Wagner warned Chico’s mayor, city attorney, city manager and police chief in July 2011 that council members and staff could face federal charges if the city implements dispensary regulations. The council voted Aug. 2 to rescind its dispensary ordinance.

Eureka city council received a letter from prosecutor Melinda Haag stating that if “Eureka were to proceed, this office would consider injunctive actions, civil fines, criminal prosecution, and the forfeiture of any property used to facilitate a violation of [federal law].” The city has since suspended its local ordinance.

These tactics escalated after an Oct 7, 2011 joint press conference of all four US Attorneys for California to announce stepped-up enforcement against medical cannabis in the state, including targeting landlords who rent to dispensaries, threatening them with prosecution and asset forfeiture if they do not evict their tenants within 45 days.

The San Diego-based prosecutor later threatened radio and print news media who publish medical cannabis advertising.

Federal agents disrupted Mendocino County’s ability to enforce one of the most tightly controlled cultivation ordinances in the state Oct. 13, when they raided Northstone Organics, a fully licensed and compliant cultivation collective. All of the plants, which had been zip-tied and registered with the county, were uprooted and seized.

State Attorney General Kamala Harris denounced the federal government’s tactics, noting that “an overly broad federal enforcement campaign will make it more difficult for legitimate patients to access physician-recommended medicine,” and said California should be free to implement its law without interference.

Mendocino County Supervisor John McCowen called the federal raid on Northstone “outrageous,” and said in a statement, “The elimination of dispensaries that operate legally and openly will endanger patients and the public.”

ASA’s lawsuit acknowledges that the US Supreme Court has granted authority to the federal government to enforce its marijuana laws, but distinguishes that from interfering in California’s legislative affairs. The lawsuit states that this commandeering and intimidation of state and local officials is a “misuse of the government’s Commerce Clause powers, designed to deprive the State of its sovereign ability to chart a separate course.”