Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Monday, August 23, 2010
In Response to the Infamous White Paper Lies purported by the California Police Chiefs: The Green Papers
MARIJUANA ANTI-PROHIBITION PROJECT
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE “WHITE PAPER” ISSUED BY
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY GROVER TRASK ENTITLED “MEDICAL MARIJUANA – HISTORY AND CURRENT COMPLICATIONS.”
September 21, 2006
Prepared by
Kenneth Michael White, esq.
Attorney-at-Law
PO Box 931, Upland, CA 91785
kenneth.white@cgu.edu
This analysis criticizes the White Paper issued by the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office titled “Medical Marijuana: History and Current Complications.” The DA’s conclusion that “the United States Supremacy Clause renders California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004 illegal” is incorrect as a matter of both law and common sense. The following is an explication of the problems with the DA’s position regarding the current status of medical marijuana jurisprudence. In short, the DA’s opinion is misleading and ought not be followed.
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE DA’S ANALYSIS OF
THE “HISTORY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA”
The DA (White Paper, p. 1) states that “evidence that marijuana lessens the symptoms of any medical condition is largely anecdotal.” The DA also states that “medical marijuana is normally administered by smoking and not a single Federal Drug Administration approved medication is smoked.”
Problem 1: In 1999, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences issued a report, “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base” concluding that even in smoked form marijuana has medicinal uses. Furthermore, the Medical Board of California has issued guidelines for the recommendation of cannabis. Medical marijuana is a fact of science, not advocacy.
Problem 2: Marijuana can be used for medical purposes in many ways. Patients can smoke it, vaporize it, eat it, or apply it topically. In any case, the manner in which people take their medicine under doctor’s orders is of no business of the DA—at least not until there are facts to suggest that marijuana is being diverted for non-medical purposes. But it should not be assumed that the people who have a serious illness and a doctor’s recommendation to use marijuana for medical purposes will exercise their right in a way that causes harm, because it is unreasonable to suspect that people misuse their medicine generally.
Problem 3: Whether the Federal Drug Administration or any other entity of the Federal Government recognizes California’s 1996 Compassionate Use Act or 2003 Medical Marijuana Program Act is irrelevant as far as officials sworn to uphold the Constitution of California are concerned. The United States Supreme Court held in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 125 S.Ct. 2195 that “federal authorities may enforce provisions of the federal Controlled Substances Act that criminalize simple marijuana possession and use (see 21 U.S.C. § 844(a)(1)) against persons whose possession and use of marijuana is legal as a matter of state law under California’s Compassionate Use Act” (California Attorney General, “Bulletin to All California Law Enforcement Agencies,” June 22, 2005) (emphasis in the original). What the federal authorities “may” do (subject seriously ill people to the criminal justice system for using marijuana medically) the DA shall not do, because the “state courts do not enforce the federal criminal statutes” (see People v. Tilehkooh (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1445-1446). Furthermore, Article III of the Constitution of California makes it clear that local officials have no power “to declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations” (see also Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055) (holding that local officials cannot unilaterally refuse to comply with state law without first seeking the guidance of a court of law). Furthermore, the DA’s reliance on federal law to interpret the Compassionate Use Act is misplaced, because on July 18, 2002, a unanimous California Supreme Court ruled that the Compassionate Use Act “involve[s] state law alone” (see People v. Mower, 28 Cal.4th 457, 465, footnote 2). In sum, the DA’s position regarding medical marijuana would destroy the system of dual sovereignty, i.e., federalism, created by the United States Constitution (see Printz v. United States (1997) 521 U.S. 898, 932).
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE DA’S ANALYSIS OF “FEDERAL LAW”
The DA (White Paper, p. 1) states, “Federal law clearly and unequivocally states that all marijuana related activities are illegal.” The DA (White Paper, p. 2) also states, “Under the Supremacy Clause, the federal regulation of marijuana, pursuant to the Commerce Clause, supersedes any state’s regulation, including California’s.”
Problem 4: The Court in Gonazles was not as unequivocal as the DA would have it. The Court noted that if, after trial, marijuana was shown to have medical value—given the 1999 report referenced above, how could it not?—then federal law would likely have to be amended to accommodate the medical use of cannabis. Also, the Court strongly suggested that substantive due process protects an individual patient from federal criminal sanctions for using medical marijuana. Furthermore, the Court also suggested that Congress ought to revisit the issue of medical marijuana prohibition.
Problem 5: The DA reaches a conclusion about federal supremacy, even though no court has declared it in the case of California’s medical marijuana laws. Furthermore, there is no merit to the DA’s argument. California law decriminalizes the possession, cultivation, and distribution of medical marijuana under certain circumstances. Not subjecting a person to criminal sanctions is not a federal crime (see California Attorney General, Letter “RE Department of Health Service’s Questions Regarding Medical Marijuana Identification Cards and Federal Law,” July 15, 2005). Furthermore, California law does not prevent the Federal Government from enforcing federal law, but it does prevent California officials from doing so. As the California Attorney General has opined: “In our view, [the] express policy of decriminalization must necessarily govern the exercise of discretionary…powers” (see California Attorney General, “Bulletin to All California Law Enforcement Agencies,” June 22, 2005).
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE DA’S ANALYSIS OF “CALIFORNIA LAW”
The DA (White Paper, p. 2) states, “Despite their illegality, the medical marijuana laws in California are specific.” The DA (White Paper, p. 3) also states, “Relatively few individuals will be able to assert the affirmative defense in the [Compassionate Use Act]. To use it a person must be a ‘qualified patient,’ ‘primary caregiver,’ or a member of a ‘cooperative.’ Once they are charged with a crime, if a person can prove an applicable legal status, they are entitled to assert this statutory defense.”
Problem 6: No court has declared California’s medical marijuana laws illegal. The DA is unilaterally substituting his personal opinion for the law, which he is forbidden to do (see Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055). Furthermore, the medical marijuana laws in California are specific, and thus the DA is obliged to follow them, not usurp the role of the judiciary and declare them unconstitutional.
Problem 7: The DA does not explain why he thinks there are only a “few” qualified patients and/or caregivers in California. According to one estimate, there are around 200,000 medical marijuana patients in California (see McClure (June 2006) “Fuming Over Pot Clubs,” California Lawyer Magazine). But even if the number of qualified patients is one, the public good is still not served by the DA’s implication that such a person ought to be “charged with a crime” and forced to assert a “statutory defense” in court. A unanimous California Supreme Court held in People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 468-469, 471 that “law enforcement must have probable cause before they lawfully arrest a person for any crime…Thus, within its scope, section 11362.5(d) [of the Compassionate Use Act] renders possession and cultivation of marijuana noncriminal—that is to say, it renders possession and cultivation of the marijuana noncriminal for a qualified patient or primary caregiver.” Put simply, the DA cannot imply that medical marijuana is solely for the courts to settle—unless there are facts to suggest that a person showing proof of qualified status to possess medical marijuana is diverting it for non-medical purposes, there is no cause to subject that person to criminal sanction or prosecution under California law.
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE DA’S ANALYSIS OF “A STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF CALIFORNIA LAW”
The DA (White Paper, p. 3) states, “When California’s medical marijuana laws are strictly construed [the California Attorney General and the DA] come to a point of agreement. We believe that Gonzales v. Raich does affect California law. However, we also acknowledge that the California statutes offer some legal protection to ‘individuals within the legal scope of’ the acts…Conversely, all medical marijuana establishments that fall outside the letter and spirit of the statutes are not legal; including dispensaries and store-front facilities. These establishments have no legal protection. The Attorney General’s opinion does not present a contrary view.”
Problem 8: The DA contradicts itself. On the one hand, the DA claims to be in accord with the California Attorney General regarding medical marijuana policy. On the other hand, the DA claims Raich impacts California law. The California Attorney General has expressly and consistently held that Raich does not impact California law. The DA cannot rationally have it both ways—either the DA agrees with the California Attorney General that “California law enforcement agencies should not, because of Raich, change their current practices for the non-arrest and non-prosecution of individuals who are within the legal scope of California’s Compassionate Use Act” (see California Attorney General, “Bulletin to All California Law Enforcement Agencies,” June 9, 2005) or the DA does not. The DA’s position suggests a discord with the “top cop” in California, because the California Attorney General has many times presented a “contrary view” to the DA (see “Bulletin to All California Law Enforcement Agencies,” June 9, 2005, and June 22, 2005; Letter “RE Department of Health Service’s Questions Regarding Medical Marijuana Identification Cards and Federal Law,” July 15, 2005).
Problem 9: The Medical Marijuana Program Act expressly exempts from criminal sanction or prosecution qualified patients, caregivers, or “any individual who provides assistance to a qualified patient or a person with an identification card, or his or her designated primary caregiver” who opens or maintains “any place” for the purpose of “selling, giving away, or using” medical marijuana or receiving “compensation for actual expenses” (see Cal. Health & Safety § 11362.765(a)(b)(1)(2)(3)(c)). Thus, despite the DA’s claim otherwise, “dispensaries and store-front facilities” are expressly allowed by California law.
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE DA’S ANALYSIS OF “PRIMARY CAREGIVER”
The DA (White Paper, p. 4) states, “It is important to note that it is almost impossible for a store-front medical marijuana business to gain true primary caregiver status...Courts have found that a patient’s act of signing a piece of paper declaring that someone is a primary caregiver does not necessarily make them one.”
Problem 10: According to the Medical Marijuana Program Act it is not “impossible” for a person to be designated as a caregiver by multiple patients (see Cal. Health & Safety § 11362.7(d)(2)). Furthermore, there is no reason why such a person could not open “any place” for the purposes of fulfilling the function of a caregiver, including a “store-front” (see Cal. Health & Safety § 11362.765(a)).
Problem 11: The DA does not cite which courts have ruled that “a patient’s act of signing a piece of paper declaring that someone is a primary caregiver does not necessarily make them one.” Without a citation to the law, the DA’s statement cannot be verified.
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE DA’S ANALYSIS OF “STORE-FRONT MEDICAL MARIJUANA COOPERATIVES AND DISPENSARIES”
The DA (White Paper, pp. 4-5) states, “Since the passage of the Compassionate Use Act of 1995, many store-front medical marijuana businesses have opened in the state…These facilities operate as if they are pharmacies…Although Health and Safety Code section 11362.775 offers some state legal protection for true collectives and cooperatives, no parallel protection exists in the [Medical Marijuana Program Act] for any store-front business providing any narcotic.” The DA also cites a “common dictionary definition of collectives” and states, “Medical marijuana businesses, of any kind, do not meet this legal definition.” The DA also states, “Actual medical dispensaries are commonly defined as offices in hospitals, schools, or other institutions from which medical supplies, preparations, and treatments are dispensed…Clearly, it is doubtful that any of the store-front medical marijuana businesses currently existing in California can claim that status. Consequently, they are not primary caregivers and are subject to prosecution under both California and federal laws.”
Problem 12: Again, the DA cannot have it both ways. The DA cannot call an enterprise akin to “pharmacies” and then assert that it in no way resembles “offices in hospitals, schools, or other institutions from which medical supplies…are dispensed.” Pharmacies resemble offices in hospitals and “store-fronts.” The DA is putting forth an internally inconsistent argument here.
Problem 13: There is no reason to cite a “common dictionary definition of collectives” when there is statutory language on point (see Cal. Health & Safety § 11362.765).
Problem 14: There is no reason under California law to prosecute qualified patients and/or primary caregivers who associate with each other to furnish themselves the medicine they need (see People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 747).
Problem 15: The DA does not enforce the federal criminal code (see People v. Tilehkooh (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1445-1446).
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE DA’S ANALYSIS OF “RIVERSIDE COUNTY”
The DA (White Paper, pp. 5-6) states, “The County of Riverside is currently considering ordinance number 348.4403 which provides for the zoning and licensing of medical marijuana cooperatives in the county. As discussed above, all such store-front medical marijuana businesses are illegal. Consequently, all are subject to criminal prosecution.”
Problem 16: The County of Riverside has been considering ordinance number 348.4403 for quite some time now. For the DA to just now issue an opinion within days before the County is to consider the ordinance shows a lack of comity. The DA should have expressed its concerns earlier in the process; waiting so long to speak on the issue gives the impression of mischief.
Problem 17: Again, the DA is incorrect to assert that “store-front” dispensation is per se illegal under California law (see Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.765).
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE DA’S ANALYSIS OF “PRACTICAL ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA”
The DA (White Paper, pp. 6-7) cites an article in California Lawyer Magazine as accurately depicting “the mechanics” of all the medical marijuana distribution that takes place in California. The DA also states, “It is almost impossible for a store-front medical marijuana business to gain true primary caregiver status…The very fact that the relationship is instant belies any consistency in their relationship and the requirement that housing, health, or safety is consistently provided.”
Problem 18: The DA does not explain why this one magazine article captures the entire range of medical marijuana distribution that is possible and/or actually occurring. As the DA notes (White Paper, p. 4): “Since the passage of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, many store-front medical marijuana businesses have opened in the state.” So, how do we know the one operation depicted in the magazine article cited by the DA accurately reflects the experience of all the various associations involving medical marijuana in California?
Problem 19: The DA asserts that a caregiver relationship must be “consistent,” but the DA fails to take into account that the Medical Marijuana Program Act includes within the definition of “primary caregiver” any “individual who has been designed as a primary caregiver by more than one qualified patient or person with an identification card” (see Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.7(d)(2)). Thus, the status of a primary caregiver does not rest solely on the relationship being “consistent” in the sense that the DA asserts, as designation by a qualified patient is sufficient to create a primary caregiver relationship.
Problem 20: The DA argues that a primary caregiver relationship cannot start in an “instant” but does not explain why not or how else it could reasonably start. The beginning of a relationship always starts instantly, at least at initially. The DA’s position would make it impossible for anyone to designate a primary caregiver.
THE PROBLEM WITH THE DA’S ANALYSIS OF “SECONDARY EFFECTS OF DISPENSARIES AND SIMILARLY OPERATING COOPERATIVES”
The DA (White Paper, pp. 7-8) states, “Throughout the state, many violent crimes have been committed that can be traced to [medical marijuana dispensaries and cooperatives]…Store-front medical marijuana businesses are very dangerous enterprises.”
Problem 21: The DA cites five sensational crimes from 2004 to 2005 as evidence that medical marijuana distribution is dangerous. Does this mean that there were no crimes associated with medical marijuana distributors from 1996 to 2004? Are five crimes, even violent ones, significant in the span of 10 years? How does the rate of violent crime associated with medical marijuana distribution compare to the rate of violent crime associated with traffic in alcohol or other illicit drugs? Why should a few morally bankrupt criminals be allowed to push 200,000 qualified patients into the street to obtain their medicine?
THE PROBLEM WITH THE DA’S ANALYSIS OF “LIABILITY ISSUES”
The DA (White Paper, p. 8) states, “With respect to issuing business licenses to medical marijuana store-front facilities a very real issue has arisen: counties and cites are arguably aiding and abetting criminal violations of federal law.”
Problem 22: The DA takes a position here that is contrary to the California Attorney General and the United States Supreme Court. As the California Attorney General (Letter “RE Department of Health Service’s Questions Regarding Medical Marijuana Identification Cards and Federal Law,” July 15, 2005) makes clear: “the State of California, and state officials acting in their capacity to implement a valid state law, cannot be “persons” within the meaning of the federal criminal statutes relating to marijuana. A conclusion to the contrary would undermine the system of ‘dual sovereignty’ created by the United States Constitution…The federal government’s decision to criminalize the use and possession of marijuana—for all purposes—does not require California to do the same. It is well-settled that the ‘Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs’ (Printz v. United States (1997) 521 U.S. 898, 925; New York v. United States (1992) 505 U.S. 144, 161).”
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE DA’S “CONCLUSION”
The DA (White Paper, pp. 8-9) states, “In light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision and reasoning in Gonzales v. Raich, the United States Supremacy Clause renders California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004 illegal…Furthermore, store-front medical marijuana businesses are prey for criminals and create easily identifiable victims…Additionally, illegal medical marijuana facilities have the potential for creating liability issues for counties and cities…The Riverside County District Attorney’s Office believes that the cooperatives being considered are illegal and should not be permitted to exist within the County’s borders. They are a clear violation of federal and state law, they invite more crime, and they compromise the health and welfare of the citizens of this County.”
Problem 23: In the same way the City and County of San Francisco cannot usurp the judicial role and declare family laws unconstitutional, neither can the DA declare California’s medical marijuana laws unconstitutional. To date, no court has declared California’s medical marijuana laws preempted by federal law; therefore, the DA must comply with them as they are mandatory (see Cal. Const. Art. I, § 26; Art. III, §3.5c).
Problem 24: The DA mischaracterizes medical marijuana distribution by describing it as “prey” for crime and confusing “store-front” dispensaries with other kinds of collectives and declaring both illegal. There is no authoritative basis to support the DA’s position regarding California’s medical marijuana laws.
Problem 25: The health and welfare of the citizens of this County are protected when elected officials comply with the law. As John Adams said: We are “a government of laws, and not of men” (see Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 10055, 1068). The DA’s position on medical marijuana undermines the rule of law because it undermines the federalism created by the United States Constitution and the democracy created by the Constitution of California.
CONCLUSION
The DA’s position regarding medical marijuana is prejudicial, misleading, and contradictory. Accordingly, the County ought to continue to perform its duty under the law and proceed to regulate the distribution of medical marijuana in according with California law despite the objection of the DA. If there is a particular violation of California law, then the DA may prosecute that case before a jury; however, the DA may not attempt to declare laws invalid outside of a courtroom.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Benefits of Having A Dispensing Collective in Your Community
- Dispensing collectives provide benefits to the sick and suffering in your community. Dispensaries remove common barriers to accessing cannabis medicines. Often patients are not skilled or physically able to cultivate their medicines. A rapid onset of a serious illness normally does not afford a patient the several months and extensive costs it takes to produce quality cannabis medicines. A dispensary can provide these medicines as an alternative to potentially dangerous illicit transactions.
- Dispensing collectives provide psychosocial health benefits to patients in your community. Often patients find more than just safe and effective medicines in a collective setting. They find a community to be a part of and in turn experience much higher levels of satisfaction and wellness than a patient who is isolated away from others.
- Dispensing collectives provide key heath and social services to their patients. Dispensaries offer a wide array of cannabis therapies, giving patients the opportunity to share experiences on what may work best for different afflictions and find different methods of ingestion, such as tinctures and extracts to treat their symptoms. Collectives also provide a vast selection of social services to their patients, including counseling, support groups, help with housing and meals, hospice care, and alternative therapies like massage and yoga. These support services give most patients the opportunity to experience and try treatments they normally could not afford or known existed.
- Dispensing collectives increase public safety in the areas around them. Many cities and towns have found that crime and unwanted behaviors have decreased in an area where a well-run and regulated dispensing collective exists. Collectives take security seriously, often employing multiple security guards and implementing security cameras and alarm systems. These are natural deterrents to those who engage in unwanted behaviors and they normally move to a less monitored area, increasing safety for the collective and the neighborhood it serves.
- Dispensing collectives are good neighbors and can revitalize an area. Collectives instill good neighbor policies with their members that encourage them to be conscious and positive forces in the areas around the collective. A collective brings new people to the area to access services, which brings foot traffic to neighboring businesses and increases the vitality of the neighborhood by bringing customers to areas they normally would not visit. They patronize other businesses for convenience.
- Dispensing collectives create jobs in the community. With unemployment rates at extremely high levels, it is important to realize that a dispensing collective will employ at least 10-15 people, including management, service personnel, security, and community liaison positions.
- Dispensing collectives provide much needed revenue through business and sales taxes. A well-run dispensing collective can provide a great deal of revenue through normal business taxes and to the county through sales taxes. Oakland passed Measure F in July 2009 taxing collectives at 1.8% or 15 times the normal business rate. The measure passed with 80% of voters’ approval. Many other cities are putting the same type of measure on the upcoming ballots for special election.
- Collectives are not for profit organizations. Collectives use excess revenue to fund local projects and worthwhile organizations, such as food banks, homeless shelters, and educational assistance funds.
Frequently Asked Questions About Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives
- Is a health services collective that sells medical cannabis legal? Yes. To clarify the voter initiative passed in 1996, Proposition 215, the state legislature passed the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP) known as State Bill 420 in 2003, establishing that patients and caregivers may collectively or cooperatively cultivate and distribute cannabis medicines. The Act exempts collectives and cooperatives from criminal sanctions associated with “sales” and maintaining a place where sales occur. In 2005 California’s Third District Court of Appeals affirmed their legality in the case of People v. Urziceanu, which held that the MMP provides collectives a defense to marijuana distribution charges. In August 2008, the California Attorney General issued guidelines declaring “a properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical marijuana through a storefront may be lawful under California law.”
- Why do patients need access to a dispensing collective instead of growing their own? While some long-term patients have the time, space, and skill to cultivate cannabis, the majority of patients do not have the skills or ability to produce medicine. For those patients dispensing collectives are the only option for safe and legal access to these therapies. For example, many of the most serious and debilitating illnesses require immediate relief. It is unreasonable to exclude those patients most in need because they are incapable of gardening or cannot wait months for relief.
- What are other communities doing to help patients? Many communities have recognized the essential service that dispensing collectives provide and have allowed their operations or have adopted ordinances regulating their operations. Regulations are a way cities can ensure the needs of patients in their community are being met while exerting control of the organizations. It is officials’ duty to implement state law, even if they have not supported cannabis legislation in the past. Dozens of cities and many counties have adopted ordinances regulating collectives to ensure the patients in their community have access to these therapies.
- Who should administer dispensary regulation in our community? To ensure that patients, caregivers and collectives are protected, general regulatory oversight duties, such as permitting, record maintenance, and general protocols should be the responsibility of a local Department of Public Health (DPH) or the Planning Department. Besides security matters, law enforcement is ill suited in handling matters related to health and medicine.
- How many collectives do wee need in our city? Arbitrary caps on the number of collectives can be counter-productive. Like other services, competitive market forces and consumer choice will be decisive. Collectives that provide better care and service to patients will flourish and those that do not will fail. Capping the number can result in limits of consumer choice resulting in decreased quality of care and often-higher prices. It can also force patients with limited mobility to travel farther than they would normally need to in order to access their medicine and care.
- What types of zoning restrictions are needed for this type of organization? Restrictions on where collectives can locate are often unnecessary and create barriers to access. Dispensing collectives are not shown to create increases in crime or bring harm to their neighborhoods, regardless of where they are located. It is unnecessary and burdensome to require patients to travel to areas often far away from public transit to access their medicines. It is important to balance patient need with concerns
Patient Conditions for which Cannabis Medicines can be Beneficial
Patient Conditions for which Cannabis Medicines can be Beneficial
- Cancer and Chemotherapy Treatment- Cannabis is most effective to combat the side effects of the treatments used to fight cancer. Most notably are its extremely effective in curbing nausea and increasing the appetite of patients experiencing the harsh side effects of chemotherapy and radiation. It also can reduce the pain associated with the disease.
- HIV/AIDS- HIV/AIDS patients often experience wasting syndrome from the disease and the multitudes of medicines used to combat the disease. Cannabis stimulates their appetite allowing them to eat more regularly and avoid the common traits associated with wasting syndrome, as well as helps ease the pains associated with the disease itself.
- Pain Afflictions- Research shows that cannabis is a safe and effective treatment for a variety of pain related afflictions, including deep tissue pains, muscle and back pain, and neuropathic or shooting pains. Cannabis does not have the dangerous side effects of other opiate-based painkillers and is not known to be toxic at any level of ingestion, making it a much safer medicine for pain.
- Multiple Sclerosis- Cannabis improves spactisity and improves tremors in MS patients. It helps control involuntary muscle contraction, balance, bladder control, speech, and eyesight in these patients. Cannabis helps with the immune system, which is thought to be the underlying pathogenic process in MS patients.
- Gastrointestinal Disorders- Cannabis has value as an anti-emetic and analgesic medication. It helps combat the symptoms brought on by disorders such as Crohn’s Disease, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and Ulcerative Colitis. Cannabis interacts with the endogenous cannabinoid receptors in the digestive tract, which can result in calming spasms, assuaging pain, and improving motility. Cannabis has also been shown to have anti-inflammatory properties and recent research has demonstrated that cannabinoids are immune system modulators, either enhancing or suppressing immune response.
- Movement Disorders- Cannabis is effective in treating muscular spasticity, a common condition, affecting millions of people. This condition afflicts individuals who have suffered strokes, as well as those with multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, paraplegia, quadriplegia, and spinal cord injuries. Conventional medical therapy offers little to address spasticity problems. Because cannabinoids have antispasticity, analgesic, antitremor, and antiataxia properties, cannabis is extremely effective in treating these disorders, and lacks the side effects and dangers of Vallium or other prescribed medicines.
- Aging- Cannabis has been found to help many patients suffering from conditions that afflict older patients, including arthritis, chronic pain, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, and spasticity associated with such diseases as Parkinson's.
- Arthritis- There are two common types of arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis, but both affect the joints, causing pain and swelling, and limiting movement. The analgesic properties of cannabis make it useful in treating the pain associated with arthritis, both on its own and as an adjunct therapy that enhances the efficacy of opioid painkillers. Cannabis has also been shown to have powerful immune-modulation and anti-inflammatory properties suggesting that it could play a role in treating arthritis, and not just in symptom management.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Proven: Cannabis is Safe Medicine
Proven: Cannabis is safe medicine
Ian Williams Goddard, 1996In reaction to medical cannabis access referendums on the ballots in Arizona and California, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George Bush signed a letter stating that they ``categorically oppose'' access to cannabis for its many proven therapeutic uses such as the prevention of blindness and epileptic seizures [1].
Their chief concern was that legal medical access would send the message that cannabis is safe. The presidents can, however, lay their safety concerns to rest because the scientific literature overwhelmingly confirms that cannabis is both an effective and safe medicine.
The Cannabis Safety Profile
The journal PHARMACOLOGICAL REVIEWS [2] reports that decades of research prove that, "Compared with legal drugs...marijuana does not pose greater risks." Yet based upon mortality statistics, we can safely conclude that cannabis is one of the safest medical drugs known, for, while prescription drugs, defined as safe by the FDA, kill up to 27,000 and aspirin up to 1,000 Americans per year, cannabis kills 0 per year [3].
When we know the facts we can understand why in 1988, after extensive review of the scientific literature, the DEA's own administrative judge Frances Young concluded that ``Marijuana is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.'' [4]
Opponents of legal cannabis access would have us believe that there is not enough research available to determine its safety. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cannabis is one of the most thoroughly researched drugs in history, and the evidence gathered over the centuries clearly proves that it is safe:
* The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report (1894): an exhaustive seven-volume, 3,281-page report that concludes: "Moderate [cannabis] use produces practically no ill effects." [5][6][7]
* The Panama Canal Military Study (1916-1929), amassing extensive data on the health impact of cannabis smoking upon American soldiers stationed in Panama, recommended that "No steps be taken by the Canal Zone authorities to prevent the sale or use of Marihuana." The research also concluded that, "There is no evidence that Marihuana...is...'habit- forming.'" [7][8]
* The LaGuardia Report (1939-1944), commissioned by New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, which included evidence gathered over thousands of years, concluded that "Smoking marihuana does not lead to addiction... does not lead to morphine, heroin, or cocaine addiction" and that "the publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marihuana smoking in New York City is unfounded." [7][9]
* The Baroness Wootton Report (1968), commissioned by the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence of the United Kingdom Home Office, concluded, "There is no evidence that...serious physical dangers are directly associated with the smoking of cannabis." The report also noted that "Cannabis use does not lead to heroin addiction" and that "there is no evidence that [cannabis]...is producing in otherwise normal people conditions of dependence or psychosis, requiring medical treatment." [7][10]
The HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL MENTAL HEALTH LETTER [11] reports the findings of other major cannabis studies:
In three major studies conducted in Jamaica, Costa Rica, and Greece, researchers have compared heavy long-term cannabis users with non-users and found no evidence of intellectual or neurological damage, no changes in personality, and no loss of the will to work or participate in society.
The Jamaican study states that, even as cannabis use in Jamaica "is pervasive" and is used "in heavier quantities with greater THC potency than in the U.S.," its use is "without deleterious social or psychological consequences." [12]
What's more, the three studies cited, the largest human cannabis studies to date, also revealed that heavy long-term cannabis users scored slightly higher on IQ tests, had slightly lower rates of illness and cancer, and lived longer on average than non-users. Users also proved to be more relaxed and sociable than non-users [4][12][13]. The best evidence indicates, contrary to GovtMedia disinformation, that cannabis is safe and good for you.
In line with the findings of the Panama Canal study and the LaGuardia Report, current research confirms that the addictive potential of cannabis is very low. The journal TRENDS IN PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES states that research shows cannabis has "limited potential for development of...psychological dependence due to the weak reinforcing properties of Delta-9-THC." [14] BRAIN RESEARCH journal observes that "cannabinoid dependence and withdrawal phenomena are minimal."[15]
Research proves that cannabis is nontoxic. For example, in the journal FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED TOXICOLOGY [16], Dr. William Slikker, director of the Neurotoxicology Division of the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR), described the health of monkeys exposed to very high levels of cannabis for an extended period:
The general health of the monkeys was not compromised by a year of marijuana exposure as indicated by weight gain, carboxyhemoglobin and clinical chemistry/hematology values.
When THE ARKANSAS TIMES [17] asked Dr. Merle Paule of NCTR about evidence of cannabis toxicity and the health of the monkeys in the study, Dr. Paule said, "There's just nothing there. They were all fine."
The journal TOXICOLOGY LETTERS [18] published a study that found no link between cannabis smoking and lung cancer. The seven researchers in the study concluded:
It has been suggested that marijuana smoking is a proximal cause of respiratory cancer. However, these intimations have not been borne out by epidemiological investigation.
Not only is the evidence linking cannabis smoking to cancer negative, but the largest human studies cited indicated that cannabis users had lower rates of cancer than nonusers. What's more, those who smoked both cannabis and tobacco had lower rates of lung cancer than those who smoked only tobacco -- a strong indication of chemo-prevention [4][12][13]. Even more, in 1975 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia found that cannabis showed powerful antitumor activity against both benign and malignant tumors (the government then banned all future cannabis/cancer research) [4]. In fact, the NEW ENGLISH DISPENSATORY of 1764 recommends boiled cannabis roots for the elimination of tumors [19]. Powerful evidence that cannabis not only does not cause cancer, but that it may prevent and even cure cancer.
The few studies that the GovtMedia drums into the public mind over and over, which claim to show that cannabis is a harmful drug, are almost all the work of the the government's top hired gun, Dr. Gabriel Nahas. The NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE described Nahas's work as "psychopharmacological McCarthyism that compels him to use half-truths, innuendo and unverified assertions." The JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION also condemned his work, stating, "Examples of biased selection and...omissions of facts abound in every chapter." [20]
Conclusion:
Not only does the best scientific research overwhelmingly confirm that cannabis is both an effective medicine and a safe drug, but that it may both prevent and cure cancer and may be generally beneficial to health. What this shows us most clearly, in light of the consensus to the contrary, is the enormous power of a Big Lie.
With its vast resources, the "GovtMedia elite" are able to fabricate and fob off a pharmacological fraud against both cannabis and the public interest. Through sheer repetition and consistent suppression of contrary information, they are able to construct an edifice of public consensus which even the hardest scientific facts fail to topple.
The truth is no stronger than the ability of true information to surpass the public distribution of false and misleading information. The GovtMedia has a greater ability to distribute a Big Lie than any other sector of society has to distribute the truth. However, this report right here contains copious quantities of carefully referenced scientific facts that consistently and conclusively confirm that cannabis is safe -- thereby exploding the GovtMedia's Big Lie.
As truth is only as powerful as it is known, do all that is in your power to make these powerful facts known, that we might put an end to the destructive and illogical prohibition of the proven safe and effective drug cannabis, for possession of which 10 million Americans have been arrested since 1965 [21].
[1] "Three Former U.S. Presidents Oppose Medical Marijuana Measures," Associated Press (10/30/96).
[2] PHARMACOLOGICAL REVIEWS: Health Aspects of Cannabis. 1986, 38:1, 1-20. pg. 17.
[3] Bureau of Mortality Statistics, 1988. U.S. Public Health Service statistics. National Institute of Drug Abuse statistics. U.S. Surgeon General's Report.
[4] The Emperor Wears No Cloths. Jack Herer, Queen of Clubs Pub, 1991. Recommended: 213-392-1806.
[5] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADDICTIONS. Spring 1968, digest of 1894 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report.
[6] The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report of 1894. Jefferson Press, Silv.Spring, MD, 1969, John Kaplan.
[7] http://www.natlnorml.org/research/studies.shtml
[8] MILITARY SURGEON. 1933, vol:73, pages 269-280.
[9] The La Guardia Report, reprinted in "The Marijuana Papers," Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.
[10] The Consumer's Union Report: Licit & Illicit Drugs. Mt. Vernon, New York, 1971.
[11] HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL MENTAL HEALTH LETTER: Marijuana. L. Grinspoon, vol. 4, no. 5. Nov, 1987.
[12] Ganja in Jamacia: A Medical Anthropological Study of Chronic Marijuana Use. 1975. Anchor Books, NY.
[13] Cannabis in Costa Rica: A Study of Chronic Marijuana Use, 1980-82, Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 3401 Science Center Philadelphia, PA.
[14] TRENDS IN PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES: Neurobiology of Marijuana Abuse. 1992, 13:201-206. pg. 203.
[15] BRAIN RESEARCH: Chronic cannabinoid administration alters cannabinoid receptor binding in rat brain: a quantitative autoradiographic study. 1993, 616:293-302. pg. 300.
[16] FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED TOXICOLOGY: Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in the Rhesus Monkey. 1991, Aug; 17, 321- 34.
[17] THE ARKANSAS TIMES: Refer Madness. 9/16/93.
[18] TOXICOLOGY LETTERS, "No Increase in Carcinogen-DNA Adducts in the Lungs of Monkeys Exposed Chronically to Marijuana Smoke," 1992, Dec;63 (3): 321-32.
[19] Marijuana: The First 12,000 Years. Plenum Press, 1980.
[20] The Great Drug War, Macmillan Publishing, 1987.
[21] Marijuana Policy Project, 202-462-5747, P.O. Box 77492, Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C. 20013. http://www.mpp.org, MPP@MPP.ORG
(c) 1996 Ian Williams Goddard - (*) free to copy nonprofit w/ attribute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
