Medical Cannabis Dispensaries Are Coming to The Nation’s Capitol

[Editor's note: This post is excerpted from this week's forthcoming NORML weekly media advisory. To have NORML's media advisories delivered straight to your in-box, sign up for NORML's free e-zine here.]

Members of Congress have declined to overrule legislation passed by the D.C. Council in May authorizing the establishment of regulated medical marijuana dispensaries in the District of Columbia.

Congressional lawmakers had up to 30 working days to reject the law. That review period officially ended Monday evening.

In June, a pair of Republican House members, Reps. Jason Chaffetz (Utah) and Jim Jordan (Ohio) introduced legislation to overturn D.C.’s medical marijuana law, stating, “Marijuana is a psychotropic drug classified under Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act as having ‘high potential for abuse,’ ‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,’ and a ‘lack of accepted safety for use of the drug…under medical supervision.’ While certain of these principles may be open to significant debate within segments of the medical community, and among pro-legalization/decriminalization groups, [we are] opposed to re-classification and decriminalization efforts.”

Their effort failed to gain any significant support in Congress.

Under the new law, D.C. Health Department officials will oversee the creation of as many as eight facilities to dispense medical cannabis to authorized patients. Medical dispensaries would be limited to growing no more than 95 plants on site at any one time.

Both non-profit and for-profit organizations will be eligible to operate the dispensaries.

Qualifying D.C. patients will be able to obtain medical cannabis at these facilities, but will not be permitted under the law to grow their own medicine.

A separate provision enacted as part of the 2011 D.C. budget calls for the retail sales of medical cannabis to be subject to the District’s six percent sales tax rate. Low-income will be allowed to purchase medical marijuana at a greatly reduced cost under the plan.

It will likely be several months before Health officials begin accepting applications from the public to operate the City’s medical marijuana production and distribution centers.

District lawmakers said that the newly enacted legislation implements key components of Initiative 59 — a 1998 DC ballot measure that garnered 69 percent of the vote. Until this year D.C. city lawmakers had been barred from instituting the measure because of a Congressional ban on the issue. Congress finally lifted the ban in 2009.

NORML Opposes President Obama’s Pick To Head The Drug Enforcement Administration

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – July 21, 2010

Following Recent Raids, Medical Marijuana Advocacy Groups Call on President Obama to Withdraw Nomination of Michele Leonhart to be DEA Administrator

Obama’s DEA Head Must Follow Stated Medical Marijuana Policy, End Obstruction of Marijuana Research, and Base Marijuana Rescheduling on Science Rather than Ideology

CONTACT: Allen St. Pierre, Executive Director, 202-483-5500 or director@norml.org

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, a coalition of organizations supportive of medical marijuana patients and providers (see list of organizations below) are calling on President Obama to withdraw his nomination of Michele Leonhart to serve as administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Ms. Leonhart, who is currently the DEA’s acting-administrator, has not demonstrated that she is capable of leading the agency in a thoughtful manner at a time when fourteen states have enacted medical marijuana laws and science is increasingly confirming the therapeutic benefits of the substance.

“It is clearly time for President Obama to insist that his appointees adhere to current Justice Department guidelines regarding state laws regulating the medical use of marijuana, and that marijuana be fairly evaluated by all federal agencies, based on science, not ideology,” said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), the nation’s oldest marijuana legalization lobby. “The Obama administration should be working with us to eliminate criminal penalties for the responsible use of marijuana by adults, regardless of whether it is medical use or otherwise.”

Under Leonhart’s leadership, the DEA has staged medical marijuana raids in apparent disregard of Attorney General Eric Holder’s directive to respect state medical marijuana laws. Most recently, DEA agents flouted a pioneering Mendocino County (CA) ordinance to regulate medical marijuana cultivation by raiding the very first grower to register with the sheriff. Joy Greenfield, 69, had paid more than $1,000 for a permit to cultivate 99 plants in a collective garden that had been inspected and approved by the local sheriff.

Informed that Ms. Greenfield had the support of the sheriff, the DEA agent in charge responded by saying, “I don’t care what the sheriff says.” The DEA’s conduct is inconsistent with an October 2009 Department of Justice memo directing officials not to arrest individuals “whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.”

Ms. Leonhart has also demonstrated that she is unable to be objective in carrying out the duties of the administrator as it relates to medical marijuana research. In January 2009, she refused to issue a license to the University of Massachusetts to cultivate marijuana for FDA-approved research, despite a DEA administrative law judge’s ruling that it would be “in the public interest” to issue the license. This single act has blocked privately-funded medical marijuana research in this country. The next DEA administrator will likely influence the outcome of a marijuana rescheduling petition currently before the agency. It is critical that an administrator with an open mind toward science and research is at the helm.

#   #   #   #   #

The following organizations are calling on President Obama to withdraw the nomination of Ms. Leonhart if she does not end the attacks on individuals acting in compliance with state medical marijuana laws and commit to making decisions related to medical marijuana based on science, not a personal anti-marijuana bias:

California NORML

Drug Policy Alliance (DPA)

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)

Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP)

Memo To New Jersey Politicians: No More Delays — It’s Time To Implement The State’s Medical Marijuana Law!

This past January, after years of debate, outgoing Democrat Governor Jon Corzine signed legislation making New Jersey the fourteenth state in the nation to allow for the state-authorized use of medical cannabis by qualified patients. The measure, known as The New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, authorizes patients with a physician’s recommendation to possess and obtain medical cannabis from state-authorized “alternative treatment centers” (aka dispensaries). As signed, the measure was to take effect next month.

But that won’t happen if Republican Gov. Chris Christie has his way. Christie is seeking, and legislation has been introduced, to delay implementation of New Jersey’s long-awaited medical cannabis law by at least 90 days. Gov. Christie has also called on legislators to amend the law — which, as written, is already the most restrictive in the nation — so that patients would only be eligible to obtain medical cannabis in state hospitals. The Governor has also proposed limiting the cultivation of marijuana so that it could only legally be grown at Rutgers University. NORML opposes these amendments, which if enacted, would make New Jersey’s law totally unworkable for patients.

How so? Consider this: For over nine years the University of Massachusetts has sought — unsuccessfully — to cultivate marijuana for medical research purposes. The University even went so far as to file a legal challenge with the DEA — which it won — to gain permission to grow pot. Yet in 2009 the DEA’s acting director overruled the determination of the agency’s own administrative law judge in order to prohibit UMass from growing even a single marijuana plant. It is unlikely that a similar plan at Rutgers University would be met with any greater success.

Further, it is burdensome and unnecessary to limit patients use of medical marijuana solely to hospitals. As stated in 1988 by the United State’s Drug Enforcement Administration’s own administrative law judge, “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” The plant’s compounds are virtually non-toxic to healthy cells and organs, do not depress the central nervous system, and are incapable of causing a fatal overdose.

In fact, according to a 2008 study published by the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association, patients who used cannabis-based medicines reported virtually no “serious adverse effects” from the drug over a 30-year period. By contrast, even small doses of the over-the counter drug Tylenol (acetaminophen) has been conclusively shown to cause liver damage and death. It is arbitrary and unnecessary for the Governor to propose impose restrictions regarding the use of medical marijuana that are more stringent than the regulations already in place governing the distribution and use of other doctor recommended medications.

Seriously ill patients in New Jersey have waited long enough for legislative relief. It is time to implement the will of the people and the will of lawmakers.

If you reside in the Garden State, please consider visiting NORML’s ‘Take Action’ page here to contact your state lawmakers and urge them to move expeditiously in favor of implementing medicl marijuana law reform in New Jersey.

For more information please visit NORML NJ or the Coalition for Medical Marijuana New Jersey.

Controversial Regulations To Purge L.A.’s Medical Cannabis Dispensaries Takes Effect Today

Los Angeles’ controversial municipal ordinance capping the total number of medical marijuana dispensaries that may legally operate in the city, regulating how operators must conduct their business, and restricting where such facilities may be located takes effect today.

Los Angeles ordinance No. 181069 seeks to limit the number of legally zoned dispensaries within city limits to fewer than 100 in total. The ordinance will allow for at least some additional facilities to maintain in operation if they opened prior to the passage of city’s 2007 moratorium prohibiting new dispensaries, and if they comply with the newly enacted guidelines.

Under the new rules, city officials would require dispensaries to be at least 1,000 feet from certain ‘sensitive’ public locations, such as schools, parks and other gathering sites – restrictions that would compel many existing outlets to either close their doors or change locations.

It is estimated that some 400 facilities will likely be forced to close if the measure is stringently enforced.

Commenting on the new L.A. law, NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said: “Medical cannabis dispensaries can be safely and positively integrated into the community in a way that addresses the legitimate concerns of law enforcement while at the same time maintaining the spirit of the law and properly meeting the needs of the patient population. Unfortunately, L.A.’s arbitrary and overly restrictive ordinance will do neither.”

He continued: “Ideally, oversight regulations must acknowledge that a majority of the public support these operations, that these facilities serve an unmet community need, that they create jobs and spur economic growth, and that they dispense a product that is objectively safer than commonly prescribed pharmaceuticals. It is unfortunate that Los Angeles ordinance No. 181069 fails in large part to reflect these realities.”

To date, over 20 lawsuits have been filed against the city arguing that the ordinance is unconstitutional because it prohibits patients’ access and infringes upon state law.

Under the ordinance, unlicensed facilities determined to be dispensing medical marijuana could face daily fines, a $1,000 penalty, and six months in jail.

Local law enforcement authorities told the Associated Press that they “won’t take any action against medical marijuana collectives in Los Angeles until they tally how many of the shops have defied a new ordinance,” a process that could take several months.

NORML will have additional details on this story in this week’s media advisory.

Oregon Supreme Court To Medi-Pot Patients: You Are Second Class Citizens!

[Editor's note: This post is excerpted from this week's forthcoming NORML weekly media advisory. To have NORML's media advisories delivered straight to your in-box, sign up for NORML's free e-zine here.]

An employer may terminate an employee for his or her off-the-job marijuana use, even if the employee is authorized under state law to use cannabis medicinally, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled last week.

In a 5 to 2 decision, the Court determined that an employee who uses marijuana in accordance with state law is nonetheless “engaged in the illegal use of drugs” and may be fired for his or her off-the-job conduct.  Because marijuana remains classified as an illicit Schedule I drug under federal law and may not be legally ‘prescribed’ by a physician, the Court opined that employers should not be mandated to accommodate workers who engage in its use.

“[T]he Controlled Substances Act must authorize a licensed health care professional to prescribe or administer the controlled substance,” the majority determined.  “As noted, under the Controlled Substances Act, physicians may not prescribe Schedule I controlled substances for medical purposes.  … Because employee did not take marijuana under supervision of a licensed health care professional and because the authorization to use marijuana found in ORS 475.306(1) is unenforceable, it follows that employee was currently engaged in the illegal use of drugs and, as the commissioner found, employer discharged employee for that reason.”

Commenting on the Court’s decision, NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said: “This ruling isn’t about workplace safety; it’s about the Court upholding discrimination – plain and simple. It is absurd for the majority of the Court to argue that medical marijuana patients are allowed certain protections under state law while simultaneously arguing that these same patients lack the legal right to earn a living.”

Despite the Court’s ruling, the majority stated that the federal Controlled Substances Act does not preempt provisions of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act that exempt patients’ possession, manufacture, or distribution of medical marijuana from state criminal liability.

Writing for the dissent, Justice Martha L. Walters opined: “I do not understand why, in our system of dual sovereigns, Oregon must fly only in federal formation and not, as Oregon’s motto provides, ‘with her own wings.’  Therefore, I cannot join in a decision by which we, as state court judges, enjoin the policies of our own state and preclude our legislature from making its own independent decisions about what conduct to criminalize.”

The Court’s decision overturned a previous decision from the Bureau of Labor and Industries ordering the employer to pay damages, and a Court of Appeals decision affirming that judgment.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court similarly ruled (Washburn v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc.) that employers may fire workers for failing a company mandated drug test for marijuana, even if their use is authorized by state law.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court issued a similar decision (Ross v. Ragingwire Telecom), finding:  “California’s voters merely exempted medical users and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under two specifically designated state statutes. Nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use Act suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and obligations of employers and employees.”

Full text of the Oregon Supreme Court decision (Emerald Steel Fabricators Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries) is available online at: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S056265.htm.