Monday, July 18, 2011

Marijuana May Be Studied for Combat Disorder


Enlarge This Image
DENVER — For years now, some veterans groups and marijuanaadvocates have argued that the therapeutic benefits of the drug can help soothe the psychological wounds of battle. But with only anecdotal evidence as support, their claims have yet to gain widespread acceptance in medical circles.
Matthew Staver for The New York Times
“There is a widely accepted need for a new treatment of PTSD,” said Rick Doblin, who wants to do research on marijuana.

Now, however, researchers are seeking federal approval for what is believed to be the first study to examine the effects of marijuana on veterans with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder.
The proposal, from the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies in Santa Cruz, Calif., and a researcher at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, would look at the potential benefits of cannabis by examining 50 combat veterans who suffer from the condition and have not responded to other treatment.
“With so many veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a widely accepted need for a new treatment of PTSD,” said Rick Doblin, founder and executive director of the psychedelic studies group. “These are people whom we put in harm’s way, and we have a moral obligation to help them.”
In April, the Food and Drug Administration said it was satisfied that safety concerns over the study had been addressed by Mr. Doblin and Dr. Sue Sisley, an assistant professor of psychiatry and internal medicine at Arizona, according to a letter from the drug administration provided by Mr. Doblin.
But the letter also noted that the project could not go forward until the researchers identified where they would get their marijuana. And that cannot happen, Mr. Doblin said, until the project is approved by a scientific review panel from the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes representatives from an assortment of federal health agencies.
If the proposal is approved, Mr. Doblin said, the researchers will use marijuana grown by the University of Mississippi under a contract with the National Institute on Drug Abuse. It is the only marijuana permitted to be used in federally approved studies.
A Health and Human Services spokeswoman said the proposal was still under review. “The production and distribution of marijuana for clinical research is carefully restricted under a number of federal laws and international commitments,” the spokeswoman, Tara Broido, said in an e-mail. “Study proposals are reviewed for scientific quality and the likelihood that they will yield data on meaningful benefits.”
An institutional review board must also approve the study, as well as the Drug Enforcement Administration, Mr. Doblin said.
Getting final approval from the federal government could prove difficult, Mr. Doblin and Dr. Sisley conceded. They said it was far more challenging to get authorization for a study that examines the benefits of an illegal drug than its risks.
“We really believe science should supersede politics,” Dr. Sisley said. “This illness needs to be treated in a multidisciplinary way. Drugs like Zoloft and Paxil have proven entirely inadequate. And there’s anecdotal evidence from vets that cannabis can provide systematic relief.”
Medical marijuana is legal in 16 states and the District of Columbia. But only New Mexico and Delaware specifically list post-traumatic stress disorder as a qualifying condition for treatment, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington-based group that supports legal regulation of the drug.
Currently, nearly a third of the 4,982 patients approved for medical marijuana in New Mexico suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, more than any other condition, according to the state’s health department. It is unclear how many are veterans.
One recent Army veteran from Texas who fought in Iraq for 18 months beginning in 2006, said he used marijuana three times a day in lieu of the painkillers and antidepressants he was prescribed after returning home. He asked that his name not be used because Texas does not allow medical marijuana.
The veteran, who said he had been shot in the leg and suffered numerous head injuries from explosions while deployed as a Humvee gunner, said marijuana helped quiet his physical and psychological pain, while not causing the weight loss and sleep deprivation brought on by his prescription medications.
“I have seen it with my own eyes,” he said. “It works for a lot of the guys coming home.”
If the study is approved, veterans who participate would be observed on an outpatient basis over three months, Mr. Doblin said. During two four-week increments, they would be given up to 1.8 grams of marijuana a day to treat anxiety, depression, nightmares and other symptoms brought on by PTSD. Researchers would also observe the veterans for periods when they are not permitted to use marijuana.
In addition to a placebo, researchers plan to use four marijuana strains in the study, each containing different levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a primary component of the drug. One of the strains will also contain cannabidiol (CBD), another ingredient thought to have an anti-anxiety effect.
Mr. Doblin said the veterans would be allowed to use the marijuana at their own discretion. Half will be instructed to smoke the drug, while the other half will inhale it through a vaporizer.


There are currently three bills in the California Legislature that need the attention of cannabis law reform activists in the state. The first we have covered extensively, and that’s SB 847, the bill to restrict dispensaries and collectives to more than 600 feet from residential areas. From Americans For Safe Access:
Senator Lou Correa’s (D-Santa Ana) SB 847will require patients’ cooperatives and collectives to be located at least 600 feet from residential zones or uses statewide. This would severely limit – or even eliminate – opportunities for legal access in many cities. Tell your state Assemblymember to vote NO on SB 847.
The second bill is AB 1300, which goes to the heart of safe access in the state.
Assemblymember Bob Blumenfield’s (D-Van Nuys) AB 1300 will authorize cities and counties to ban medical cannabis cooperatives and collectives. This may provoke a rash of new bans on safe access all over the state. Tell your state Senator to vote NO on AB 1300, so that state and local government can cooperate on sensible regulations.
Your participation matters. If lawmakers do not hear from you, they will only be listening to our opponents. ASA’s Online Action Center makes it easy to find your Representative and send messages right now.
420times 000013957933XSmall 300x199 Three Bills In CA Legislature Need Your Attention
Nate Bradley from Lawmen Protecting Patients was in Sacramento on Wednesday to testify about AB 1300 and LPP sent out an email about what went on.
Asm. Bloomenfield, a Deputy District Attorney from the Los Angeles County District Attorneys office and a Lt. from the LA County Sheriff’s office, testified in favor of AB 1300.
Nate along with numerous other patient groups and advocates from all over the state testified in opposition to AB1300. Bradley testified that while he believes the bill is well intentioned , it needed to be amended to protect the newly “regulated” collectives.
Based on the current restrictive regulation/bans that are being fought in court right now, LPP believes AB 1300 will be abused by cites that are currently trying to “regulate” collectives out of existence.
Here is how it is written:
SECTION 1. Section 11362.83 of the Health and Safety Code
is amended to read:
11362.83. Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other
local governing body from adopting and enforcing any of the
(a) Adopting local ordinances that regulate the location,
operation, or establishment of a medical marijuana cooperative or
(b) The civil and criminal enforcement of local ordinances
described in subdivision (a).
(c) Enacting other laws consistent with this article.
AB 1300 was passed on to the next committee. After the hearing Bloomenfield spoke with the advocates outside. He said was not going to specifically state that local governments “could not prohibit” collectives in AB 1300.  He said that he believes that issue should be resolved by the courts. We will continue to lobby his office to amend the bill.
After the hearing Nate spoke with the Lieutenant and the D.A from Los Angeles County that testified in favor of AB 1300. Nate briefly explained LPP and talked about the currents needs of patients.  Both of them were understanding of the needs of patients but stated they felt better regulation is needed. They agreed that the federal government needed to deregulate marijuana so it could be regulated properly.
Nate was also there to testify in favor of AB 639, which will amend current CA forfeiture laws.
AB 639 would reform CA current forfeiture laws. This bill would be huge in help mmj patient retain their property when raided by law enforcement. On a side note, the spectacle that he opposition to AB639 put on was quite entertaining. I suggest you go to and watch the hearing. It is the very last bill that is heard on the clip. It passed in its committee 4-2.
Here is summary of a few things it would do.
This bill makes it more difficult for seizing agencies to use
federal asset forfeiture law (which includes few hurdles to
forfeiture) by requiring a court order prior to transferring
seized property to a federal agency. Specifically, this bill:
1)Specifies property is “seized” as soon as the agency takes
control or possession of it.
2)Prohibits state law enforcement, except by court order,
from turning over seized assets to the federal government, or
seizing them jointly with federal officers, thereby making
seized property subject to federal civil forfeiture law rather
than state law.
3)Prohibits the court from entering an order authorizing a
transfer to federal authorities unless:
a)   The criminal conduct is interstate in nature and
sufficiently complex to justify transfer.
b)   The seized property is subject to forfeiture only under
federal law.
c)   State forfeiture would unduly burden state prosecutors
or law enforcement.
4)Requires the court to provide a property owner the right        to be heard before a case is transferred to federal authorities.
Things are moving quickly in California, so make sure you contact your local representative and tell them how you feel about these bills. As ASA said above, if they don’t hear from you, they only hear from our opponents, and that is what they think the populace wants.
Activism can be a simple thing sometimes, and doesn’t have to be time-consuming. But activism is a necessary thing, at least if you want to have input in the laws that will govern you.

Medical Marijuana Blog

Medical Marijuana Blog

THANK YOU SAN FRANCISCO....for keeping US safe.

S.F. Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Generate Only 11 Complaints in Five Years

Categories: MarijuanaShare
That all you got?
Pot clubs. They're boring. You go in, you buy some pot, you leave. For all the clamor a new medical cannabis dispensary's opening receives from jumpy John Q. Public, with a few notable exceptions, most we see these days resemble dentists' offices, not dens of iniquity (and, we suspect, the drugs in dentists' offices are more fun, if you're into that kind of thing).

Know what's even more boring? Reading the list of citizen complaints San Francisco's medical cannabis dispensaries have generated over the past few years.

SF Weekly recently asked the Department of Public Health, which oversees the city's dispensary program, for a compendium of recent problems with the city's cannabis collectives. And we received it: A grand total of 11 complaints on file over a five-year period, according to the documents we received from our public records request.

Want some bedtime reading? Then click on, dear reader.  2006: A neighbor upstairs from HopeNet on Ninth Street writes to say that the stench from the dispensary is exacerbating his emphysema. A DPH inspector visits and smells pot; can't reach the complainant after a few tries. Result: resolved.

2007: Canna Med Care on Sutter Street -- since closed -- was using a scale that was off by .4 grams. In a separate complaint filed that year, a neighbor on Dore Alley says that HopeNet's customers were blocking the sidewalk. HopeNet asked not to block the sidewalk. Also, workers at 1525 Howard Street complain that the smell from Emmalyn's is too much. DPH visits but can't detect a scent.

2008: The bathroom at HopeNet wasn't working. It was working when DPH visited. Another complaint said that outside of 442 Haight Street (now a shoe store) the presence of a "known drug dealer" alarmed a neighbor who later sees people smoking pot outside the establishment on two separate occasions. That matter was referred to SFPD.

2009 was the dirty year: Green Goddess at 940 Geary Street was selling pot without a permit. Also, 194 Church Street was doing the same thing. Both operations were shut down.

2010: Grassroots on Post Street was selling more than an ounce per visit, in violation of city rules. Told not to do it anymore. Another complaint said that a man on Palm Avenue in Laurel Heights upset his neighbors by making cannabis lollipops in his kitchen. He said he'll stop.

2011: A man who claims to have top-security clearance from the United States government says he was assaulted outside of SPARC, and that he received harassing e-mails and phone calls following "a traumatic brain injury."

Had enough? So have we. Suffice to say that San Francisco medical cannabis dispensaries are hardly the most threatening entities in town. In fact, we believe that the local Pet Food Express has generated more contention.

But this comes as no surprise to cannabis advocates -- it's what they've been saying for years, in fact.

"How many other businesses have had that few complaints against them?" asks David Goldman with the S.F. chapter of Americans for Safe Access. "How many bars, how many drugstores -- how many banks? I'd say the medical cannabis dispensary industry is amazingly complaint-free compared to other industries."

WHY CANT "cannabis" Be in the commerce clause?..

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:42:59  By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
by Byron Andrus, NORML Foundation legal intern and second year law student at George Mason University School of Law
Recently, NORML supported the efforts of Congressmen Ron Paul (R-TX) and Barney Frank (D-MA) in their sponsorship of H.R. 2306, ‘Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011’, a House bill which seeks to remove federal penalties for marijuana offenses and thus allow for the individual states to set their own marijuana policies. While the bill will likely fail to reach even a committee hearing due to the efforts of another Texas Republican and Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lamar Smith, its introduction has raised some interesting constitutional questions and has given more food for thought to legal scholars interested in the oft-forgotten 10th Amendment.
The 10th Amendment reads rather plainly: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Essentially, this means that the powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, which are very limited in number, are left to the state legislatures. This may seem obvious, but judges and constitutional scholars have continuously debated about what “the powers not delegated to the United States” are.
Controversially, the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce granted to it by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that the feds may regulate nearly anything that has an effect on interstate commerce. In the landmark case of Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman who grew marijuana plants on her property for her own medical use was participating in “interstate commerce.” Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, astutely observes, “no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.” This common sense reading of “interstate commerce” would prevent the federal government from harassing peaceful citizens who are in compliance with state laws, and is a good example of a “10th Amendment” approach to the issue of marijuana legalization.
The Founding Fathers took great pains to choose carefully the words they inserted into the text of the Constitution. Nowhere in the document is the federal government granted the power to regulate intrastatecommerce (commerce within one state). Furthermore, “commerce” refers to transactions in which goods or services are exchanged. Ms. Raich did not intend to buy, sell, trade, or give away her marijuana, she only intended it to be used for her own medical purposes—despite this and the clear omission by the founders of a federal primacy regarding states’ economies under the 10th Amendment. The real world application of the Gonzales decision means that those with serious illnesses like Ms. Raich are not legally permitted to grow and consume their own medicine—even if state laws allow for such.
The Commerce Clause has also been invoked when armed federal agents decide to raid dispensaries in states where medical marijuana is legally permitted to be sold. The latest memo from the Department of Justice, known as the ‘Cole Memo’, suggests that the federal government will continue to raid dispensaries, even ones that are operating in accordance with state laws. This contradicted a 2009 memo written by the former Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, in which he suggested that federal resources should not be wasted on marijuana enforcement as long as dispensary owners remained in “clear and unambiguous” compliance with state law. This reversal in policy now suggests that the federal government can target those involved in the medical marijuana industry, even those in compliance with state law.
In addition to the constant threat of arrest and prosecution, the potential loss of one’s business creates a great deal of uncertainty in the markets of states where medical marijuana is legal. Investing in a dispensary has become a risky proposition, and it has led to dispensary owners already heavily invested in the business to wonder whether or not they will be able to open their doors. This uncertainty causes patients to go without their medicine and causes business owners to flounder under unclear regulations. Removing the federal penalties for marijuana offenses by passing H.R. 2306would completely eliminate this problem, as patients and business owners would simply need to comply with state laws, no longer having to worry about getting their doors kicked in by federal agents. A “10th Amendment” approach to marijuana policy would finally ease the fear and uncertainty that are part and parcel of federal Marijuana Prohibition.
An expansive reading of the federal government’s ability to regulate interstate commerce seems to be at odds with the 10th Amendment. Since the federal government may not regulate intrastate commerce, it follows that this is a right reserved to the states. The division of powers in our federal system was intended to prevent an overreach of federal power. Unfortunately, the ever-expanding federal government now sees fit to regulate everything from the amount of water you can have in your toilet towhat kind of light bulbs consumers can buy to what plants you may grow on your property—the laws of the states be damned if necessary.
H.R. 2306 puts forth the common sense proposition, consistent with the 10thAmendment, that it should be the prerogative of each state to determine for itself whether or not to legalize marijuana for either medical or recreational purposes—a tried and true, and constitutionally sound approach that previously worked to end the folly of another federal government overreach,Alcohol Prohibition. A return by federal judges to interpreting the plain meaning of “interstate commerce,” coupled with an emphasis on the 10thAmendment, would mark an excellent starting point in getting the federal government out of the way and allowing state governments to make their own informed decisions on marijuana policy....Thank you norml for all you and your staff do check them out.