The Los Angeles City Council last week finally adopted a medical marijuana ordinance. Though not perfect, it balances the needs of local communities with those of patients who truly need access to medical marijuana. And it will rein in an out-of-control situation in which a federally banned substance has been sold for the last four years as hundreds of dispensaries proliferated in the city of Los Angeles, with no local regulations and ambiguous state laws to guide us.

To make the new ordinance work as effectively as possible, legislators need to clarify the state’s medical marijuana laws — Proposition 215 and its accompanying SB 420. Both are silent or vague on critical issues for the practical implementation at the local level.

As cities throughout California draft ordinances, they are grappling with issues that they have no power over and that should be handled at the state level. Moreover, they are trying to pinpoint evolving and changing court rulings interpreting state law.

In Los Angeles, one of the most difficult issues was what constitutes a “sale.” My colleagues on the City Council and I addressed this by stipulating that although no collective shall operate for profit, “cash and in-kind contributions, reimbursements and reasonable compensation” are allowed as long as they comply with current state law. However, we don’t know how this provision will be enforced because we are relying on state law that is unclear and in litigation.

It is also unclear whether the over-the-counter dispensary model was what voters intended when they approved Proposition 215. The law might have intended a much more limited distribution of marijuana, such as having either patients or their caregivers grow their own product or having collectives grow a small amount and reimburse members for their labor.

Without clarity from the state, the council also had to punt on the issues of cultivation and transportation of marijuana by saying that the ordinance would abide by state law.

Cultivation is important because the ordinance as written does not address where the collectives will obtain their marijuana. Will it be grown locally, imported from Northern California or bought on the black market? And are people who transport the marijuana to and from collectives immune from prosecution?

Another issue that is not being addressed locally but perhaps is the biggest impediment to properly regulating dispensaries relates to the wide discretion and relative immunity that physicians have in recommending medical marijuana to patients. When most of us have a medical issue, we don’t look through the pages of alternative weeklies to find a physician. We go to the doctor who knows the most about our medical history — our primary-care physician.

Yet under state law there is no requirement to curb abuse by having people see their primary-care physician first, or, as Oregon does, to require that a patient get a note from an “attending physician” with whom he or she has an established patient/physician relationship.

It’s interesting to note that Oregon, like several other states, only allows medical marijuana for a narrow list of conditions. In contrast, in California, marijuana can be recommended for anything from cancer to writer’s cramp. So, although California voters have not (yet) directed the state to legalize marijuana for nonmedical use, the state medical marijuana law has created de facto legalization because practically anyone can become a qualified patient.

Given these ambiguities, the city has provided an ordinance within existing state law that does its best to create access for medical marijuana patients while protecting local communities from potential negative consequences.

The council voted to support a requirement that dispensaries be at least 1,000 feet from sensitive-use areas where children and families gather, such as schools, playgrounds and places of worship — and from other dispensaries.

We also capped the number of collectives at 70 (instead of the estimated 700-plus that exist) and required notification to neighborhood councils before new dispensaries open in their areas. To control profiteering, we also required annual audits and outlawed common ownership of multiple collectives.

I, like a majority of California voters, voted in favor of Proposition 215 because I believe that patients dealing with cancer, AIDS, chronic pain and other serious ailments should have access to medical marijuana.

However, I remain concerned about profiteers looking to make a quick buck, recreational users looking to use an ambiguous state law to their advantage and less-than-scrupulous doctors willing to play along by writing quick and unverified recommendations. Though seemingly innocuous to some, these unchecked activities can lead to real problems in local communities should the state refuse to further regulate medical marijuana. I encourage state legislators to immediately amend SB 420 to deal with its ambiguities.

In the future, if the voters legalize marijuana for recreational use, I would hope that the state provides clear and practical rules for local implementation, unlike what has occurred with medical marijuana.

José Huizar represents the 14th District on the Los Angeles City Council. This post originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times

           

The American Medical Association recently reversed its long-standing position and urged the federal government to loosen the classification of Marijuana and clear the path for more medical marijuana use and clinical research.

OK–great–but for real: why isn’t pot entirely legal already?

Likely because of a Puritanical law-and-order ethos that pervades the generations of policymakers who have curried favor with frightened and uninteresting voters by creating a make-believe issue out of cannabis, is my theory.

Lumping pot in with other Schedule I drugs (the highest classification for a controlled substance)  like heroin and LSD is so completely absurd that it’s like lumping alcohol in with setting your face on fire.

Setting your face on fire is clearly the more dangerous high between the two.

In fact, based on my completely anecdotal observations, I would posit that alcohol is absolutely, positively a worse drug than marijuana.

In my line of work (i.e. writer), I’ve known a ton of potheads (i.e. writers) and alcoholics (i.e. other writers). No one gets in fights when they’re high. They don’t hurt anyone, they don’t do anything. They sit on the couch, eat Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and giggle at infomercials for four hours. “Normal” people like tax accountants and nurses are more dangerous.

The Obama administration has already said that it will not concern the justice department with chasing down potheads, which makes it that much easier in states where weed is quickly becoming de facto legal.

The next step will likely come from California, which is drawing ever closer to legalization and taxation of pot–cutting it out of the business portfolio of Mexican drug cartels and raising $1.4 billion for the cash-strapped state in the bargain.

The entire ill-conceived war on drugs is an experiment in legislating morality that borders on outright farce. As Chris Rock–probably one of the great thinkers of our time if you get right down to it–once pointed out, people will do anything to get high.

You wanna make drugs illegal? Well, people will just let their excrement ferment in the sun and then take a big whiff.

I am not making that up.

And what are parents or the government or the D.A.R.E. officers supposed to tell kids now?

That if you smoke weed, you’ll never amount to anything? You’ll never be a record-breaking Olympic swimmer? The President of the United States (”I inhaled. That was the point.”)? A published author?

Please. Somebody get me some Ben & Jerry’s.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/off-the-markley/2009/11/how-is-marijuana-still-illegal.html

           

The British came to DePauw Wednesday night. They weren’t opposing independence - just the legalization of marijuana.

DePauw’s Debate Society took on the British National Debate team at the public debate in Watson Forum. DePauw senior Aaron Dicker and junior Kevin Milne supported the resolution to legalize marijuana. Graduate students from the British team, Dan Bradley from the University of Manchester and Andrew Tuffin of King’s College London, took the opposition. Geoff Klinger, professor of communication and theatre, moderated the debate.

Dicker began by stating legalizing marijuana would contribute to ending the war on drugs.

“If legalized, it would be easier to focus on hard drugs, not just marijuana,” he said. “Brands could safely regulate marijuana and gangs and drug cartels will not be able to operate as much, because marijuana is the greatest cash flow.”

Bradley spoke next on the dangers of marijuana, saying its legalization would be detrimental to the health of the nation.

“Marijuana is more dangerous these days as compared to the 1960s,” he said. “Marijuana legalization could cause an increase in cancer. Being stoned is not a good state of mind to be in, and it would increase drug use and involvement in drug culture.”

DePauw’s representatives responded by arguing the legalization of prostitution, which is prohibited in Britain and the United States, has been successful in places like Holland. They also maintained people can keep a drug use a secret even if marijuana is legalized.

“Holland has legalized prostitution and prostitutes are living a better life,” Milne said. “It does not necessarily mean that executives’ secret lifestyles will be discovered.”

Milne and Dicker also said the use of marijuana is less dangerous than hard drugs, making it easier to regulate.

The British debaters countered, saying marijuana users typically don’t have the means of escaping the cycle they are caught in.

“Marijuana is less bad than heroin, but so is jaywalking,” Tuffin said. “People use drugs, alcohol and the like to escape. Many drug users are not lucky enough to have the opportunity to escape their life.”

After audience members asked questions of both teams, Bradley delivered the opposition’s closing argument, directly addressing a point made by DePauw’s team.

He said the legalization of marijuana would “not make drug empires collapse. Instead, they will take advantage by selling dangerous drugs. We don’t make dangerous things legal, do we?”

DePauw closed with a strong argument by Dicker, but in the end, a standing vote declared the British National Debate Team the winner, with 35 voting in favor of the British National Debate team and 15 in favor of DePauw’s team.

Bradley said the British team defeated Wabash Tuesday night in a landslide vote.

“We beat Wabash 55 to nil last night,” he said.

The four participants said, regardless of the outcome, the debate went well. Bradley said he thought the debate members from DePauw did a good job, and the audience was fully engaged.

“The competition was very good. The audience was watching and thinking at the same time,” he said.

Government arguments

Legalizing marijuana will not increase the number of people smoking because the U.S. already has one of the highest percentages of pot use

It will refocus the drug war to harder drugs like cocaine and heroin.

Legalizing marijuana will eliminate the drug cartels who traffic it.

Opposition arguments

Legalizing marijuana will increase the number of people using it, which has been shown to either make them non-productive or increase risks of paranoid schizophrenia.

It won’t stop the drug trade (just switch to more drugs).

It leads to dangerous, high doses of tetrahydrocannabinol.

http://media.www.thedepauw.com/media/storage/paper912/news/2009/11/20/News/Legalization.Of.Marijuana.Debated.Across.Cultures-3838516.shtml

           

Since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, cannabis, also known as marijuana, has been federally classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no legally accepted medical use and has the same classification as, for example, heroin. Over the last couple of decades, however, that classification has started to be challenged, especially at the state level.

Currently, 13 states have passed some form of legislation allowing the use of medical marijuana. California was the first, passing the Compassionate Use Act in 1996 that legalized medical marijuana and ostensibly set regulations for the production and distribution of the drug. In recent months, New Mexico has begun “breathing life,” to quote an Associated Press report, into its own 2007 legislation that legalized medical marijuana. That New Mexico has taken so long to formalize the systemization of medical marijuana is indicative of a larger national resistance to the notion of legal weed in the United States.

Before further discussion, the fact that marijuana does indeed have undeniable and considerable medical benefits must be made clear. Marijuana is unparalleled in its propensity for alleviating the side effects endured by chemotherapy patients, and in general the drug has well-chronicled benefits for chronic pain relief such as combating migraines and nerve pain in HIV patients. As Dr. Donald Abrams, a cancer specialist at San Francisco General Hospital, said, “I can recommend [this] one drug for all those [pains], instead of writing five different prescriptions.”

In fact, even the American Medical Association, or AMA, agrees with the need to reclassify marijuana. The current classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug puts it on par with drugs like heroin and LSD, which clearly have no medical use. On November 10, the AMA called for a federal review of marijuana’s status under the Controlled Substances Act, stating its hope for “the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines, and alternate delivery methods.” The AMA was promptly ignored by the relevant federal authorities.

This dismissal speaks again to the long-standing unwillingness of our nation to enter proper dialogue concerning medical marijuana. The recreational and cultural use of marijuana, most prominently associated with the flowery 70s, has stigmatized the drug to the point where, it can be argued, many are unable to delineate between supporting the legalization of medical marijuana and supporting the legalization of marijuana for, simply put, getting high.

Nevertheless, there is indeed a distinction. Marijuana has scientifically supported medical benefits, ones that are so persuasive that even the AMA felt compelled to call for its reclassification. But marijuana seems doomed by its negative connotations.

To resist the legalization of such a positive social good for reasons extraneous to its inherent medical benefits is simply a fundamentally flawed approach to enacting progress.

Detractors say that there is a high probability that the legalization of marijuana for medical use will lead to rampant abuse. And a Sept. 23, 2007, “60 Minutes” special on California’s notorious “pot shops” seemed to confirm this worry. Essentially, as long as a patient — and this term is used in the loosest fashion imaginable — can convince the doctor that marijuana is necessary to relieve his pain (“You know, all I can do is take my patients’ statements as factual,” said one doctor), he can easily gain access to marijuana.

But this lack of discipline can be partly attributed to the incoherence of medical marijuana’s legalization. The aforementioned “60 Minutes” feature highlighted the blatant conflict between marijuana’s legal status as a medical drug and the virtually arbitrary raids that federal authorities conducted on California’s pot shops. This summer, furthermore, New Hampshire’s governor vetoed medical marijuana legalization, citing its inconsistency with federal regulation. But clearly, the evidence says the current federal regulations are wrong.

Unless the government — and this country — are willing to approach marijuana reasonably, we will not even get the chance to attempt proper systemization of medical marijuana. California’s marijuana policy, the state’s doctors readily admit, is of course not stringent enough, but that does not mean the law needs to swing back to the other extreme.

In New Mexico, then, cautious steps are being taken to define a template for the production and distribution of legal medical marijuana. There are 15 qualifying conditions for medical use of the drug and there are five nonprofit organizations permitted to produce it. Each producer is limited to 95 plants. The success of New Mexico’s scheme is far from guaranteed, but it represents a willingness to at least explore the potential and limitations of a properly regulated system of medical marijuana.

Nobody is denying that marijuana, as a product, has its downsides. Science is not yet sure of its lung cancer-inducing properties as well as its addictive properties. But these risks are analogous to (which, to pre-empt the decriers, does not mean “are equal to”) the risks of other drugs that the federal authorities seem willing to condone — Vicodin and Valium come to mind. Why should marijuana be treated any differently?

What is needed is a paradigm shift, one that allows us to look at marijuana not as some taboo indulgence but as a legitimate medical product. Condoning medical marijuana is not the same as condoning marijuana for other purposes.

To use the words of one of New Mexico’s approved marijuana producers, “The faster we move away from a paranoid drug dealer model to a normal business model, the better it’s going to be [for medical marijuana].” Fortunately for its proponents, medical marijuana seems to have a strong ally in the current administration. Obama’s stance on state legalization, as of February, is that the federal government will no longer interfere in the form of raids and other similar attacks.

But for real change to be enacted, there still needs to be a fundamental rethinking of whether it remains appropriate to oppose medical marijuana based on concerns peripheral to its merit as a medical drug. Until then, the question of how best to maximize its medical usefulness through regulation and systemization remains a theoretical one.

http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/2009/11/19/opinions/legalize-medical-marijuana

           

           

Activists have launched a campaign to legalize marijuana in California, but the path could provide difficult.

An Oakland-based group filed papers with the state and now has to collect more than 430,000 signatures to get its measure on the November 2010 ballot. The campaign is being spearheaded by legalization activist Richard Lee. It’s one of several efforts to legalize pot in California, including legislation being proposed in Sacramento.

According to the Lee’s group, the proposal would allow people 21 and over to possess up to an ounce of the drug and also would allow property owners to grow a certain amount of pot.

There has been much talk in recent months of legalizing marijuana and perhaps taxing it as a way of generating needed revenues for the cash-strapped state. But it’s unclear how much support there is for the issue, and there’s debate about how much money such a move would actually raise. Some law enforcement organizations believe legalization would cause more crime and drug trafficking.

–Shelby Grad - LA Times

           

Growing up in the ’60’s, marijuana was the preferred recreational drug of my generation. While beer and other alcohol may have been the choice of the fraternity crowd, the cool kids recreational drug of choice was marijuana.

Living close to Santa Monica Bay, my wife and I frequently stroll the Venice boardwalk to soak in the flavor of the beach and witness the antics of the wacky local Venetians. For the last several years, we couldn’t walk the boardwalk without being approached by a local vendor inviting us to meet with a local doctor to get our marijuana prescription filled. “Whatever ails you, marijuana will cure you”.

I always considered the prospect of decriminalization of marijuana as a positive step since its use was no worse than alcohol or cigarettes and enforcement of antiquated marijuana laws were a waste of resources. I really didn’t believe that marijuana had a legitimate medical use but, with a wink and a nod, I supported initiatives designed to legalize its use.

Well, it looks as though current marijuana research may be changing my original opinion of its medical benefits. According to an L.A. Times article, recent research points to the following benefits and risks of marijuana consumption:

THE GOOD

Pain:

Marijuana has been shown to be effective against various forms of pain ranging from chronic low grade pain to severe pain and seems to be effective against nerve pain that’s resistant to opiates.

Cancer:

While no one is arguing that marijuana will cure cancer in humans (at least not yet), it has been shown to be effective in combating pain, nausea and loss of appetite in cancer patients undergoing traditional cancer treatments. According to an October 2003 review article in the journal Nature, marijuana may even have a positive effect on blocking the growth of tumors in lab animals.

Other Potential Benefits:

Multiple Sclerosis

AIDS wasting syndrome

Muscle spasms

Tourette’s syndrome

Glaucoma

THE BAD

Addiction:

The same National Institute on Drug Abuse that has yet to determine whether marijuana increase the risk of lung and other cancers, says that repeated use could lead to addiction and heavy users may experience withdrawal systems such as irritability and sleep loss if they stop suddenly.

Respiratory disease:

Several studies in New Zealand and Australia have concluded that smoking one marijuana joint is at least 2.5 times more harmful to the lungs than one cigarette and that pot smoking can lead to one type of lung disease 20 years earlier than cigarette smoking.

Psychological effects:

It appears that heavy pot smoking affects the parts of the brain that controls memory, attention and learning. (Those readers who have partaken in this herb can relate to that last sentence). Also, studies have showed loss of tissue in two areas of the brain, the hippocampus and amygdala which are areas of the brain that are rich in receptors for marijuana and are a vital memory and emotional region of the brain.

THE ANSWER

Perhaps a way to overcome the adverse health concerns that will allow consumers to reap the benefits of marijuana is to not smoke marijuana (as a joint or in a pipe) but to inhale its vapor. According to a study published in 2007 in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vaporizing is a safe and effective way of getting THC, the active ingredient, into the blood-steam and does not result in consuming toxic carbon monoxide.

While inhaling marijuana vapor and not its smoke will help alleviate the adverse physical affects; regular, heavy non medicinal pot smoking or THC vapor ingestion should be avoided. It’s not good for your brain. Otherwise, contrary to the original conventional wisdom, for some of us marijuana may offer more benefits than risks.

UPDATE:

For those Southern California readers who are interested in finding a doctor to prescribe medical marijuana, the can check out this Cannabis center site.

The Examiner - Fred Gober

           

Anyone curious about the effects of legalizing marijuana should read Norman H. Clark’s “Deliver us from Evil,” a history of the prohibition of alcohol and narcotics.

Alcohol was legalized — in part — in order to deprive organized crime of money. Over time, the war on drugs has had little impact on drug use.

By abolishing the war we would not only save billions of dollars in expenses, we could earn billions through taxing marijuana. Every scientific study shows that on-demand and court-ordered drug-treatment programs cut drug use more cost-effectively than programs attempting to cut access to drugs.

– Susan McKeehan, La Conner

Will marijuana users really pay taxes?

There is a flaw in the thinking of legalizing marijuana. First, if we tax pot, what says the drug pushers will pay the taxes. Who will pay the cost of enforcement? Next, the so-called savings on the cost of enforcement doesn’t take into account the illegal driving that will occur and need for police involvement. The taxing will not make the drug healthy; lung disease and brain damage is still possible. Finally, taxation will not stem users’ need for more stimulation with more potent and deadly drugs. It is ironic to compare pot’s taxation as used on alcohol and cigarettes, both of which cost us dearly medically and legally.

– Jim Morris, Renton

Effective marijuana test comes before legalization

Your front-page article on marijuana may merit serious consideration subject to just one question: Is there a court-accepted test for measuring the level of marijuana in blood?

I have generally been against the legalization of drugs because of their addictive characteristics and tendency to cause damage to the user. Also, I believe one of the most serious crimes that goes underpenalized is driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, a criminal undertaking that seriously endangers innocent members of society.

Hence, I do not believe that pot should be legalized unless there is an accepted test for the level of marijuana in the blood that the politically correct liberals and civil libertarians will be unable to get tossed out of court.

I disagree with the “me” generation and defense lawyers in that I do not believe individual rights should be placed before the rights and well-being of society. If police officers can test for the influence of pot and drivers can be prosecuted for a DUI, then perhaps it may be time to legalize pot.

– Harvey Gillis, Bellevue

The Seattle Times Company

           

Kristopher Reinertson hit the bull’s-eye with, “Tech Administration Should Retire Zero Tolerance” (CT, Mar. 23). In fact the relatively safe, socially acceptable, God-given plant cannabis (marijuana) should be completely re-legalized.

A beneficial component of re-legalizing cannabis that doesn’t get mentioned is that it will lower hard drug addiction rates. DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) will have to stop brainwashing youth into believing lies, half-truths and propaganda concerning cannabis, which creates grave, future problems.

How many citizens try cannabis and realize it’s not nearly as harmful as they were taught in DARE-type government environments? Then they think other substances must not be so bad either, only to become addicted to deadly drugs. The old lessons make cannabis out to be among the worst substances in the world, even though it’s less addictive than coffee and has never killed a single person.

The federal government even classifies cannabis as a Schedule I substance along with heroin, while methamphetamine and cocaine are only Schedule II substances. For the health and welfare of America’s children and adults, that dangerous and irresponsible message absolutely must change.

Further, regulated cannabis sales would make it so citizens who purchase cannabis would not come into contact with people who often also sell hard drugs, which would lower hard drug addiction rates.

Stan White

Dillon, Colo.
CollegiateTimes.com