Medical marijuana’s support among voters in New York State is so solid that even a substantial majority of Republicans favor its legalization…

ShareThis

ShareThis

KCET’s So Cal Connect continued their coverage of the long regulatory debate with this installment, which discuss the anticipated legal fallout from ordinance.

ShareThis

Washington Post:

“The California Supreme Court did the right thing by abolishing limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation,” said Joe Elford, the top lawyer for the marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access. “At the same time, the Court may have left too much discretion to law enforcement in deciding what are reasonable amounts of medicine for patients to possess and cultivate.”

Los Angeles Times:

“In one sense this is a call to patients to enroll in the ID card program if they want to be immune from arrest and prosecution,” said Kris Hermes with Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy organization.

Oakland Tribune:

Kris Hermes, spokesman for Oakland-based Americans for Safe Access, said the court’s ruling also renders unconstitutional many city and county ordinances that impose possession and cultivation limits. Oakland, for example, had set limits of up to 72 indoor plants with up to 32 square feet of canopy, or up to 20 outdoor plants at any stage of development, and as much as 3 pounds of dried marijuana.

San Francisco Chronicle:

The numerical limits provided some guidance to police and patients, and their invalidation “may have left too much discretion to law enforcement in deciding what are reasonable amounts,” said Joe Elford, lawyer for Americans for Safe Access.

ShareThis

San Francisco, CA — The California Supreme Court issued a unanimous published decision today in People v. Kelly, striking down what it considered unconstitutional legislative limits on how much medical marijuana patients can possess and cultivate. Today’s decision also affirms protection from arrest and prosecution for patients who both possess a state-issued identification card and comply with state or local personal use guidelines.

ShareThis

What about your Congress-critter? How about ringing in the New Year with a call to your U.S. Representative’s office to urge his or her co-sponsorship of H.R. 3939, The Truth in Trials Act. You can reach the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. For ideas about what to say when you call, check out ASA’s Action page (and send an email while you’re there!).

ShareThis

Sebastian Maselli was a founding member of Healing Dragon Collective which was raided on September 9, 2009 part of Bonnie Dumanis’ effort to eradicate safe access to medical marijuana in San Diego County. He was arrested, property seized, and life dismantled. Four months after the raid, and with no charges filed against him, Sebastian decided to begin the fight to get his property back. Sebastian researched the ASA National website where he found a return of property motion, after a little encouragement and help from  friends and family, Sebastian completed it and submitted it to the court.

San Diego ASA caught up with Sebastian to discuss what happened on 9/9/9 as well as other issues related to the raids in September.

Sebastian wrote San Diego ASA: “I am happy to report that my motion was granted by the judge!  I have a piece of paper stating: “All property belonging to “defendant” to be returned by 02/08/10.”

ShareThis

Chief Beck with LA Mayor

Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck told reporters at the Daily News that medical cannabis collectives do not attract crime, adding that “Banks are more likely to get robbed than medical marijuana dispensaries.” The Los Angeles City Council should consider the Chief’s words carefully as they make final decisions about regulations for hundreds of patients’ associations in the city on Tuesday. If adopted as written, the ordinance may make finding a suitable location almost impossible.

Responding the concern from Neighborhood Councils, law enforcement, and the media, the City Attorney and Councilmembers have created tough location restrictions for collectives. Collectives cannot be adjacent to, across the street from, or across an ally from any residential use. The Council will decide on Tuesday if the facilities should be 500 or 1,000 feet from a laundry list of sensitive uses – schools, public parks, public libraries, religious institutions, licensed child care facilities, youth centers, substance abuse rehabilitation centers, or other medical cannabis collectives.

Even the best case scenario under the proposed regulations is not good news for patients in Los Angeles. Most of the city’s collectives will be forced to close, and it is unlikely many will find a new property that meets the tough requirements. One solution may be to allow a “Good Neighbor” exception for any collective that has not been the subject of community complaints. That would let conscientious collectives stay in their existing location and avoid an interruption in service for patients.

We will find out on Tuesday if the City Council hears Chief Beck’s analysis and adopts rules that treat collectives like health care facilities with a proven track record as good neighbors, or like public nuisances. Patients and advocates hope cooler heads will prevail.

The Los Angeles City council meets at 10:00 AM on Tuesday, January 19, in Room 340 at City Hall.

ShareThis

LA City Hall

The Los Angeles City Council delayed final approval of regulations for medical cannabis collectives until Tuesday. Councilmembers want more time to study a report by the Planning Department and new ordinance language provided by the City Attorney less than one hour before this morning’s meeting. The debate about the regulations seems to be winding up, with only a few contentious issues left to resolve – including where collectives can locate and how many will be allowed. 

The 51-page report from the Planning Department showed the acreage available for collectives under differing regulatory schemes. In most cases, requiring buffer zones between a laundry list of sensitive uses and residential uses would eliminate most opportunities. For example, the report shows that requiring collectives to more than 500 feet from sensitive uses and any property used as a residence would mean that only four of the 137 collectives registered before the city’s moratorium could remain open.

President Garcetti cautioned his colleagues about approving tough location requirements without being realistic about the outcomes. “If we pretend there are going to be seventy [collectives] and there are really oly eight, shame on us,” Garcetti said. In response, the Council approved a motion to remove residential use form the list of sensitive uses, but approved a separate motion forbidding collectives from being located “on a lot abutting, across the street or alley from, or having a common corner with” any residential use, including mixed use properties.

The Council will decide on Tuesday whether they will require 500 or 1,000 feet between collectives and non-residential sensitive uses. These include schools, public parks, public libraries, religious institutions, licensed child care facilities, youth centers, substance abuse rehabilitation centers, or other medical cannabis collectives. Councilmember Paul Koretz observed that the lengthy report from the Planning Department did not consider the outcome for a 1,000-foot buffer zone from these uses, coupled with the restrictions on abutting residential uses.

The Council also debated how to distribute the seventy collectives allowed under a previous amendment throughout the city’s thirty five Community Plan Areas. The Community Plan Areas are smaller the City Council Districts, and the current draft anticipates dividing collectives proportionally based on population. There is also some controversy about how to deal with collectives that registered before the moratorium, but had to move as a result of DEA intimidation. Councilmember Rosendahl wants these displaced collectives to share a 180-day compliance grace period with those that did not relocate.

Americans for safe Access (ASA), the Greater Los Angeles Collective Alliance (GLACA), and other advocates will use the latest delay to keep asking Councilmembers for improvements that protect safe access. The City council is expected to vote on a final ordinance on Tuesday, 19.

ShareThis

As a member of ASA’s Medical & Scientific Advisory Board, I’ve been actively engaged in pursuing further evidence of the medical efficacy of cannabis-based medicine. Some of this work occurred while I was working at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute (CPMCRI), and yesterday the findings of that work were published by the peer-reviewed journal Molecular Cancer Therapeutics. With this study, we have shown that cannabis compounds can work together to inhibit glioblastoma (GBM), one of the nastiest and most aggressive of all brain cancers. GBM is the type of brain cancer that caused the recent death of Senator Ted Kennedy.

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the most prevalent compound found in the cannabis (marijuana) plant. Many studies have focused on THC and its therapeutic qualities, however other compounds in the plant should not be overlooked from a medical and scientific standpoint. In fact, the recently published study illustrates how THC and other compounds (known as Cannabinoids) found in the cannabis plant work synergistically to kill cancer cells and reduce tumor size. The anti-cancer effect, which is mediated through the activation of cannabinoid receptors on cancer cells, has been shown through both in vitro and in vivo experimentation.

The other most abundant compound in the cannabis plant is Cannabidiol (CBD). One of the main findings of our research was how THC and CBD act synergistically to inhibit GBM brain cancer cell proliferation. The research team at CPMCRI, lead by Dr. Sean McAllister, discovered that a ratio of about 4:1 of THC to CBD resulted in a synergistic or enhanced killing effect. This THC and CBD combination was determined after assessing anti-cancer activity resulting from the interaction of THC with some of the more-than-70 cannabinoids found in the cannabis plant.

Interestingly, the individual doses of THC and CBD had little effect on the cancer cells or other proteins in the cells. However, when these two compounds were combined, the amount of cell death, or apoptosis, dramatically increased. And, as if this wasn’t enough, our research team discovered another potential breakthrough from the combined use of THC and CBD — a decrease in the protein known as ERK (extracellular signal-regulated kinase). The levels of ERK, often associated with cancer found in the body, were only affected by the combination of THC and CBD, suggesting that these compounds either converge on a shared pathway or together they activate a specific response in cancer cells.

Since these cannabinoids are relatively non-toxic and selectively kill cancer cells, large doses can be provided for in vivo studies. Hence, a direct injection to the site of the tumor or cancer, versus the more widely used methods of smoke or vapor inhalation, may be the most efficient for killing cancer cells. With more targeted applications, a much higher concentration of the active ingredients can be used without toxic side effects. We also speculate that other, non-cannabinoid components of the plant may also improve anti-cancer activity.

An improvement in the life expectancy of people with GBM has not occurred in 50 years, and because GBM is so aggressive and effective treatments have not yet been found, this study may represent a major breakthrough in the field. The next obvious step is further testing of how this combination of cannabinoids affects brain cancer and finding ways to put this important discovery to use.

ShareThis