Posts Tagged ‘District of Columbia’
Washington, DC: A three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last week denied petitioners request to overturn the Obama administration’s July 2011 rejection of an administrative petition that sought to initiate hearings regarding the reclassification of marijuana under federal law.
Petitioners sought a hearing regarding whether existing science contradicts the federal categorization of cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance that possesses “a high potential for abuse;” “no currently accepted medical use in treatment;” and “a lack of accepted safety for the use of the drug … under medical supervision.” The Court affirmed the position of the US Drug Enforcement Administration that, at this time, insufficient clinical studies exist to warrant a judicial review of cannabis’ federally prohibited status.
Petitioners are expected to appeal the decision.
For more information, please visit: http://safeaccessnow.org. Full text of the decision, Americans for Safe Access et al. v. Drug Enforcement Administration, is available online here: http://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/CRC_Appeal.pdf.
This emergency action will set forth the process and procedure that qualifying patients, caregivers, and physicians must follow before any individual may become registered to obtain and use medical marijuana. Likewise, it will set forth process and procedure that candidates for registration as dispensaries or cultivation centers must follow to apply for such registrations, and the operating requirements they will need to perform upon a receiving a registration for such a facility. The regulations set forth the provisions of the Act that must be addressed at the onset to enable the Department to administer the program.
These proposed rules do not deal with all aspects of the Act, but rather are focused on dealing with those issues that must be addressed at the beginning of the implementation of the Act. Comments for this rulemaking should address its specific provisions.
All questions regarding the Medical Marijuana Program must be submitted in writing. Phone calls will not be accepted.
Interested parties may send inquiries by email to firstname.lastname@example.org or by regular mail to:
Medical Marijuana Program
Health Regulation and Licensing Administration
899 N. Capitol Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Please submit all medical marijuana press inquiries in email only to Mahlori Isaacs, Interim Public Information Officer. She can be reached at email@example.com.
- Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Amendment Act of 2010 [PDF]
- Final Rulemaking for Medical Marijuana published December 2, 2011 [PDF]
- Emergency and Third Proposed Rulemaking for Medical Marijuana published April 15, 2011 [PDF]
Letters of Intent
- Public Notice – Letter of Intent for Cultivation Centers and Dispensaries Applications published April 15, 2011 [PDF]
- Applicants Eligible for Corrected Letter of Intent [PDF]
- Letters of Intent Denied Due To Late Submission [PDF]
- Public Notice – Medical Marijuana Program Open Application Period for Cultivation Centers [PDF]
- Corrected Application for Cultivation Centers (Revised 09/14/2011) [PDF]
- Acknowledgement and Attestation Form for Cultivation Centers [PDF]
- Physician Affidavit for Cultivation Centers [PDF]
- Timeline for Cultivation Center Application Process (Revised 01/05/2012) [PDF]
- Accepted Applicants as of 8/12/11 [PDF]
- Accepted Applicants as of 9/7/2011 [PDF]
- Notification of Application Deadline (E-mailed to all applicants on 09/08/2011) [PDF]
- Applications for Cultivation Centers submitted by Application Deadline [PDF]
- Applications for Cultivation Centers NOT submitted by Application Deadline [PDF]
- Applicants Notified with Provisional Scores at Least 150 Points [PDF]
- Applicants Notified for Opportunity to Correct [PDF]
- Applicants Notified with Provisional Scores at Least 150 Points (updated 2/17/12) [PDF]
- Applicants Notified with Provisional Scores Below 150 Points [PDF]
- Applicants Notified as Non-Responsive [PDF]
- Applicants Eligible for Registration [PDF]
- Applicants not Eligible for Registration [PDF]
- Press Release – Department Of Health Notifies Applicants Eligible To Register For Medical Marijuana Cultivation Centers[PDF]
- Director’s Decision To Adopt or Reject The Panel’s Final Proposed Selection Of The Medical Marijuana Cultivation Center Applications [PDF]
No Applications were submittted late for Dispensaries
- Public Notice – Medical Marijuana Program Open Application Period for Dispensaries [PDF]
- Notification of Application Deadline (E-mailed to all eligible applicants on 10/24/2011) [PDF]
- Application for Medical Marijuana Dispensary [PDF]
- Acknowledgement and Attestation Form for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries [PDF]
- Physician Affidavit for Dispensaries [PDF]
- Timeline for Dispensary Application Process (Revised 04/11/2012) [PDF]
- Accepted Applicants as of 8/12/2011 [PDF]
- Accepted Applicants as of 9/7/2011 [PDF]
- Applications Submitted for Dispensaries by Application Deadline [PDF]
- Applicants Notified with Opportunity to Correct [PDF]
- Applicants Notified with Provisional Scores at Least 150 Points [PDF]
Medical Marijuana Certification Provider
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Freedom of Information Act
by Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive DirectorApril 11, 2012
From the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines
IACM-Bulletin of 8 April 2012
World: Increasing numbers of patients use cannabis for medicinal purposes
An increasing number of patients in the world are using cannabis for therapeutic reasons, with available data from countries, which have installed programs for their citizens. Good data are available for Israel, Canada, the Netherlands and many states of the US with medicinal cannabis laws and registries. In several more countries only a few patients are allowed to use cannabis for medicinal purposes, including Germany, Norway, Finland and Italy. In many other countries such as Spain and some states of the US without a registry such as California the number of medicinal users is estimated to be high, but no detailed data are available.
The numbers in California with hundreds of cannabis dispensaries and clinics that issue medical cannabis recommendations are unclear, since the state does not require residents to register as patients (see below**)
Most of the 16 states that allow the medicinal use of cannabis require a registration. Recently the press agency Associated Press published data on registered patients in different states of the USA based on state agencies responsible for maintaining patient registries:
State: Number of registered patients (per 1,000 of the whole population) –
Colorado: 82,089 (16.3)
Oregon: 57,386 (15.0)
Montana: 14,364 (14.5)
Michigan: 131,483 (13.3)
Hawaii: 11,695 (8.6)
Rhode Island: 4,466 (4.2)
Arizona: 22,037 (3.5)
New Mexico: 4,310 (2.1)
Maine: 2,708 (2.0)
Nevada: 3,388 (1.3)
Vermont: 505 (0.8)
Alaska: 538 (0.8)
Patient registration is mandatory in Delaware, New Jersey and the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.), but their registries are not yet up and running. Washington State has neither voluntary nor mandatory registration.
Data from Israel show that in August 2011 6,000 patients got medicinal cannabis (0.8 patients in 1,000). It is estimated that the number increases to 40,000 in 2016 (5.2 patients in 1,000 citizens).
In Canada 12,116 patients were allowed to use cannabis on 30 September 2011 (0.35 patients in 1,000 citizens).
Numbers of patients using cannabis from the pharmacies in the Netherlands were estimated to be 1,300 in 2010 (0.08 patients in 1,000 citizens). However, many patients in the Netherlands use cannabis from the coffee shops or grow their own.
In Germany about 60 patients are currently allowed to use cannabis for medicinal purposes.
(Sources: Associated Press of 24 March 2012, website of the Israeli Prime Minister of 7 August 2011, UPI of 31 October 2011, Pharmaceutisch Weekblad No. 20, 2011)
**[Editor's note: CA NORML published a white paper last May estimating that California has 750,000 - 1,125,000 citizens who possess a physician's recommendation to use cannabis medicinally.]
A second proposed medical marijuana constitutional amendment was approved this morning by the Ohio Ballot Board.
Backers of the Ohio Medical Cannabis Amendment of 2012 can now begin collecting the 385,245 signatures of registered voters necessary to qualify the issue for the Nov. 6 general election ballot.
The Ballot Board agreed the proposed amendment, which would legalize the purchase, possession, growth and use of marijuana for patients with qualifying medical conditions, can appear as a single issue at the fall election.
In October, the Ballot Board approved a similar medical-marijuana ballot issue, the Ohio Alternative Treatment Amendment.
Differences are emerging between the two proposed issues and those who support them.
The Medical Cannabis Amendment approved today is backed primarily by a group of patients seeking pain relief for medical conditions. The Alternative Treatment Amendment, which also includes patients among its supporters, is backed by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have some form of medical-marijuana law.
House Resolution 1983 has been stalled in committee since Last June
HR 1983, the State’s Medical Marijuana Protection Act of 2011, introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), explicitly states it will exempt people complying with state medical marijuana laws from federal arrest and prosecution.
Officially titled “To provide for the rescheduling of marijuana and for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various states”, the measure also calls for an immediate rescheduling review by the federal government that would reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the federal Controlled Substances Act, officially recognizing the plant’s accepted medical use and streamlining the federal approval process for medical marijuana research. It is cosponsored by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), Rep. Fortney Stark (D-CA). and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA).
“The time has come for the federal government to stop preempting states’ medical marijuana laws,” Frank said. “For the federal government to come in and supersede state law is a real mistake for those in pain for whom nothing else seems to work. This bill would block the federal prosecution of those patients who reside in those states that allow medical marijuana.”
Sixteen states — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia have enacted laws protecting medical cannabis patients and often their providers from state prosecution. However, in all of these states, patients and providers still face the risk of federal sanction — even when their actions are fully compliant with state law.
Medical cannabis patients should feel safe from federal threats whether they are cultivating their own medicine, picking it up at a dispensary etc. When dispensaries are shut down, or gardens get plowed by the DEA, the real losers are the ill people using medical cannabis in order to treat their conditions. Often times these patients have already paid hundreds of dollars to be registered with the state, only to have the feds squash their efforts. Imagine having your local pharmacy getting shut down, terrorist style, leaving you without safe access to quality medicine. HR 1983 would provide the protection these patients need and deserve.
The time, money, and manpower spent by local, state, and federal authorities, to harass and prosecute medical cannabis patients is staggering, especially considering budget concerns in all parts of the U.S. In many states where medical cannabis laws have been passed, local municipalities have been collecting millions of dollars in taxes. So let’s see, less money out, more money in… HR 1983 absolutely makes sense for community budgets.
In states where dispensaries are allowed to operate, the cost of opening one can be staggering. Regulations in states, such as Colorado, can push the cost into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is nothing new, there is always a cost to do business, but the difference between dispensary owners and most business owners is the constant threat of DEA raids and asset forfeiture. These operators are most often good people who really want to be an accepted part of the community, yet the federal government considers them drug dealers using it’s influence to manipulate local governments to go against the will of the voters. Add the legal costs to fight for your right to operate and I wonder how these people are able to stay open? Passing HR 1983 would allow them to fully integrate into communities without constant federal harassment.
The known benefits of medical cannabis are a proven reality and how many more unknown benefits could be discovered if legitimate research could be done openly. Just look to Israel as an example. Since their government loosened the restrictions on cannabis research, a couple real quality studies are in the works. It’s no secret research and development is expensive. Passing this resolution would help entrepreneurs feel far more comfortable about investing capital in cannabis research once they don’t have to worry about the Feds kicking down the door. Imagine if we could isolate each of the hundreds of psychoactive components contained in the cannabis plant and test each one for potential ways to treat incurable diseases and conditions. Do we really want all this work to be done overseas? What about all the potential high paying research jobs this could create? H. R. 1983 would help make cannabis safer and create jobs here in the United States.
As a cannabis law reform and legalization advocate, I can appreciate what enacting this resolution has to offer. I personally see the biggest hurdle for marijuana law reform as breaking the decades old negative stereotypes created by the government propaganda machine. If people where allowed to use medical cannabis and the public saw crime rates fall and heard miracle cancer stories, maybe it could change their perceptions. Additionally, many people who use medical cannabis recreationally might actually be using it for medical reasons and just don’t know they are. Depression, anxiety, and other conditions often go undiagnosed, often leaving people to “self-medicate” on their own.
Bottom line, this bill doesn’t have many glaring problems and if your state doesn’t have a medical cannabis law, then it doesn’t really effect you anyway. The bill is currently in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by Rep. Frederick Upton; it was assigned to the Subcommittee on Health and hasn’t budged since. Contact your congressman and tell them to co-sponsor the States’ Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act now!
Here’s a great video from friend of the blog, Jay Selthofner talking about HR 1983
And here’s a link to the full text of the bill: