- About About
Medical Patient Resources Becoming a State-Authorized Patient Talking to your doctor Which conditions qualify? The Medical Cannabis Patient’s Guide for U.S. Travel Patient's Guide to CBD Patient's Guide to Medical Cannabis Guide to Using Medical Cannabis Condition-based Booklets Growing Cannabis Cannabis Tincture, Salve, Butter and Oil Recipes Leaf411 Affordability Program Tracking Treatment & Gathering Data with Releaf App Medical Professional Resources CME for Medical Professionals Cannabis Safety Medical Cannabis Research
- Legal Legal
Advocacy ASA Chapters Start an ASA Chapter Take Action Campaigns No Patient Left Behind End Pain, Not Lives Vote Medical Marijuana Medical Cannabis Advocate's Training Center Resources for Tabling and Lobby Days Strategic Planning Civics 101 Strategic Messaging Citizen Lobbying Participating in Implementation Movement Building Organizing a Demonstration Organizing Turnout for Civic Meetings Public Speaking Media 101 Patient's History of Medical Cannabis
- News News
Policy Model Federal Legislation Download Ending The Federal Conflict Public Comments by ASA Industry Standards Guide to Regulating Industry Standards Reports 2020 State of the States Medical Cannabis Access for Pain Treatment Medical Cannabis in America Recognizing Science using the Data Quality Act Fact Sheet on ASA's Data Quality Act Petition to HHS Data Quality Act Briefs ASA Data Quality Act petition to HHS Information on Lawyers and Named Patients in the Data Quality Act Lawsuit
- Join Join
Volume 7, Issue 6
Federal Threats No Deterrent to State LawmakersOn May 31, Connecticut Governor Daniel Malloy signed a bill creating a medical cannabis program in the state. Connecticut becomes the nation’s 17th state to remove criminal penalties for patients who use cannabis on a doctor’s advice.
The Connecticut legislature passed the measure earlier in the month despite threats against state lawmakers from federal prosecutors. The US Attorneys in many jurisdictions across the country – including Connecticut, California, Rhode Island, and Washington – have warned state and local officials not to pass or implement medical cannabis laws or face federal prosecution.
'We are encouraged elected officials are moving ahead with important public health laws that benefit their communities,' said Steph Sherer, Executive Director of Americans for Safe Access, which worked with local advocates to help pass the Connecticut law. 'Lawmakers in other states should follow their lead in rejecting the intimidation tactics of the Department of Justice.'
Under the new law, qualifying patients may possess up to a one-month supply of usable cannabis. Conditions for which Connecticut residents at least 18 years of age may qualify to register with the state include cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson’s, MS, Crohn’s disease, spinal injury and PTSD. The Department of Consumer Protection may add other conditions at its discretion.
“We hope to soon see the list of qualifying conditions expanded to include chronic pain and others that we know are helped by medical cannabis,” said Sherer. “Removing the prohibition on patients cultivating their own medicine would also be a further step forward. Too many states that rely on centralized distribution have seen delays.”
Connecticut is one of 17 states, plus the District of Columbia, that have passed medical cannabis laws. The others are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. In addition, Maryland has a medical cannabis law that reduces penalties for authorized medical use but does not make it completely legal.
Text of HB 5389
Stalled Bill Revived by Citizen LobbyingBy a vote of 41-28, the California State Assembly on May 31 passed AB 2312, a bill that would regulate the production and distribution of medical cannabis statewide.
The Medical Marijuana Regulate, Control and Tax Act was thought dead in committee, but it got to the Assembly floor thanks in part to a concerted citizen lobbying effort lead by Californians to Regulate Medical Marijuana (CRMM), a coalition that includes Americans for Safe Access.
'The Assembly has shown leadership in passing needed statewide regulations that will help clarify how medical cannabis should be produced and distributed,' said Don Duncan, ASA’s California Director. 'We urge the State Senate to do the right thing and approve this commonsense approach.'
Although a majority of California’s medical cannabis patients rely on dispensaries, the state has so far left regulation up to its localities. There are currently more than 50 differing local ordinances regulating medical cannabis dispensaries. This patchwork of local laws has created confusion for officials, more work for law enforcement, and forced many people to travel long distances or use the illicit market to obtain their medication.
The bill would create a nine-member appointed board responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing statewide regulations for dispensaries. Some lawmakers opposed the bill because they said this board would be stacked in favor of patients, since five of the nine members would represent patients, advocates or doctors.
Although regulations would be set at the state level, AB 2312 preserves municipal control over zoning decisions about where dispensaries could operate. The measure would also establish a taxing mechanism that could generate significant revenue for California.
The citizen lobbying effort that helped propel AB 2312 to passage was spearheaded by CRMM, a recently formed statewide coalition of policy reform advocates, medical cannabis businesses, and organized labor. The coalition worked closely with Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D, SF) to introduce AB 2312 earlier this year, then held a Unity Conference in Sacramento in May to coalesce support.
The CRMM conference, which was hosted by ASA, culminated in a Lobby Day that saw more than 300 patients and policy advocates gather at the Capitol to meet with each member of the state legislature and urge them to pass the bill.
Court Denies Review of Ruling on Participation, Transport, ExtractsThe California Supreme Court has let stand a landmark Court of Appeal ruling on medical cannabis collectives. The court declined to review a decision that says a collective’s members need not participate in its operations, that collectives can cultivate and transport cannabis on behalf of their members, and that cannabis extracts and concentrates are legal.
Law enforcement and the state attorney general had asked the California Supreme Court to overturn the appellate ruling in People v. Colvin, arguing that an undefined percentage of patients are legally required to participate in the operation of a medical cannabis collective in order to obtain medication from it.
The Court of Appeal had rejected that reasoning, saying the attorney general’s interpretation of the law would 'limit drastically the size of medical marijuana establishments,' and 'contravene the intent of [state law] by limiting patients' access to medical marijuana.'
The ruling in People v. Colvin also noted that 'collectives and cooperatives may cultivate and transport marijuana in aggregate amounts tied to its membership numbers' and affirmed that possession of extracted or concentrated forms of medical cannabis is covered by state law.
'The California Supreme Court has recognized, as the appeals court did, that those most in need of medical cannabis are those least able to do the work of cultivating and distributing it,” said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford. 'Allowing collective members to rely on each other, transport their medicine, and use more effective extracts is a commonsense approach to safe access.
A number of medical marijuana dispensary cases were granted review by the California Supreme Court earlier this year, including Pack v. City of Long Beach, Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health and Wellness Center, and City of Lake Forest v. Evergreen Holistic Collective. The Pack case addresses issues of federal preemption, which have already come before the high court, whereas the Riverside and Lake Forest cases address the issue of whether localities have a right to permanently ban dispensaries.
'The Colvin decision provides better protections for medical cannabis patients and providers, particularly those who have faced prosecution,' said Elford. 'Specifically, it supports our appeal of collective operator Jovan Jackson’s conviction in San Diego, since his prosecution was based on the same argument about member participation.'
Court of Appeal decision in People v. Colvin
Organized by the coalition Californians to Regulate Medical Marijuana (CRMM) and hosted by ASA at an AFL-CIO office in Sacramento, the event brought 200 advocates together from across the state for two days of strategy and training sessions aimed at advancing favorable state legislation and local regulations. Following that was a Lobby Day on Monday, May 21 that saw 300 patient advocates descend on the state Capitol to bring their message directly to state lawmakers.
After a rally on the steps of the Capitol with Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, sponsor of AB 2312, the Medical Marijuana Regulate, Control and Tax Act, the advocates went from office to office, urging support for that and other measures to ensure consistent safe access everywhere in California.
“The Lobby Day was our crowning achievement,” said ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer. “We had constituents from 70 of the 80 Assembly Districts and 36 of the 40 Senate districts – a statewide turnout that in the past has only been matched by California’s heaviest-hitting interest groups.”
CRMM is a statewide coalition of policy reform advocates, medical cannabis businesses, and organized labor that includes ASA, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, California NORML, and others.
The Arizona Department of Health Services has received more than 400 applications from would-be operators of medical cannabis dispensaries, all vying for one of the up to 126 licenses provided for by state law. The department is to name those selected for certification on Aug. 7.
Gov. Jan Brewer had suspended the licensing process over fears that state employees could face federal criminal prosecution. She restarted the process after a judge ruled that the initiative passed by voters requires the state to implement a dispensary program.
The 2010 state law also requires state health officials to periodically consider requests to expand the list of qualifying conditions. The Department of Health Services hearing last month included 2½ hours of testimony from more than two-dozen patients and other concerned citizens who urged officials to include post-traumatic stress syndrome, migraines, depression and general anxiety disorder.
The law currently extends patient protections to those with cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, chronic pain, muscle spasms and hepatitis C.
The University of Arizona is working with the Department of Health Services to identify relevant research on various conditions that might be added. Officials have said they are cautious about adding new conditions because the law does not allow them to be removed once added.
More than 28,000 Arizonans are currently registered with the state program, with chronic pain the most common medical condition.
A lower-court last year ruled unconstitutional the portion of a 2011 law passed by the Legislature that effectively banned sales of medical cannabis.
The Montana Attorney General’s office told the justices that District Judge James Reynolds erred in overturning the 2011 law’s injunction against compensation for cultivators of medical cannabis because there is no right to sell products that are illegal under federal law.
Reynolds ruled that banning payment for cannabis would deprive Montanans of their fundamental rights to pursue their health and livelihoods. As passed by state lawmakers, the law would only allow cultivation by patients and caregivers for up to three qualified patients.
At the time of that bill’s passage, 27,000 Montanans were registered with the state medical cannabis program as patients and 5,000 as providers. That number has dropped to fewer than 10,640 patients and 414 providers.