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.]

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:

Alaska’s latest marijuana controversy doesn’t involve nitpicking the specifics of a search warrant or lofty arguments about how constitutional privacy rights apply when an Alaskan gets caught holding weed. Given the permissiveness of Alaska law, and the efficient homegrown marketplace, the controversy may not even be important in terms of an Alaskan’s access to weed.

Instead, it’s about media, medical marijuana and one man’s access to media.

Michael Smith is a Montana entrepreneur who complains that some Alaska news media have rejected his advertisements. (He currently lives part of the year in Arizona.) Smith’s business in Alaska is called “The Healing Center Medical Clinic,” he’s been placing modest advertisements in the Anchorage Press. The ads announce clinic dates in mid January. Smith has operated medical marijuana-related businesses in Arizona, California and Montana, and says the Anchorage Daily News and the newsy (or should that be truthy?) website Alaska Dispatch have refused to take Smith’s advertisements. (He has previous experience with rejected ads in both Montana and Arizona.)

Smith says he doesn’t plan to sell pot in Alaska. He says the only plan is to bring a California doctor to Anchorage and allow customers to pay a fee for a doctor visit. He says doctor/patient relationships are important for sick people who think medical marijuana might help them.

“I only focus on doctor relations. I’m here to help them maintain a relationship with a doctor,” Smith says. He claims the Alaska media outlets either don’t understand the service the clinic provides or are scaredy-cats, afraid they could lose other advertisers if they accept an ad from the medical marijuana industry.

Those claims couldn’t be checked out at the Anchorage Daily News, because publisher Patrick Doyle would not comment on the newspaper’s advertising sales policies. (He may have hung up before we could say “Thank you”-so, thanks Pat!)

While Smith suggests he is being shut out of Alaska media outlets because advertising departments are afraid they may lose other clients, Tom Marriage, sales director at Alaska Dispatch, said the web site turned down the ad for completely different reasons

The Dispatch rejected, Marriage said, “a small buy” from The Healing Center, because the end of 2011 was approaching and his staff could not devote resources to checking up on the clinic business. Marriage said he wanted to research the company because it was a new account, but time constraints prevented that.

“I honesty did not have enough time to look into a new company coming in from out of state to open a clinic,” Marriage told a Press by voicemail. “With the minimum sized buy, it would have actually have ended up costing the company in order to have the client on our site.”

Smith plans to bring California ophthalmologist Dr. John McGroarty to Anchorage in January. He said people responding to his ads have told him they have trouble getting their Alaska physician to consider medical marijuana as part of a treatment.

“The people who are calling me, they have been looking for a year or two years to find a doctor,” Smith says. Some Alaska doctors, he says, “are either uneducated (about the law), or their morality is preventing them from writing the prescription.” He says because marijuana-he prefers to call it “cannabis,” saying “marijuana” is a “derogatory” and post-prohibition word-is still illegal under federal law, many doctors don’t want anything to do with it.

Alaska’s medical marijuana law requires patients to register with the state to receive a medical marijuana card. The law requires the “original” (no photocopies) signed statement of a physician that says the patient has been diagnosed with a “qualifying condition” as listed in the law.

Doctor/patient privacy being as important as it is, the State of Alaska had to work some wiggle room into their list of qualifying conditions. The short list includes cancer, glaucoma, HIV, and AIDS. The wiggle room begins with a legal phrase “any chronic or debilitating disease” that the doctor concludes is causing symptoms such as cachexia (chronic weakness or wasting), severe pain, severe nausea, seizures or muscle spasms. The law also includes a petitioning procedure a patient and doctor can use to have “any other medical condition” approved if the doctor and patient petition the state.

State records show Dr. McGroarty holds a temporary license in Alaska that ends in April. Smith says that was necessary because the state medical board does not meet often enough for McGroarty to receive a permanent license with his first application.

Smith has a history in medical marijuana that includes growing and providing cannabis to patients in his home state. He says he has no plans to do that in Alaska. His take on Alaska is that card-carrying patients should be able to get together to grow legally.

“The people I am going to help want to keep everything legal, and not just legal under your Ravin decision” he said. “With the card, you can drive around with it in your car and you can legally give it to another patient-you can’t sell it, but you can share.”

His legal reference was to Ravin vs. Alaska, a 1975 Alaska Supreme Court decision that famously made marijuana legal for personal use. That decision has been upheld several times and remains the law-as imperfect as it may be-of the land in Alaska. Trouble with Ravin is it merely upholds the privacy rights of a person who has small amounts of marijuana. It prevents cops from coming into a home because they suspect there are small amounts of marijuana inside. It prevents a judge from issuing a search warrant, even if the cop asking for a warrant knows there is personal use of marijuana happening inside.

That’s all it does. Alaska’s marijuana prohibitionists have failed to overturn Ravin, but they have successfully outlawed possession of pot in public, transporting pot, selling any amount, growing for commercial sale and even growing weed to give away unless the grow operation complies with the medical marijuana law.

Smith’s advertising problem, no matter what he says, isn’t solidly connected to marijuana prohibition. It may be connected to marijuana stigma, but in this country media have a right to reject advertising. In the earliest years of the United States, abolitionist newspapers did not advertise slave auctions. In this century, some online publications refuse to advertise guns or puppies for sale in their classifieds. The newspaper you are holding your hands once refused an ad from some neo-Nazis.

These are not examples of censorship. They are examples of choices made by publishers exercising the right to free speech. As marijuana use, especially under medical supervision, becomes destigmatized, Smith may find that publishers-and their readers-are less concerned about his message. ◆

scott@anchoragepress.com

© 2011 Anchorage Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.