The pro-medical marijuana group Americans for Safe Access announced
that it will launch a signature drive in an attempt to overturn the city of L.A.’s looming ban on cannabis shops.

The group made the promise late yesterday in a statement to the media. The City Clerk’s office tells the Weekly
the organization would need 27,425 valid signatures from registered
voters by Sept. 21 to make the March 5 ballot; the next deadline is Dec.
7 for the May 21 mayoral election.

There are a lot of what ifs in this scenario, however:

ASA spokes Kris Hermes tells us they’re going to wait for the City
Council ordinance to become law before it makes a move: The council,
which voted 14-0 to enact the ban, still has to confirm its vote in a
week, the mayor has to sign the law, and it has to be "published" for
the public to soak it in. This could take a few months.

However, the group does appear to have the resources to gather that many signatures in a short amount of time. Hermes:

We file a referendum, then gather signatures, just under 31,000 signatures. That doesn’t sound too tough.

If it’s successful, the City Council would either have to repeal the ban or let the voters decide.

There are other options that could still save dispensaries in L.A.
One, Hermes notes, is taking City Hall to court to challenge the ban.

There is the option of litigation against the city for its
completely inadequate and ill-advised ordinance that it did pass. There
is the possibility we could take legal action. We’re just reviewing our
options at the moment.

One other possibility: The council yesterday also approved an
alternative proposal, which needs some vetting, that would allow 182 pot
shops that existed before a 2007 city moratorium on dispensaries to
continue operating under stricter rules. Hermes:

We’re strongly in favor of a proposal that would regulate a certain number of dispensaries in the city.

Supporters of medical marijuana clinics said
Wednesday they are exploring legal options, including a potential ballot
measure, to block a new city ordinance closing all dispensaries.

"We think it’s absolutely outrageous what the City Council did, and
we will be proceeding with our supporters," said Kris Hermes, spokesman
for Americans for Safe Access.

Don Duncan, executive director for the organization, said they are
developing the plan of action for a ballot measure that would repeal the
ban and allow at least 182 dispensaries to remain open – those that
were operating before the city’s 2007 moratorium was imposed.

"We want to have the ground operation in place and all the other
things we will need to qualify this," Duncan said, estimating it could
cost up to $60,000 to qualify a measure.

"And, then, if we do qualify, we will have to prepare for a full campaign with mailings, posters and advertising."

The City Council measure adopted on Tuesday bans all clinics
operating in the city – estimated at more than 900 – but of those, 782
have registered with the city. The shops must be closed 30 days after
the ordinance is signed by the mayor.

Elsewhere around the region, dispensaries are banned in Beverly Hills
and Glendale. Culver City doesn’t technically have a ban, but its
zoning laws don’t allow for them, and West Hollywood currently only
allows four dispensaries to operate.

On Wednesday morning, the mood was largely sour among those who make a living selling marijuana in the San Fernando Valley.

As a pair of young men waited on a leather couch outside his office
to see him, Dr. Elsagav Shaham, who works at Sherman Oaks Herbal
Recommendation, railed against the council’s action, saying it was a
"political decision."

"We’ve all been brainwashed that this is dope," said Shaham, who
signs off on the paperwork needed for patients to obtain medical
marijuana.

The clinic, which charges $49 a client, doesn’t deny anyone approval
for the drug, Shaham said, adding that he believes in marijuana’s
curative powers.

Other dispensary employees working near Ventura Boulevard and Van
Nuys Boulevard refused to comment on the council’s ruling, saying they
weren’t allowed to talk to the media.

Amid a heavy stench of marijuana, a glassy-eyed young woman working
at the Emerald Palace dispensary in Studio City would only say: "We hope
everything works out."

Regardless of the possible ballot measure, some dispensaries may
eventually be allowed to stay open. The City Council also agreed Tuesday
to study ways to let 182 clinics registered under the original
dispensary rules reopen.

The Toluca Lake Collective, which opened in 2006 in North Hollywood, is hoping to qualify for the exemption.

Joe Barajas, an employee at TLC, believes the ban will boost their business if they are allowed to stay open.

"It has hurt us to have all these dispensaries," Barajas said.

If the dispensaries move to ask voters to overturn the ban, they will
have 30 days after the ordinance is finalized to submit the signatures
in order to qualify for a May ballot, which would coincide with any
runoff election in the race for mayor, helping to drive voter turnout.

Hermes said the referendum would need about 30,000 signatures of registered voters.

Details, including the financing of the qualification drive and any campaign, are still being developed, Hermes

Dr. Elsagav Shaham, at Sherman Oaks Herbal Recommendation, is a proponent of medicinal marijuana. Wednesday, July 25, 2012.
(Michael Owen Baker/Staff Photographer)

said.

"We’re still working on the language but the essence will be to
permanently repeal the ordinance to preserve the limited immunities
under state law for medical marijuana," Hermes said.

Los Angeles, like other cities in the state, has been hampered in
developing regulations regarding the clinics by a number of lawsuits and
conflicting court rulings.

The state Supreme Court is expected to resolve the issue later this year.

Councilman Mitch Englander, who co-authored the ban on the clinics, said he was not worried about the prospect of a referendum.

"It’s their right if they want to try to qualify a referendum, but I
don’t think it will pass," Englander said. "The feedback I am getting
from the community shows (the ban) has wide support. I don’t think
people will vote to bring these clinics back."

Englander and Councilman Jose Huizar said they were prompted to call
for the ban based on community opposition to the clinics and the
inability of police to enforce regulations on dispensaries.

Police Chief Charlie Beck endorsed the ban, saying there has been an increase in crime around the clinics.

Some local residents also complain the clinics sell marijuana to anyone.

Duncan said he is worried about what will happen at clinics in other
cities in Los Angeles County. He serves on a board in West Hollywood
that oversees the clinic issue "and I know we could not handle all the
people from Los Angeles."

National pharmacy chains are prohibited under federal law from
filling medical marijuana prescriptions, said Mike DeAngeles, a
spokesman for CVS Pharmacies.

The last referendum against a city ordinance was in 2007 about the
city’s living wage requirement on hotels near Los Angeles International
Airport.

The measure qualified for the ballot but the City Council was able to
avoid calling an election by changing the wording of its ordinance. The
opponents dropped plans for a new referendum.

This is a photo of me at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I
had just heard one of the most politically motivating speeches of my
life from a candidate for president. I was moved to tears, joyous, and
inspired. This candidate not only filled me with hope about the future
of our nation, but said he would not interfere with access to legal
medical cannabis.

As Executive Director of Americans for Safe Access
(ASA), I was ecstatic to be shedding the dark days of the Bush
Administration’s war on medical cannabis patients. As a patient myself, I
felt counted and part of the Change that would be coming to Washington,
and I was proud to support and volunteer for Barack Obama’s victorious
campaign.

For his 2008 campaign, I donated money, I went to rallies to show
support, I knocked on doors in VA, and on election night I joined
thousands in D.C. who descended on the White House to celebrate and sing
"Na, Na, Na, Na, Good bye" to President Bush. I went to sleep that
night excited about a new direction for this country that would include
me as a recognized medical cannabis patient.

From the beginning, the new administration made supportive statements
about medical cannabis, including that the President was "not going to
be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws."
On October 19, 2009, we got the policy document we had been waiting for.
Then-Deputy Attorney General David Ogden issued a memorandum,
now know as the "Ogden Memo," instructing U.S. attorneys to limit
marijuana enforcement to those operating out of compliance with state
law.

With this legal guidance, the medical cannabis movement went to work to
pass new state laws protecting patients and those who provided their
medication. Advocates, community members and officials spent thousands
of hours drafting legislation and regulations in at least eleven states.
But when legislators and other state and local officials came close to
passing or implementing these laws, they received letters from U.S. attorneys, threatening federal arrest and prosecution.

Dismayed by this apparent reversal in the Obama Administration’s policy,
patients demanded the president rein in the US Attorneys. Instead we
got the "Cole Memo,"
issued by Deputy Attorney General James Cole, laying out a new
interpretation of the Obama Administration’s policy. The memo gave the
Justice Department free rein in medical cannabis states, to undermine
state laws and coerce local lawmakers. The Cole Memo launched an
unprecedented attack on the medical cannabis community unprecedented in
its scope.

In fewer then fours years of President Obama, we have seen more raids on dispensaries
than during the Bush Administration’s entire eight-year tenure. The
Obama Administration has taken property from landlords, threatened local
officials, forced the release of patient records, used the Internal
Revenue Service to bankrupt legitimate dispensaries, told banks to purge
medical cannabis clients, evicted patients from low-income housing and
denied a petition to recognize the well-established medical value of
cannabis.

Now as President Obama approaches the vote on his reelection, other
medical cannabis patients and I are finding it impossible to renew our
support. How can I vote for someone who has broken his promise? How can I
vote for someone who can’t see very real public health needs? How can I
vote for someone who wages war on my fellow patients and me?

There are more than one million
legal medical cannabis patients across the country and millions more
waiting to become legal. We have friends and family in every state, and
there are many of us in states that are key to the Obama reelection
campaign: Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.

I care a lot about this country and my fellow Americans, and I have
always volunteered for candidates during election years. Now, instead of
going to rallies or buying tickets to fundraisers, I will be protesting at campaign stops
like the one today in downtown Oakland. Instead of working to elect a
president, I’ll be joining thousands of medical cannabis advocates at Camp Wakeupobama, a virtual summer camp during which we will press our case to the President.

President Obama, you can move medical cannabis policy forward and win this election — 74% of voters disagree with your attacks on state compassionate use laws.

Medical cannabis patients will be on the campaign trail, however you can still determine what our signs will say.

With the Los Angeles City Council set to renew
its debate over medical marijuana clinics, community groups and
advocates on Monday pushed for competing proposals to either ban all
clinics or allow a limited number to remain open.

Returning from a three-week recess, the City Council is
scheduled today to consider the different proposals on controlling
dispensaries, estimated at numbers ranging up to 800.

Some community leaders and residents urged the council to
adopt a proposal from Councilman Jose Huizar for a complete ban on
clinics until the courts rule on what is allowed.

"I am not opposed to compassionate use of marijuana," said
Jennifer Moran, who lives in East Hollywood and works in the Hollywood
film district. "But there are so many clinics that you can’t get away
from it. When I’m home, you see people in front of my home standing
around and smoking for 20 minutes. When I call the police, they say
there is nothing they can do."

Moran said she would like the city to develop a system where a
specified number of clinics are allowed to operate to try to limit the
number of clinics.

Eric Moore, who also lives in East Hollywood, said the city needs to take action.

"If they want to rebuild Hollywood like they say, they have to
make it welcoming to people," Moore said. "No one is going to want to
live in a Hollywood high-rise if they have people around their cars
smoking marijuana."

Susan Blauner, director of the Drug and Alcohol Coalition of the San Fernando Valley, said the city needs to limit where marijuana is available.

"Marijuana is a gateway drug," Blauner said. "My concern is that
we see 17-year-olds, 16-year-olds, 15-year-olds and even some kids as
young as 9 or 10 smoking marijuana. We need to act before we lose all
these kids."

Also on Monday, a group of medical marijuana users and clinic
operators rallied to urge the City Council to adopt a proposal from
Councilman Paul Koretz that would return to a proposal allowing 100
clinics to operate.

Chanting "no ban, there’s a better policy" and wearing green
T-shirts from the United Food and Commercial Workers, the demonstrators –
many in wheelchairs – said they needed to have safe access to
marijuana.

"I don’t want to risk getting arrested," said William McKinley
Smith, who said he gets the marijuana oil he needs for his skin cancer
from an Eagle Rock clinic.

"It is not easy to grow marijuana and cultivate it. To get the marijuana oil I need, I could blow myself up.

"It is much better to be able to get it from a safe clinic."

UFCW Organizer Rigo Valdez said 40 collectives are represented
by the union and provide a safe haven for those needing the marijuana
and living wage jobs to their employees.

"We think this is the best way for patients, caregivers and
operators," Valdez said. "We support limited access. It provides a
pathway for people to get the medicine they need."

Also, he said it provides a way for the city to get more revenue through taxation.

In 2010, voters approved a tax of $50 per $1,000 of revenue
for the clinics. The city Office of Finance has estimated the tax
resulted in more than $2.4 million in revenue for the city.

Kris Hermes, a representative of the pro-medical marijuana
group Americans for Safe Access, said he is not surprised to see the
effort to ban all clinics.

"This is merely a group of not-in-my-backyard lobbyists with
no plan other than to tell patients they can grow their own," Hermes
said.

"Patients need better than that. In a city of nearly 4 million
people, there are thousands of people who need a safe and legal way to
obtain their medication."

Oakland plans to occupy President Barack Obama’s time
on Monday with a fundraiser at the Fox Theater — and a protest is
packaged along with it.

The president is scheduled to speak
at a "reception" after 4 p.m. on Monday at the downtown art-deco
theater. Protesters angry over the president’s moves on medical
marijuana will assemble at noon.

Activists from Americans for Safe
Access and California NORML are angry over the Justice Department’s
moves to shut down state-legal dispensaries, including Harborside Health
Center in Oakland, according to SF Weekly.

Harborside received a forfeiture
notice from US Attorney Melinda Haag earlier this month, the newspaper
reported. Oakland activists are still reeling from an April raid of
Oaksterdam University, the downtown Oakland "cannabis college." Federal
agents raided the business and the home of Richard Lee, who is one of
the leaders in the marijuana legalization movement.

Obama seemed to promise that he’d let
states with medical marijuana laws condcut their own affairs without
interference from federal drug agents. Many cannabis users feel he broke
that promise.

The protesting begins at noon in downtown Oakland.

US Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) Tuesday introduced House Resolution 6134,
the Truth in Trials Act, which would allow defendants in federal
criminal prosecutions the ability to use medical marijuana evidence at
trial. The bipartisan legislation has 18 cosponsors so far, including
Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX).

Reps. Sam Farr and Barbara Lee, with Ashley Epis, daughter of medical marijuana prison Bryan Epis, 2003 (safeaccessnow.org)

This is not the first time around for the act — a version was first
introduced in 2003 and it has been introduced repeatedly since then —
but this time it comes as federal crackdowns in states like California,
Colorado, and Montana are creating an increase in federal drug
prosecutions against medical marijuana providers. Since the crackdowns
began, at least 70 people who were medical marijuana patients or
providers have been indicted on federal drug charges.

Currently
in federal criminal cases, medical marijuana providers are not allowed
to present evidence that they were operating under state medical
marijuana laws. Federal prosecutors can exclude all evidence of medical
use or state law compliance in federal trials, virtually guaranteeing
the convictions of medical marijuana patients and providers.

"The
federal government has tilted the scales of justice towards conviction
by denying medical marijuana defendants the right to present all of the
evidence at trial," said Congressman Farr. "My bill would restore due
process rights to law-abiding citizens acting within the parameters of
state and local laws. Juries should hear the entire story of a patient’s
medical marijuana use before choosing to convict, not the heavily
edited version they currently hear."

Under
the bill, people facing federal prosecution could "introduce evidence
demonstrating that the marijuana-related activities for which the person
stands accused were performed in compliance with state law regarding
the medical use of marijuana."

The
bill would also create an affirmative defense under federal law. "It is
an affirmative defense to a prosecution or proceeding under any federal
law for marijuana-related activities, which the proponent must
establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that those activities
comply with state law regarding the medical use of marijuana," the bill
says.

And the bill would make it
harder for the federal government to seize and destroy medical
marijuana. "No plant may be seized under any federal law otherwise
permitting such seizure if the plant is being grown or stored pursuant
to a recommendation by a physician or an order of a state or municipal
agency in accordance with state law regarding the medical use of
marijuana," the bill says.

"The
federal government should be leaving enforcement issues up to the local
and state officials who designed the medical marijuana laws in the
first place," said Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access,
the country’s leading medical marijuana advocacy group and strong
supporters of the legislation introduced today. "But, as long as the
Justice Department is going to arrest and prosecute people in medical
marijuana states, defendants ought to have a right to a fair trial. The
‘Truth in Trials’ Act will restore the balance of justice and bring
fundamental fairness to federal medical marijuana trials."

Most
federal medical marijuana cases result in plea bargains due to the
denial of a defense at trial. But some defendants still choose to fight
the charges — and they lose. That was the case with Morro Bay,
California, dispensary operator Charles Lynch, who was convicted and
sentenced in 2008 after being unable to cite his compliance with state
law.

Lynch is out on bail pending his
appeal, which is currently before the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
He’s doing better than Chico medical marijuana provider Bryan Epis, who
is currently sitting in federal prison working on a 10-year sentence
after fighting and losing his case and his appeals.

The
bill could help — not only with the immediate issue of medical
marijuana legal defenses in federal court, but also in the broader ambit
of marijuana law reform, advocates said.

"It’s definitely a step in the right direction, even if it isn’t as far-reaching as some of the other bills," said Marijuana Policy Project communications
director Morgan Fox, alluding to the four other marijuana-related bills
introduced in Congress this session. "If the administration is going to
continue cracking down they way they have been, it would be nice to
have an affirmative defense."

"This is the fifth marijuana bill this session," noted Drug Policy Alliance national
affairs director Bill Piper. "That’s a sign of momentum. It used to be a
struggle to get one introduced, and now we have five and could see even
more. When you look at issues that are moving, you see a lot of
competing bills. This is a good sign," he said.

Piper
held out little hope of any forward progress on the bill this year.
"It’s unlikely to go anywhere in the Republican-controlled House, but
you never know about next year," Piper said.

But while the conventional wisdom is that marijuana reform legislation is unlikely to move in the House, Fox isn’t so sure.

"The
needle seems to be swinging, and it’s possible House conservatives
might try to use this in a symbolic way to go against the administration
in an election period without having to significantly change their
policies," he said, noting the low number of federal prosecutions it
would actually effect. "It would be significant for the people getting
arrested, of course, but that number is fairly small."

Allowing
medical marijuana patients and providers to mount evidence that they
are complying with state medical marijuana laws is the right thing to
do, said Piper.

"It’s just
common sense to allow patients to tell juries the truth," Piper said.
"It’s not asking for much, just for defendants to be able to tell the
truth."

OHSU Hospital has quietly eased restrictions on pot use among people seeking organ transplants, a shift driven in part by the rising number of medical marijuana patients in Oregon.

The
hospital in the past year has revisited its long-standing policy that
required six months of negative drug screens and even the possibility of
drug rehabilitation for marijuana users before patients could be
waitlisted for a liver transplant. The revised policy allows marijuana
users who meet all other criteria to be waitlisted for liver transplants
if a single screen turns up negative. 

The new approach also
applies to OHSU’s kidney, pancreas and heart transplant programs, but
most of the discussion has focused on liver patients, among whom
substance abuse and marijuana use are common.

"It’s been more in
the conversation than ever before," said Mike Seely, OHSU’s
administrator for transplant services. "It’s been our responsibility to
see what’s reasonable."

Only OHSU, home to the state’s largest transplant programs
and one of the country’s oldest programs, and the Portland Veterans
Affairs Medical Center perform liver transplants in Oregon.  The new
policy applies to both facilities, which share a team of liver
specialists and surgeons. Surgeons on the team performed 60 liver
transplants last year, and OHSU typically performs 20 heart, 100 kidney
and eight to 14 pancreas transplants annually.

Nationwide,
transplant programs routinely screen potential organ recipients for
substance abuse to ensure that organs, an extremely scarce resource, go
to those who will benefit most. Substance abuse is a major concern for
transplant doctors, who say it can complicate a patient’s recovery.

OHSU’s
revised stance isn’t an embrace of marijuana or even a statement about
its medicinal value, hospital officials said. After being waitlisted and
after surgery, patients are still told not to use marijuana, tobacco,
alcohol or illicit substances.

Marijuana advocates say access to
organ transplant programs is an ongoing problem for medical marijuana
patients nationwide. Some transplant programs require many months of
clean drug screens before a patient can be considered for placement on a
transplant list.

Kris Hermes, spokesman for Americans for Safe
Access, the country’s largest medical marijuana advocacy group, said
some transplant programs require marijuana users to submit to random
drug tests and undergo rehab. And even if they make it onto a waiting
list, patients have been kicked off after subsequent tests show they’ve
used marijuana, he said.

Still, Hermes said he’s encouraged by OHSU’s policy shift. "It’s definitely a ray of hope," he said.

Patients’
past marijuana use often arises during the OHSU liver transplant team’s
weekly meetings to evaluate potential organ recipients, said Dr.
Willscott Naugler, a liver specialist and medical director for the liver
transplant program at OHSU.

Previously OHSU liver transplant
specialists viewed marijuana no differently than heroin or other street
drugs, a perspective in step with the American Medical Association,
which officially labels pot a "dangerous drug." OHSU doctors say they
still won’t place people on the transplant list if they’re "in the midst
of substance abuse." Heroin users or active alcoholics, for instance,
must be sober for at least six months. They also have to demonstrate
that they’ve taken steps to prevent relapse.

"The old policy was that marijuana fell into that category," he said.

Doctors
decided to revisit the policy after seeing potential transplant
candidates who were medical marijuana patients with no obvious addiction
problems.

"If you had a beer last weekend, no one would say you
are an alcoholic," said Naugler, who helped write the new policy. "You
might be. But it doesn’t mean you are. We have taken the same approach
to marijuana. If you had it last weekend, you may not have an abuse
problem."

In Oregon, 137 people are on the waiting list for a
new liver, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing, which
manages the country’s organ transplant system. Nationwide, 16,011
patients are on the liver transplant list. The agency says 92,853
patients in the country are on the kidney waiting list.

No
federal guidelines or national standards apply to medical marijuana and
the organ transplant screening process, but national transplant experts
say the issue is a persistent and potentially tricky one.

"We need to be very careful," said Dr. David J. Reich,
chair of the liver transplant and surgery committee for the American
Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and chief of organ
transplantation at Philadelphia’s Hahnemann University Hospital. "There
is a shortage of organs. It’s not acceptable to get it wrong, and there
is not a lot of evidence with regard to marijuana.

"It’s definitely a politicized, controversial issue," he added.

Reich
said a recent study of liver transplant patients showed carefully
screened patients who had used marijuana before the procedure had
"excellent" outcomes.

Jim Klahr, a 60-year-old liver patient,
said OHSU’s policy is a "baby step" in the right direction but doesn’t
change much for him.

Klahr, who lives in Brookings, is a
longtime marijuana activist and Oregon medical marijuana cardholder. He
even grows marijuana that he gives to other medical marijuana patients.
But he hasn’t used pot since he landed on OHSU’s liver transplant list
nine years ago. At least twice a year he undergoes testing to make sure
he hasn’t consumed marijuana.

As far as Klahr is concerned, pot is still off-limits even under the new policy.

"It leads to the same place," he said. "New people and myself cannot use it without the fear of being taken off the program."

Amid thunderous applause and
cheers, the Imperial Beach City Council voted 4-1 Wednesday to let
voters decide in November whether they want to lift the city

A new law passed by the City Council this week to ban
smoking in apartments and condominiums for all new tenants in Santa
Monica could include medical marijuana patients, according to the City
Attorney’s Office.

The ban, passed Tuesday night, does away with
smoking in apartments and condominiums for new tenants, but includes no
language specifically dealing with medical marijuana, a drug that is
legal with a doctor’s recommendation in California and is commonly
smoked.

Instead, the preamble details the risks posed by
second-hand smoke and tobacco products, specifically that second-hand
smoke is considered a dangerous carcinogen by the Environmental
Protection Agency.

That smoke can enter the homes of nonsmokers
through shared ventilation systems. It has been proven to travel through
electrical sockets, and even seep in through walls.

According to
a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Public Health,
between 30 and 50 percent of the air in a person’s apartment comes from
another unit.

To protect their neighbors from second-hand smoke,
smokers are expected to take their habit outside, away from other
doorways and areas that have been banned from smokers by previous
legislation.

It’s not so easy for marijuana users, said Kris
Hermes, a spokesperson for Americans for Safe Access, a medical
marijuana advocacy organization.

"While there’s no specific law
prohibiting (smoking outdoors), it isn’t necessarily socially
acceptable," Hermes said. "There is a significant stigma attached to
consuming medical marijuana."

Medical marijuana users can’t consume their medicine without attracting attention, often from law enforcement, Hermes said.

"People don’t want that risk, understandably so," he said.

For the most part, that leaves the home as one of the few places that medical marijuana users can take their meds.

"It
is a potentially complicated area," said Deputy City Attorney Adam
Radinsky. "Under the definition of smoking, (marijuana) is definitely
included."

From a public safety point of view, second-hand smoke produced by burning marijuana is a problem.

According
to a 2007 study published in the journal "Chemical Research in
Toxicology" comparing second-hand smoke from marijuana and cigarettes,
marijuana smoke contains many of the same chemicals found in tobacco
smoke.

That by itself was the most important finding, according
to the paper, although some quantitative measures showed much higher
amounts of ammonia and hydrogen cyanide, among other things, when the
marijuana was burned.

Hydrogen cyanide is a chemical used for fumigation and pesticides, according to the Center for Disease Control.

It’s
likely that medical marijuana exemptions to the ordinance will have to
be decided on a case-by-case basis, with passes given only to those that
can prove that they need to smoke and can’t take it outdoors, Radinsky
said.

"We can treat it similarly to a disability request. It will
need to be based on a situation that is a medical reality that a doctor
can confirm. Then it might be an exemption," Radinsky said. "We would
assume the user would need a valid doctor’s note on the need for smoking
in a way that violated the law."

If marijuana users can find
alternative means to consume their medicine without smoking, that might
disqualify them from getting an exemption.

The chemicals found
in marijuana that help patients are called cannabinoids, and combustion
is not the only way to get them into the body.

They can be
released in fats and then used for cooking, or put in a machine called a
vaporizer that heats the marijuana until the chemicals are released but
before the vegetation actually starts to burn.

No burning, no smoke.

While those options would satisfy the no-smoking ban, they don’t work for all people, Hermes said.

"There
are people in chemotherapy, who are living with cancer or have HIV or
AIDS that can’t keep food down," Hermes said. "It’s easier to smoke than
ingest foods for obvious reasons."

Vaporizers are expensive. Top
of the line models can cost upwards of $200, and the results are not
consistent from patient to patient, Hermes said.

Roger Diamond, a local attorney, is "very much an anti-smoker and pro-fresh air."

He’s
also representing a medical marijuana testing facility that tried to
set up shop in Santa Monica before City Hall shut it down by refusing to
give it a business license.

For Diamond, it’s not about the substance, it’s about the smoke.

"I think smoking anything should be banned in apartments," Diamond said. "Nobody should be forced to inhale someone’s smoke."

A
libertarian, Diamond concedes it would be different if apartment
complexes were sealed, and that one person’s activities didn’t impact
their neighbors.

Until that happens, "marijuana will have to be eaten in brownies or consumed some other way," Diamond said.