We are pleased that the Senate Health, Education, and Human Services Committee unanimously voted Tuesday to approve HB 573 and send it forward to the Senate floor. However, we were sad to watch as the bill was compromised by several amendments that were insisted upon by Gov. Hassan.

The worst was the removal of the home cultivation provision. If no patient or caregiver in the state is allowed to cultivate, patients will likely have to wait two or more years for safe, legal access through alternative treatment centers. Another offensive amendment requires patients to secure written permission before using marijuana on private property.

Senators felt they had little choice but to accept these mandates, because to do otherwise would be to risk having the bill vetoed. MPP held a press conference following the Senate vote, and our concerns were reported by media outlets including NHPR, The Union-Leader, The Concord Monitor, and The Nashua Telegraph.

Please share this news and add your voice to the voices of patients like Clayton Holton, who published this excellent letter in The Portsmouth Herald, and Hardy Macia, a cancer patient who recorded a sad, compelling video message for Gov. Hassan from his hospital bed.

In this interview posted today, Cato Institute’s Caleb Brown talks with Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) about the federal government’s reaction to the end of marijuana prohibition in Colorado and Washington and the future of marijuana policy reform. Take a few minutes to watch this:

Rep. Cohen is a great ally to reformers, whether he is sponsoring legislation to stop federal interference with state marijuana laws, proposing commissions to examine federal marijuana policy, or grilling DEA Bush-holdover Michele Leonhart on her politically driven inability to understand science.

As you have probably heard, there was big news in Denver yesterday. The Colorado Legislature approved legislation to tax and regulate the distribution and sale of marijuana to adults 21 and older! The measures now go to Gov. John Hickenlooper so that he can sign them into law. This marks the first time in history that a state legislative body has passed legislation to regulate marijuana for sale to all adults.

The legislation, in fact, was introduced and passed because voters directed their lawmakers to regulate the production and sale of marijuana in Colorado when they voted “yes” on Amendment 64 this past November. Since passage of that ballot measure, MPP has been carefully monitoring the implementation process and has worked with a team of lobbyists and advocates to make sure the legislature got it right. When it comes to most of the major issues, such as allowing adults from out-of-state to purchase marijuana legally, we are happy to report that they did.

Once Gov. Hickenlooper signs off on the legislation, the Department of Revenue will have until July 1 to promulgate rules and regulations that Colorado’s new retail marijuana businesses must follow. We will once again be monitoring this process and will work with our allies to help craft rules that provide adults safe and reliable access to marijuana, while preventing diversion to young people and the underground market.

As MPP’s Mason Tvert told Huffington Post:

“The adoption of these bills is a truly historic milestone and brings Colorado one step closer to establishing the world’s first legal, regulated, and taxed marijuana market for adults,” Mason Tvert, co-director of the Yes on Amendment 64 campaign and director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project, told The Huffington Post. “Facilitating the shift from failed policy of prohibition to a more sensible system of regulation has been a huge undertaking and we applaud the many task force members, legislators, and others who have helped effect this change. We are confident that this legislation will allow state and local officials to implement a comprehensive, robust, and sufficiently funded regulatory system that will effectively control marijuana in Colorado.”

The state Public Health Council unanimously approved regulations
Wednesday for the medicinal use of marijuana, and those regulations will
go into effect May 24.

The Department of Public Health

Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates took local U.S. Attorney (and rumored
Berkeley resident) Melinda Haag to task Wednesday for harassing Berkeley
Patients Group. The popular, permitted medical cannabis dispensary in
Berkeley faces federal forfeiture efforts from Haag yet again, leading
to a press conference yesterday where town leaders defended the Better
Business Bureau member and ripped on the U.S. Attorney.

Haag said she is going after BPG because preschools exist in the area
of the dispensary at 2366 San Pablo Ave. She said in statement:

California Supreme Court Rules Cities and Counties Can Use Zoning to Ban Pot Shops

The state Supreme Court decisively ruled Monday that cities and counties have the right to ban medical marijuana dispensaries from operating within their territory, but leading activists say their fight for easy access is not over.

“This is pretty much the end of the road, unless the state Legislature changes how much it allows the city to regulate,” said J.  David Nick, who argued the dispensaries’ position in front of the high court and represents a few dispensaries in the Coachella Valley.  He does not anticipate any sort of appeal.  “You’re going to see some very specific legislation to address the decision of the court.”

The Supreme Court ruled 7-0 in favor of Riverside, which took the Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center to court after it opened in defiance of that city’s ordinance banning dispensaries in 2009.

Since first filing a complaint the following year, Riverside has prevailed at the trial and appellate levels, but judges across the state have been handing down contradictory opinions on whether local governments could outlaw storefront dispensaries under California’s 1996 voter-approved medical marijuana act, the nation’s first.

The decision written by Justice Marvin.  R.  Baxter says nothing in the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 or the Medical Marijuana Program adopted by the state in 2004 overrode cities’ and counties’ zoning power, up to and including prohibition of storefront pot shops.

“Of course, nothing prevents future efforts by the Legislature, or by the People, to adopt a different approach,” the 38-page opinion concluded.  “In the meantime, however, we must conclude that Riverside’s ordinances are not preempted by state law.” A concurring opinion was submitted by Justice Goodwin Liu.

Lanny Swerdlow of Whitewater has been a longtime medical marijuana activist in the Coachella Valley, and is the founder and a board member of the Inland Empire dispensary at the heart of the Supreme Court case.  He agreed the fight now must return to the public arena, particularly the Legislature.

“We’re going to have to get better organized and work with our legislators to get new bills passed, because the courts have told us that the collective idea the Legislature came up with isn’t going to work,” he said.

That process has already started, he said, with one bill putting medical marijuana regulation under the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

Attorney Joseph Rhea, who represents open and closed dispensaries in Palm Springs, plus the shuttered Rancho Mirage Safe Access Wellness Center, said the open shops he represents will now close.

“I think the lawyers have done what they can here,” Rhea said.

Rancho Mirage City Attorney Steve Quintanilla said the ruling appears to reach beyond the issue of dispensaries by indicating there’s nothing in state law to stop cities from barring medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, even if they distribute the drug to members without a storefront, as well as any kind of cultivation.

“I read the the part about collectives and thought, wow, they’re going farther than I thought,” he said.  “Then I saw the section about cultivation and said, ‘Oh my God, they’re going even farther.’ ” He would not advise any of his cities to go that far, he said.

Rancho Mirage was the Coachella Valley city most affected by the crossfire of conflicting opinion on the issue, with its dispensary ban ruled invalid by a Riverside County Superior Court judge in 2011.  The city appealed the ruling, which had been on hold since the Supreme Court first agreed to hear the Riverside case in January 2012.

Quintanilla, also the city attorney for Desert Hot Springs and deputy city attorney for Cathedral City, said the decision settles seven lawsuits pitting his cities against dispensaries trying to set up shop.

Palm Springs is the only city in Riverside County that allows limited dispensary operations.  It holds the cap for such businesses to three, with plans to offer a fourth permit on hold.

The Supreme Court decision validates its efforts to close down more than a dozen illegal shops over the past several months, said City Attorney Doug Holland.

Since December, the city has been trying to close those collectives operating without a license by issuing them notices and fines for thousands of dollars.

So far, 12 dispensaries have closed.  The city, though, is still battling with five operators – four of which have either preliminary or permanent injunction orders to close.  The city has a court hearing soon on the fifth dispensary.

“We feel very confident that, based on the Supreme Court decision, there’s no room for these dispensaries …  to argue that they have any right,” Holland said.

The argument used by illegal dispensaries is that state law – which allows the use of marijuana to people with a doctor’s prescription – pre-empts local law and gives them the ability to operate.

“The Supreme Court clearly said, ‘No, that’s not the case,’ ” Holland said.

The city will continue trying to close the remaining five, he said, which could eventually come to criminal charges if civil methods don’t work.

“Now we will also be looking at pushing our criminal remedies, which could be, in addition to fines, it could be jail time,” said Holland.

“These are guys that somehow seem to think they are above the law.  The Supreme Court says, ‘No, they are not,’ ” he said.

According to the Weed-Maps.com website that shows dispensary locations across the valley, there are fewer dispensaries listed than a few months ago, but more delivery services.

The city is currently addressing only “bricks and mortar” operations, Holland said.

But he added that the district attorney and local law enforcement agencies could eventually decide to look at whether the delivery operations are being consistent with the Compassionate Use Act.

Julie Smith is a volunteer at C.C.O.C, one of the illegal dispensaries still open in Palm Springs.  She said she didn’t have a problem with the court’s ruling because the decision should be made by individual cities, maybe through a vote of the people.

But there’s already a shortage of legal dispensaries between local bans and federal crackdowns, she said, which has helped C.C.O.C.’s membership grow to about 3,000.

“We’ve got people coming in from Riverside, Blythe, Arizona, San Diego, because all the ones in San Diego are being shut down,” she said.

C.C.O.C., 650 S.  Oleander Road, is fighting Palm Springs’ efforts to close them down because “the city isn’t being responsible with how they’ve decided which stores do get the permit and those that don’t,” she said.

The city is choosing dispensaries in a way that lowers competition and increases prices, she said.

There is nothing in the court’s ruling stopping cities from allowing dispensaries to come in, and while the legal pressure has been on Cathedral City and Rancho Mirage recently, new slates of city council members have come in to cities farther east.

Indio Mayor Elaine Holmes said she’s never dealt with the issue in her 21/2 years on the council, though she remembers the issue being discussed in City Hall before she was elected.

Before taking a stand for or against allowing dispensaries in the city, “I’d have to see it on a case-by-case basis,” she said.  “I’d need to know about the location, and a lot of other things.  But I try to keep an open mind.”

Palm Desert Mayor Jan Harnik was elected to that city’s council at about the same time, after the city dealt with a dispensary on El Paseo.

“If anyone can show me how medical marijuana helps people who are really in pain, then I’m all for it,” she said.  “But in that case, it should be through a pharmacy.”

Marijuana’s status as a Schedule 1 drug under federal law, along with heroin and cocaine, makes that impossible.

Rick Pantele is a representative of C.A.P.S., one of the three legally permitted dispensaries in Palm Springs.  With the recent voter-approved legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington, he foresees the drug being legal nationwide in the next five to 10 years.

The momentum is headed that way, he said, even in California, “but this doesn’t help that at all,” he said.

Desert Sun reporter Xochitl Pena contributed.

Source: Desert Dispatch, The (Victorville, CA)
Copyright: 2013 Freedom Communications, Inc.
Contact: editorial@desertdispatch.com
Website: http://www.desertdispatch.com/
Author: Blake Herzog

A Senate committee yesterday endorsed medical marijuana legislation that passed the House earlier this year, but removed a provision opposed by Gov. Maggie Hassan that would have allowed patients to grow their own cannabis.

Sen. Nancy Stiles, a Hampton Republican and chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education and Human Services Committee, said she met Monday with Hassan’s legal counsel, Lucy Hodder, and eliminated elements of the bill Hassan won’t support.

“I think the important thing in this process is to get legislation moved forward so that we can begin to help our citizens that are critically ill, and start out with a small process that can be expanded later on if we find that it’s not meeting all of the needs,” Stiles said.

After an hour of discussion, the committee voted, 5-0, to recommend the full Senate pass the amended bill, which would allow seriously ill or terminal patients with cancer and other specified conditions to acquire marijuana from special dispensaries to treat symptoms including pain and weight loss.

The bill next heads to the Senate floor for a vote.

Medical marijuana advocates are unhappy with the removal of the home-grow option. Matt Simon, a lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project, said dispensaries could take at least two years to get up and running, and New Hampshire patients in the meantime would be left without a legal option to acquire marijuana.

Simon said supporters are open to some sort of compromise, such as attaching a “sunset” clause to a home-grow option that would repeal it after three years.

“That is the sticking point, politically, in this bill,” Simon said. “Let’s let patients grow their own for two or three years while dispensaries can get up and running.”

But Rep. Donna Schlachman, an Exeter Democrat and the legislation’s prime sponsor, said supporters don’t want to scuttle the bill even if they don’t like everything in the final version.

“We know we’re going to pass something,” she told reporters following the committee’s vote yesterday. “Right now, our biggest concern is whether we’re passing something that meets the needs of patients immediately who . . . have been waiting a long time for legal access to something that is critically important to their health and well-being, given the medical challenges that they face.”

Hassan’s spokesman, Marc Goldberg, said the Senate committee’s changes “represent significant improvements and help address the governor’s concerns” about the bill as it was approved March 20 by the House on a 286-64 vote.

He didn’t rule out additional changes.

“Gov. Hassan looks forward to continuing the dialogue with legislators and all stakeholders as the legislation moves forward, and she is always willing to listen to constructive ideas, while keeping in mind the goal of appropriately regulated use of medical marijuana with controlled dispensing,” Goldberg said.

Bill Tightened

The Senate committee yesterday made a number of changes to the bill, in addition to eliminating the home-grow option. Among other things, the panel:

*  Eliminated post-traumatic stress disorder from the list of conditions making a patient eligible for marijuana use.

*  Added a requirement that patients get written permission from a property owner before using marijuana on privately owned land.

*  Reduced the maximum number of marijuana dispensaries, called “alternative treatment centers,” from five to four.

*  Required the alternative treatment centers to obtain liability insurance.

*  Limited the bill’s provision for an “affirmative defense” in court against marijuana-related charges to patients with a valid state-issued registry card or their card-issued designated caregivers.

“This is very tight and very regulated,” said Sen. Molly Kelly, a Keene Democrat.

Assuming the bill passes the Senate in its current form, Schlachman said negotiators from the House and Senate will hammer out a final version in a committee of conference.

“We will definitely provide something that the governor can support,” she said.

Medical marijuana bills have passed the Legislature twice in the last four years, but both times were vetoed by then-Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat.

By contrast, Hassan, also a Democrat, supports enacting a medical marijuana law in New Hampshire.

“I want to emphasize how grateful I am to have a governor who has gone on record in support of the use of therapeutic cannabis. I think that’s critically important,” Schlachman said.

Eighteen states plus the District of Columbia have legalized the medical use of marijuana since 1996, including the other five New England states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Source: Concord Monitor (NH)
Author: Ben Leubsdorf, Monitor Staff
Published: May 7, 2012
Copyright: 2013 Monitor Publishing Company
Contact: letters@cmonitor.com
Website: http://www.concordmonitor.com

In a unanimous decision, the California high court has ruled that
local governments have the power to ban medical marijuana dispensaries.
The decision upholds bans in about 200 California cities. But in a state
with a robust pot economy, lawmakers still debate if and how to
regulate the drug. We’ll discuss the ruling and what this means for the
marijuana market, its dispensaries and its consumers.

Host: Michael Krasny

Guests: