By Americans for Safe Access on May 9, 2013

BOSTON, MA — The Massachusetts Public Health Council voted Wednesday to approve the final regulations issued by the Department of Public Health (DPH) for the implementation of the state’s first medical marijuana program.

Wednesday’s approved regulations are the work of weeks of deliberation, during which DPH sought input from medical marijuana patients and other stakeholders, which allowed the patient community to successfully voice its concerns.

Patient advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) in coalition with Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance (MPAA) and the ACLU have been working with DPH to offer guidance and recommendations regarding the proposed regulations.

“We applaud the Massachusetts Department of Public Health for continuing to work expeditiously to implement the state medical marijuana law,” said ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer. “We are pleased that many of the issues patients expressed concern about were improved from the draft regulations.”

The approved final regulations establish the framework for the Massachusetts medical marijuana program, or Question 3, which was ushered in last November by 63 percent of the state’s voters.

The law allows qualifying patients with serious illnesses to get a recommendation from their licensed physician for the use of marijuana, and further enables patients to obtain their medicine from a registered Medical Marijuana Treatment Center (MMTC).

Overseen by DPH, the MMTCs will be licensed to cultivate, process, and sell medical marijuana to qualifying patients who are allowed to obtain up to 10 ounces in a 60 day period. Patients who qualify under a hardship provision will be able to cultivate for themselves if unable to access a MMTC due to distance, disability, or low income.

Many of the concerns from the draft regulations that could have limited patients’ access to medical marijuana have been addressed. For example, where the draft regulations would have prohibited patients from obtaining their medication from more than one MMTC, and placed unique and onerous restrictions on minors who might benefit from medical marijuana, the final regulations have sufficiently revised these restrictions to better meet patient needs.

Dr. Karen Munkacy, an anesthesiologist and delegate to the Massachusetts Medical Society, as well as a board member of ASA, agreed that the regulations adopted today are an improvement for patients over the draft regulations. Dr. Munkacy said that “The final regulations ease some of the obstacles that would have been created by the draft regulations for physicians who want to incorporate this medicine into their practice.”

The regulations will go into effect on May 24th.

Further information:

Final Massachusetts Regulations: http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/departments/dph/programs/hcq/medical-marijuana.html

MA Dept. of Public Health page on Medical Marijuana in Massachusetts: http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/departments/dph/programs/hcq/medical-marijuana.html

Source: http://www.thedailychronic.net/2013/17727/massachusetts-medical-marijuana-regulations-approved/

The city of Boston remains under lock down as a massive manhunt for the remaining suspect in Monday’s bombings continues. All transit service, taxi service, and travel in or out of the city remains suspended.

The city of Boston is a ghost town Friday morning, as residents awoke to find the Greater Boston area under lock-down as a massive manhunt continues for suspects in Monday’s Boston Marathon bombings.

BOSTON, MA — The Massachusetts Department of Public Health has postponed hearings in the city of Boston on proposed medical marijuana regulations until Monday.

The city of Boston remains under lock down as a massive manhunt for the remaining suspect in Monday’s bombings continues. All transit service, taxi service, and travel in or out of the city remains suspended.

The public hearings scheduled for 10:00 am Friday in Plymouth and Northampton will take place as scheduled.

Public hearings in Boston will take place Monday at 10:00 am at the Health Department’s headquarters in Boston (250 Washington St., 2^nd floor).

The department also extended the deadline for written testimony to Monday, April 22 at 5:00 p.m. For those wishing to comment, written testimony may be submitted to Reg.Testimony@state.ma.us as a Word document or in the text of an email with “Medical Marijuana” in the subject line. It must include the sender’s full name and address, and it will be posted on the department’s website.

State voters in November approved the legalization of medical marijuana for debilitating medical conditions including cancer, Parkinson’s disease and AIDS.

BOSTON, MA – The US First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston Monday sided with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in rejecting University of Massachusetts-Amherst scientist Dr. Lyle Craker’s appeal of the agency’s decision to deny him a license to grow medical marijuana for research purposes.

Professor Lyle Craker

Craker sought to break the federal government’s monopoly on the production of marijuana for research purposes. Because of hostility to research on the possible benefits of marijuana in the federal drug control and research bureaucracies, the federal monopoly on marijuana for research purposes created a bottleneck, blocking potential valuable research efforts.

The decision in Craker v. DEA caps a 12-year odyssey through federal regulatory purgatory for Craker and the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, which had backed the UMass-Amherst scientist’s bid to develop a source of marijuana independent of that produced under the auspices of NIDA.

“After such a long struggle, I’m disappointed that the Court failed to recognize the need for an independent source of plant material for use in research on the medical uses of marijuana,” said Prof. Craker. “In doing so, they have failed the American people, especially those for whom marijuana as a medicine could help.”

Craker first applied for a license from the DEA in 2001; it took the agency three years to initially deny his request. In 2007, the DEA’s own administrative law judge recommended that the agency grant his application, but two years later, then DEA Deputy Administrator (and current Adminstrator) Michele Leonhart rejected that recommendation. Craker sought a formal reconsideration, which Leonhart denied in 2011.

Craker then appealed to the First Circuit, with oral arguments taking place in May 2012. In its decision Monday, the First Circuit upheld Leonhart’s denial. In so doing, it dismissed Craker’s claims that the DEA had changed the rules in the middle of the game and that the supply of marijuana from the NIDA facility was inadequate and uncompetitive. Leonhart’s interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act was permissible and her findings were “reasonable and supported by the evidence,” the court held.

“This ruling will result in sick people continuing to be denied the medicine they desperately need, and which 18 states and the District of Columbia recognize as legitimate,” said Allen Hopper, criminal justice and drug policy director for the ACLU of California and one of the lawyers representing Prof. Craker. “The Obama administration must stop blocking the research necessary to take marijuana through the FDA approval process.”

Source: http://www.thedailychronic.net/2013/17194/federal-appeals-court-rejects-researchers-bid-to-grow-medical-marijuana/

By Associated Press

Question 3 passed by 63% on November 6.

BOSTON, MA — Massachusetts officials will hold hearings around the state to get public input on proposed regulations for medical marijuana.

Three public hearings will be held Friday at 10 a.m. at the Public Health Department’s headquarters in Boston, Plymouth Memorial Hall in Plymouth and Look Park Garden House in Northampton.

Advocates find draft regulations generally acceptable; Concerns remain over some patients’ access to medical marijuana

By Scott Gacek

WAKEFIELD, MA — One of the first communities in Massachusetts to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, doing so less than ten days after Bay State voters overwhelmingly approved the medical use of marijuana in November, is launching an appeal against a recent ruling by the state’s Attorney General’s that such a ban is illegal.

At a November 15 Town Meeting, members voted to adopt a zoning bylaw that prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries from opening anywhere in the town, citing safety concerns about the possibility of a dispensary opening there.

Earlier this month, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley struck down Wakefield’s ban on medical marijuana dispensaries, stating that such a ban would “would frustrate the purpose” of the ballot initiative passed by 63% of voters, making reasonable access to medical marijuana impossible.

According to the Attorney General, the voter-approved law is intended “to allow qualifying patients who have been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition reasonable access to medical marijuana treatment centers.”

In her ruling, Coakley found that towns would be able to adopt zoning by-laws to regulate dispensaries and to enact temporary moratoriums on the development of the centers, but they would not be able to ban them outright.

“The Act’s legislative purpose could not be served if a municipality could prohibit treatment centers within its borders, for if one municipality could do so, presumably all could do so,” the Attorney General wrote in her decision to overturn Wakefield’s ban.

Now, however, the town of Wakefield is appealing Coakley’s decision.  The Board of Selectmen voted 6-0 Monday file an appeal in court to challenge Coakley’s ruling.

Meanwhile, the Board of Selectmen intends to ask the May 6 annual Town Meeting to enact a one-year moratorium on dispensaries in town.

The challenge is expected to be filed either in Superior Court or in the Supreme Judicial Court.

Wakefield Town Administrator Stephen Maio  says that the town will argue that the bylaw should be allowed to stand based on “great deference” given to local bylaws by state law.

A similar ban was adopted by the town of Reading, but that ban was also overturned by the Attorney General’s office.  A third ban was approved in Melrose, but as Melrose is considered a city, bylaws do not need to be approved by the Attorney General’s office.

Ruth Clay is a shared public health director for all three communities — Melrose, Reading, and Wakefield —  worked with the town officials to develop the bans.

“We were disappointed,” Ruth Clay said of the Attorney General’s ruling overturning her bans.  ”We made a point and we still believe that the majority of the people who voted for were voting for the principles of compassionate care, but not for situations where unauthorized people could be getting marijuana.”

Under the text of Question 3, which became law on January 1, 2013, up to 35 dispensaries can open state-wide. The law requires at least one, but not more than 5, dispensaries to open in each of Massachusetts’ 14 counties.

A similar ban was passed in the city of Lynn, but was vetoed by the Mayor, based on the ordinance’s “suspected unconstitutionality.”

The state Department of Public Health is expected to release a draft of the rules and regulations for the state-supervised medical marijuana program, including the guidelines for the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries, on Friday, March 29.

Following release of the draft regulations, the DPH will hold public hearings on April 19, and vote on the final rules May 8.

If approved, those rules will go into effect May 24.

The DPH then has until January 2014 to approve the applications and issue registrations to the dispensaries, and then another 90 days to licence and approve the dispensaries to open, making it  likely that the first dispensaries in Massachusetts will not be open spring 2014.

Until the dispensaries are open, the law allows qualifying patients to grow a limited amount of medical marijuana to ensure they have safe access to their medication. This right to grow expires once the dispensaries open, except for patients with permission from the state based on financial hardship or physical incapacity to travel to a nearby dispensary.

Source: http://www.thedailychronic.net/2013/16653/mass-town-to-fight-ags-ruling-on-medical-marijuana-dispensaries/

Boston, MA: The use of cannabis among patients with established coronary disease is not associated with increased mortality risk, according to trial data published online in the American Heart Journal.

Investigators at the Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, conducted a prospective study assessing the survival rates of 3,886 heart attack survivors over an 18-year period.

Authors reported that 519 subjects died during this period, including 22 of the 109 reporting marijuana use in the year before their heart attack. However, investigators concluded, “There was no statistically significant association between marijuana use and mortality.”

Previous research has speculated that cannabis consumption may increase subjects’ risk of heart attack or stroke because cannabinoids may temporarily increase blood pressure, particularly in more naïve users, and because the chronic use of the substance has been linked to the increased production of a specific protein associated with cardiovascular risks.

The study’s findings contradicted those of a previous report by the same research team, which was based on the results of a smaller cohort.

“In this prospective multicenter cohort study of MI (myocardial infarction) survivors followed prospectively for up to 18 years, there was no conclusive evidence of an association between smoking marijuana and mortality,” authors concluded. They caution, however: Larger studies with repeated measures of marijuana use are needed to definitively establish whether there are adverse cardiovascular consequences of smoking marijuana among patients with coronary heart disease. Given the prior evidence, … it seems prudent to caution patients with coronary heart disease and those at high risk for cardiovascular disease to abstain from smoking marijuana.”

For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org. Full text of the study, “Marijuana use and long-term mortality among survivors of acute myocardial infarction,” is available from the American Heart Journal.

http://norml.org/news/2013/01/31/study-marijuana-smoking-not-associated-with-greater-mortality-risk-among-heart-attack-survivors

After the marijuana-policy-reform movement’s huge victories in Colorado and Washington on November 6, many people are asking, “What states will be next to enact measures to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol?” (We refer to these as “T&R” bills or initiatives.)

It is important to note that this pair of 55 percent victories would have been less resounding had they appeared on the ballot during a midterm election. Presidential elections traditionally attract far more voters, many of whom are younger and more supportive of T&R than older voters. And when there are more voters, there tends to be more support shown for ending marijuana prohibition.

With that in mind, here is what the Marijuana Policy Project will be pursuing from 2013 to 2016.

1. Alaska: Unfortunately, Alaska law currently only allows voter initiatives to be placed on the primary election ballot, so we will attempt to pass a T&R initiative in August 2014. Fortunately, Alaska voters have traditionally been more supportive of T&R than voters in any other state. Only 100,000 Alaskans are expected to vote in August 2014, so the universe of voters we need to persuade is quite small.

2. Rhode Island: MPP separately legalized medical marijuana and decriminalized marijuana possession in Rhode Island in 2009 and 2012, respectively. We’re now lobbying the state legislature to pass a T&R bill, which could very well happen in 2014 or 2015. Regardless of which year this happens, Rhode Island will almost certainly be the first state to pass a T&R measure through the state legislature.

3. Maine: I just returned to D.C. from Maine, where I met with leading activists, political consultants, and state Rep. Diane Russell (D), who’s the lead sponsor of the T&R bill in Augusta. If we fail to pass her bill during the 2013, 2014, or 2015 legislative sessions, we’ll place a T&R initiative on the November 2016 ballot. As a way of demonstrating public support before 2016, we intend to pass local ballot initiatives in Portland and two or three other cities in November 2014.

4. Oregon: Oregon is similar to Maine, in that we’re working with leading activists to pass a T&R bill through the state legislature during the 2013 or 2015 legislative sessions. If the measure falls short, we will place a T&R initiative on the November 2016 ballot. MPP already hired a consultant in Portland to coordinate this four-year plan.

5. California: There is already a consensus that our movement should work over the next four years toward the goal of passing a T&R initiative in California in November 2016. The ACLU is coordinating the public-education effort over the next three years, and then MPP and the Drug Policy Alliance will probably end up leading the ballot-initiative campaign.

6. Massachusetts: The voters of Massachusetts passed MPP’s decriminalization initiative in November 2008 with 65 percent of the vote, and then they followed up by legalizing medical marijuana on November 6 with 63 percent of the vote. Many Massachusetts citizens and legislators assume that marijuana will eventually be legalized in Massachusetts; it’s just a question of when. The answer is “November 2016.”

7. Nevada: MPP failed to pass a pair of ballot initiatives in Nevada in November 2002 and November 2006 with 39 percent and 44 percent of the vote, respectively. Support nationwide has been increasing by about 1.5 percent per year, so we could probably pass a T&R initiative tomorrow if we were permitted to place it on the ballot today. Because that’s not possible, we’re planning to pass an initiative in November 2016.

The themes here are pretty clear.

First, the next states to end marijuana prohibition will be in New England and the West. Second, everything is trending in our direction, and most people now agree that marijuana will eventually be legalized nationwide.

Third, the biggest day in the history of the marijuana-policy-reform movement will be November 8, 2016. After that day, just 46 months from now, it will be almost inevitable that Congress will change federal law to allow states to determine their own marijuana policies without federal interference. When that happens, we win.

- Rob Kampia

By Denise Lavoie, AP Legal Affairs Writer 
Source: Associated Press

Boston — Massachusetts voters may have enthusiastically approved the legalization of medical marijuana, but that hasn’t stopped communities around the state from rushing to amend their zoning regulations to make sure marijuana dispensaries are banned or restricted in their towns.

Although the law allowing the use of marijuana for patients with serious medical conditions goes into effect Jan. 1, the state Department of Public Health has until May 1 to issue regulations on who will run the dispensaries, who will work there and how they will be operated. DPH must also decide what constitutes a 60-day supply patients can receive.

While the DPH works on the regulations, some cities and towns are working to keep out dispensaries, or “pot shops” as they are often called. In Wakefield and Reading, the towns have already approved zoning changes to ban dispensaries.

“People are concerned about how broad the law was written and that the dispensaries could be used by more than just people with medical issues,” said Ruth Clay, the health director for Wakefield, Reading and Melrose, a city that is also working to pass a ban on dispensaries.

Clay said her communities receive a significant amount of state and federal grants to run substance abuse programs and are concerned that having a marijuana dispensary in town could “send a mixed message to youths.”

The law approved through Question 3 on the November election ballot eliminates civil and criminal penalties for the use of marijuana by people with cancer, Parkinson’s Disease, AIDS and other conditions determined by a doctor.

Opponents have said they are concerned that the DPH will not be able to prevent abuses of the new law. The department has faced criticism this year for a lack of oversight at a drug-testing lab that was closed in August after a chemist allegedly acknowledged skirting lab protocols and faking test results.

The state’s pharmacy board, under the auspices of DPH, has also come under scrutiny in a deadly fungal meningitis outbreak linked to a steroid distributed by a compounding pharmacy in Framingham.

The DPH says it is committed to developing a thorough set of guidelines so that the state will not end up with problems seen in other states, including California and Colorado, where hundreds of dispensaries have opened and prompted complaints about misuse of medical marijuana and increased crime.

“We have the benefit that we are not the first state doing this, there are 17 other states that have done this, including some neighbors — Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine — so we don’t have to do this completely in the dark,” said Dr. Lauren Smith, interim DPH commissioner.

“We can look at what has worked well and what hasn’t worked well in other states and then determine what will work best here in Massachusetts.”

The new law limits the number of dispensaries to no more than 35 in the first year, but says the DPH could allow more after 2013.

The state’s legalization of medical marijuana has spawned an influx of consultants, attorneys and medical technology companies into Massachusetts.

Dr. Bruce Bedrick, the chief executive of MedBox Inc., opened an office in Natick soon after the ballot question was approved. His company offers consulting services and dispensing systems to people interested in opening dispensaries in Massachusetts.

The company’s technology requires patients to do a fingerprint scan in order to get their doctor-prescribed quantity of marijuana. The software also allows a dispensary to track when the patient’s prescription expires. Bedrick said MedBox now has more than 100 dispensing systems — which look similar to vending machines — in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Canada. Only dispensary employees have access to the boxes, which are located in a locked room in the dispensaries.

Bedrick said he has received a great deal of interest since he set up an office in Massachusetts.

“I would expect hundreds of people to apply for the (dispensary) license ultimately,” Bedrick said. “It’s a brand-new industry. It offers a tremendous amount of opportunity. I think this is only going to be positive for the economy of Massachusetts … and certainly most importantly for the people who need the medicine.”

Others are wary of the new industry.

The Massachusetts Municipal Association is calling for a six-month delay in implementing the law. Executive Director Geoffrey Beckwith said cities and town need more time to review their local bylaws to decide if they want to pass restrictions. Beckwith said some communities may not want to ban them outright, but may decide to allow them to be located only near hospitals or away from schools.

“There are serious issues communities need to consider,” Beckwith said.

By Monica Brady-Myerov