AMMJC Picnic: To tell you the truth, I could not be happier!

This past weekend, we held an event at Germania Springs Park in Jacksonville Alabama. We were able to spend time with many of our patients and supporters. Thanks to the Anniston Star, AMMJC staff and patients who were able to spread the truth about medical marijuana to the masses, and Representative K.L. Brown (R- Jacksonville) had an excellent conversation with us about his involvement and the future of medical marijuana in Alabama.

Read More:

Colorado: El Paso County's Initiative to Ban Medical Marijuana Facilities to Remain on the Ballot

Judge Timothy Simmons

By Ron Crumpton

Colorado – El Paso District Court Judge Timothy Simmons ruled that the county’s ballot initiative, to ban all future and existing medical marijuana dispensaries in unincorporated areas, can remain on the ballot.

Sixteen medical marijuana businesses had filed suit to have the initiative removed from the ballot, but Judge Simmons ruled that it would be improper for the court to issue a pre-election judicial action.

“The electorate is entitled to believe that their votes will be counted, and they’ll know the results and that the election will mean something,” Simmons said in ruling.

The court’s ruling could provide a precedent for other counties and municipalities to run initiatives to close marijuana dispensaries. While 13 other counties have initiatives on the ballot, El Paso County’s is the only one that would close existing dispensaries.

Bob Hoban, attorney for the plaintiffs, believes that medical marijuana facilities are no different from any other business.

“They seek the right to continue operating their businesses with the same authority they were granted by their government when they first opened their doors,” Hoban said. “The county’s actions here reflect an unconstitutional attempt at a regulatory taking. They can’t say ‘yes’ to such business, take our clients’ money, and then reverse course on a whim.”

Hoban makes a good point, but he is wrong in one respect. Unlike your local hardware store, many El Paso County residents rely on these centers to supply them with the medicine necessary to manage their condition.

On could ask if the court would have taken the same position if the initiative placed a ban hospitals and pharmacies.

Many medical marijuana patients have conditions that prevent or limit their ability to travel to other facilities. Banning these businesses could put the health of many patients at risk and cause the suffering of many more.

Steve Hammers, a plaintiff in the case, said that if the measure passes it would be devastating to patients.

Does Colorado’s Medical Marijuana Indigent Patient Plan Help Enough Patients

By Ron Crumpton

On Wednesday, the Colorado State Board of Health approved a new program that would provide a sales tax exemption on the purchase of medical marijuana for the states poorer patients.

However, advocates and some board members have expressed outrage over the program because many of the states indigent patients still will not qualify for relief. With the millions of dollars the program has collected in fees, they are upset that the program could not include more patients.

"I just think with however many millions of dollars, we could have done a better job," said Joelle Riddle, member of the board of health.

The new program was in response to the legislature’s passage of a bill earlier this year. The bill requires that the health department to find a way to provide free enrolment into the states medical marijuana program for indigent patients, normally $90 per year, and that the cards be marked as “exempt” from sales taxes.

According to Ann Hause, the department’s director of legal affairs, the department does not have the staffing to process the applications to determine who qualifies for the program. Therefore, they are using enrollment in existing programs such as Supplemental Security Income or food stamps, but advocates say the measure would not include other indigent patients including, but not limited to, those who receive Social Security Disability or Veterans Administration benefits.

"We thought we needed to start somewhere, and this is where we decided to start," said Hause.

HIV Patient Damien LaGoy

A medical marijuana patient suffering from HIV, Damian LaGoy, said that after rent, food, health and marijuana expenses he could not afford the application fee. LaGoy’s current income is $14 to high to receive help from the state.

"In two days, my license expires," LaGoy said to the State Board of Health. "I don't have the $90. I have $1.15 in my bank."

On a split vote, the board approved the department's proposal but vowed to examine the standards to see whether or not they should be expanded.

Many of the advocates believe that this is just another case of a compassionate legislature trying to do right by patients and the bureaucracy that is the Colorado State Board of Health, trying to undermine their decrees.

Since voters passed Amendment 20 in 2000, with all of the medical research in the last 10 years that shows marijuana to be beneficial in treating numerous diseases, the Colorado State Board of Health has refused to approve any new conditions for treatment with marijuana. The original eight conditions – cancer, HIV/AIDS positive, severe pain, severe nausea, glaucoma, cachexia, seizures and persistent muscle spasms – are still the only ailments approved for treatment.

This shows you the board’s opinion of medical marijuana.

Judge Orders Confiscated Property to be Returned

By Ron Crumpton

FERNDALE, Michigan – A judge has ordered the return of records and computers seized by the Oakland County Sheriff's Office in the county’s largest assault on medical marijuana dispensaries.

On August 25, the Oakland County Sheriff's Office raided two dispensaries and several private residents.

 Nicholas Agro and Ryan Richmond, both investors with Clinical Relief dispensary in Ferndale, were represented by Neil Rockind who argued yesterday for the return of the items taken by narcotics officers during the raid.

"The Sheriff's Department seized a laptop computer, carrying cases, some paperwork and rental property keys that my client (Richmond) wants back entirely," Rockind said.

According to Rockind, Richmond, who is also in commercial real estate, had several items take from his home that had nothing to do with operations at Clinical Relief.

"He has other business and personal interests,” stated Rockind. “His laptop computer contains information he needs to live his life while this case is going on."

In addition to the personal property taken in the raid, the Sheriff’s Department also seized the records of four patients of Clinical Relief. State privacy laws protect those records.

Attorneys Rockind and Amy Bowen-Krane reached an agreement with the Oakland County Prosecutors office on Thursday to provide copies of some items and return others.

Preliminary examinations in the case begin November 3, for the nine defendants who are charged with illegally growing and selling marijuana.

New Jersey Senator Challenges Governor Over Medical Marijuana Law

Senator Nicholas Scutari

By Ron Crumpton

     TRENTON, New Jersey – Senator Nicholas Scutari (D-Union) plans to repeal the rules introduced the by the Christie administration because it would make it too difficult to obtain for those who need it.

      The plan signed into law, by former, Gov. Jon Corzine called for six dispensaries that would grow and sell the marijuana, but the plan announced by New Jersey Health and Senior Services would cut that to four dispensaries, and two grow sites.

This is “unacceptable,” said Sen. Scutari.

On Monday, Scutari said that he would introduce legislation that would require the governor to withdraw or amend those regulations. If this does not provoke Christie to action, the senator says that he will introduce a resolution that would outright repeal the regulation.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

When asked about the delay that might be caused by the legislation Scutari said, "I am concerned about the delay, but it's becoming more and more clear they don't want this to happen.”

He is not alone. Many of the patients and advocates in the area believe that the Christie administration is setting the program up to fail.

There are other problems advocates have with the regulations:

First, the rules limit the marijuana to 10% or less THC. This is half the strength of the marijuana used as medicine in other states.

Second, there are so many restrictions associated with purchasing it that many think the dispensary program is useless.

Third, with only two grow operations, one federal raid or a bad crop and there will not be enough marijuana in the state to meet the needs of patients.

Finally, the state requires a twenty thousand dollar application fee ($18,000 returned if the application is refused) and requires that the dispensaries have $1 million in insurance for delivery drivers and requires two delivery persons per vehicle per delivery.

Sen. Scutari, patients and advocates say this is unacceptable; the rules are so bad many patients may continue to purchase their medicine on the street.

Survey Says, It's Time to Help Patients

By Ron Crumpton

PHOENIX, Arizona – A new poll shows that a majority of Arizonians support Prop 203 and they outnumber those opposed by 19 percent.

Pollster Earl de Berge found that 52 percent of Arizonians support the proposition, while 33 percent are opposed. This leaves 15 percent of voters undecided.

This is great news for advocates of Prop 203. Generally, when there are a high number of undecided voters this close to an election, many of the undecided have made their decision but they are embarrassed by the way, they plan to vote.

This could also be a good indication for advocates because the reasonable conclusion is that those who are embarrassed about how they intend to vote are uncomfortable admitting that they are voting for medical marijuana. With a measure like this, those who are opposed or plan to oppose the proposition are quick to tell you.

This is a good for patients because the Arizona initiative addresses many of the problems that patients in other medical marijuana states have had to address.

First, the measure states that employers cannot terminate or discipline patients based solely on a drug test.

In order to chastise their employees, employers would have to prove that a worker was impaired or had consumed marijuana during work hours. This is a great first step, but it leaves a lot be desired.

There is no uproar about patients being impaired by prescription painkillers or other chemical medications that mar ones judgment much more that marijuana. Patients who consume medical marijuana for their illness should not have to meet a higher standard than other patients do.

Many patients need their medicine regularly to be able to work and are not “impaired” by taking their medicine because they have developed a tolerance to much of the euphoria. The same thing is true with prescription drugs, they get the patient high initially, but over time, those effects become less prominent.

Second, the measure places a reasonable number on dispensaries. 

With passage of the law, there will be approximately 125 dispensaries in the state and people who do not live within 25 miles of a dispensary will be able to grow their own.

This provides for patients to have reasonable access to their medicine, but it does limit some of the rights that they have fought for.

Many people, who take marijuana medicinally, do so because they are sensitive to what goes in their body. For them growing their own herbs is essential because they want to assert their right to control what goes into their body and for them how the marijuana is grown is just as important as the use of natural medicine itself.

Third, it protects doctors.

The medical marijuana laws that have been approved by voters in the past required a prescription instead of a recommendation. If a physician prescribes marijuana, he can have his or her prescription writing privileges revoked by the DEA, but the doctor can recommend the medicine without facing federal action.

Finally, it will finally give Arizonians the right to use the medicine they need.

This will be the third time that medical marijuana has been passed by ballot measure in Arizona. The first time was in 1996, yet it is still being denied to patients. This bill would end this injustice.

Arizona stands to make a big statement nationwide, when it comes to the issue of the rights of medical marijuana patients. The message is that even after all the bullshit and 14 years of having their vote ignored; medical marijuana patients do not give up.

Great Falls Housing Authority is Evicting Patients

By Ron Crumpton

Montana – A Great Falls man has been evicted from his home, not because he possessed marijuana on the premises, he was evicted for the possession of a medical marijuana card.

Steve Vanderschelden received an eviction notice in August after a picture of him holding his state issued medical marijuana card appeared in a local newspaper.

“The Great Falls Public Housing Authority convicted me of a drug crime by having that card. That is overstepping their bounds, that's wrong, morally and ethically, that's just wrong," said Vanderschelden.

Kevin Hager, executive director of the Great Falls Housing Authority, said, "We have the legal opinion from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that states that it's still illegal, it's in direct conflict of federal law. Not only the use of, but if you have the intent to use, you are still denied subsidy or assistance."

As late, as August 31, in a similar case where a dying man was being evicted from his home in Nevada, the Department of Housing and Urban Development denied that they had issued anything that required local authorities to evict medical marijuana patients.

"Local housing authorities have the discretion to evict a tenant for using medical marijuana...they can evict, but they don't have to evict,” from a statement issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

While the Great Falls Housing Authority (GFHA) claims to have sent notices to their section 8 residents, Mr. Vanderschelden says he never received anything, and that they cannot prove that he ever used marijuana on their property.

According to the GFHA, they do not need proof of him using, simply having the card is enough.

Now, Mr. Vanderschelden is no longer allowed on housing authority property, and he has moved to another city so that his daughter and grandsons can remain in section 8 housing.

So, basically, the federal is going against the states right to determine what is best for its citizens. They are kicking the sick and injured out of their home, and they are splitting up families that do not have the resources to stand up to them.

Grand Junction Colorado Says No to Dispensaries

By Ron Crumpton

GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO – On Monday Night,  the Grand Junction City Council voted 6-1 to approve a ban on dispensaries and all commercial sales of marijuana within city limits.

The six members of the council, who voted in favor of the ban, stated that their two main reasons were that Colorado law fails to regulate dispensaries effectively, and that amendment 20 – the initiative approved by voters legalizing medical marijuana – never intended for dispensaries to exist.

G.J.'s only voice of reason, Mayor Teresa Coons

“This isn’t an emotional issue. We’ve prepared for this,” said Cat Coughran, who represents 17 of Grand Junction’s 23 dispensaries through the nonprofit group Mesa County Constitution Advocates. “This outcome is not a shock to us.”

Of the 60 or more present at the meeting, most were there to oppose the ban. They believe that the ban causes more problems than it solves because closing dispensaries does not limit people’s ability to grow marijuana, it only prevents patients from purchasing it in a safe environment.

There were a few who spoke in favor of the ban. One resident argued that of the 2000 patients in Mesa County, not all suffered from terminal illness, which is not a requirement of Amendment 20. Another was convinced that dispensaries increased availability to children.

Mayor Teresa Coons and other members stated that if several issues were resolved on the state level, there would be room to revisit the dispensary issue in the future.

The ban requires dispensaries to close their doors by January 1, 2010, but the Grand Junction Sentinel reports that dispensaries are prepared to fight the measure. They plan to petition the council to reconsider and they could push for the issue to be put to voters or challenge the ban in court.

Mayor Coons vote was the only vote against the ban.

“I am concerned that we’ve taken the prohibition approach,” she proclaimed. “I don’t think it worked in the past and I’m not sure it will in the future.”