DOCSLIB.ORG

The Medical Marijuana Maze

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Medical Marijuana Maze marion 00 FMTCX 4thF 10/29/13 2:45 PM Page iii The Medical Marijuana Maze Policy and Politics Nancy E. Marion University of Akron Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina marion 00 FMTCX 4thF 10/29/13 2:45 PM Page iv Copyright © 2014 Nancy E. Marion All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Marion, Nancy E. The medical marijuana maze : policy and politics / Nancy Marion. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-61163-283-5 (alk. paper) 1. Marijuana--Therapeutic use--Political aspects. 2. Marijuana--Therapeu- tic use--United States. I. Title. RM666.C266M376 2013 362.29'5--dc23 2013030665 Carolina Academic Press 700 Kent Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Telephone (919) 489-7486 Fax (919) 493-5668 www.cap-press.com Printed in the United States of America marion 00 FMTCX 4thF 10/29/13 2:45 PM Page v Contents Chapter 1 · Introduction 3 Introduction 3 Terms 3 Types of Marijuana 4 Medical Marijuana 6 Ingesting Marijuana 8 Medical Uses of Marijuana 9 AIDS Wasting Syndrome (Cachexia) 9 Alcohol Dependence/Withdrawals 10 Alzheimer’s Disease 10 Anorexia 10 Cancer 10 Crohn’s Disease 11 Depression 11 Diabetes 11 Fibromyalgia 12 Glaucoma 12 High Blood Pressure (Hypertension) 12 Insomnia 12 Migraines 13 Multiple Sclerosis 13 Nausea/Vomiting 13 Pain 13 Seizures/Epilepsy 14 Other Diseases/Symptoms 14 Legal Status 14 v marion 00 FMTCX 4thF 10/29/13 2:45 PM Page vi vi CONTENTS Current Book 18 Review/Discussion Questions 19 Key Terms 19 Chapter 2 · History 21 Introduction 21 Early Medical Marijuana Use 21 Medical Marijuana in America 22 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act 24 1914 Harrison Tax Act 24 The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 26 1938 U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 27 Boggs Act of 1951 27 Narcotic Control Act of 1956 28 1960s 28 1970 Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act 29 1970s 31 1980s 32 Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988 32 1990s 33 2000s 35 2010s 37 Conclusion 38 Review/Discussion Questions 38 Key Terms 39 Chapter 3 · States with Medical Marijuana Laws 41 Introduction 41 Alaska 44 Arizona 44 California 46 Colorado 48 Connecticut 50 Delaware 51 Hawaii 52 Maine 53 Massachusetts 54 Michigan 55 Montana 57 marion 00 FMTCX 4thF 10/29/13 2:45 PM Page vii CONTENTS vii Nevada 58 New Jersey 59 New Mexico 61 Oregon 62 Rhode Island 63 Vermont 65 Washington 67 District of Columbia 68 Conclusion 70 Review/Discussion Questions 70 Key Terms 71 Chapter 4 · States Considering Medical Marijuana Laws 73 Introduction 73 Alabama 73 Florida 75 Idaho 75 Illinois 75 Indiana 76 Iowa 76 Kansas 78 Kentucky 78 Maryland 79 Minnesota 81 Mississippi 81 Missouri 81 New Hampshire 82 New York 83 North Carolina 84 Ohio 84 Oklahoma 84 Pennsylvania 85 South Dakota 87 Tennessee 87 Texas 88 West Virginia 88 Wisconsin 89 Conclusion 89 Review/Discussion Questions 90 marion 00 FMTCX 4thF 10/29/13 2:45 PM Page viii viii CONTENTS Key Terms 90 Chapter 5 · Executive Branch 91 Introduction 91 Presidents 92 Johnson 93 Nixon 93 Ford 94 Carter 95 Reagan 95 G.H.W. Bush 96 Clinton 96 G.W. Bush 98 Obama 98 Other Federal Action 106 White House Commission 108 Presidents: Summary 109 States 109 Arizona 109 Colorado 110 Connecticut 110 Delaware 110 Maine 111 Maryland 111 New Hampshire 111 New Jersey 111 New Mexico 112 New York 113 Rhode Island 113 Vermont 113 Washington 114 Other State Action 114 Mayors 115 San Francisco 116 Los Angeles 117 Newark 117 Seattle 118 Monrovia, CA 118 Woodbridge, NJ 118 marion 00 FMTCX 4thF 10/29/13 2:45 PM Page ix CONTENTS ix LA City Council 118 Conclusion 119 Review/Discussion Questions 119 Key Terms 119 Chapter 6 · Congressional Legislation 121 Introduction 121 Recent Legislation on Medical Marijuana 123 104th Congress (1995– 96) 123 105th Congress (1997– 98) 124 106th Congress (1999– 2000) 126 107th Congress (2001– 02) 127 108th Congress (2003– 04) 127 109th Congress (2005– 06) 129 110th Congress (2007– 08) 130 111th Congress (2009– 10) 131 112th Congress (2011– 12) 132 113th Congress (2013– 14) 133 Conclusion 134 Review/Discussion Questions 139 Key Terms 139 Chapter 7 · Court Decisions 141 Introduction 141 U.S. Supreme Court 142 United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyer’s Cooperative, 532 US 483 (2001) 142 Conant v. Walters (309 F. 3d 629) 144 Raich v. Ashcroft 145 Oregon: Cynthia Willis 147 San Diego County 147 Lower Federal Courts 148 Todd McCormick 148 Kuromiya v. United States 148 State Court Decisions 149 Michigan 149 California 150 Pack v. City of Long Beach 151 People v. Patrick Kelly 152 marion 00 FMTCX 4thF 10/29/13 2:45 PM Page x x CONTENTS People v. Solis 152 County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective (AMCC) 153 Florida 153 Colorado 153 Washington 154 Conclusion 154 Review/Discussion Questions 155 Key Terms 155 Chapter 8 · Interest Groups 157 Introduction 157 Alabama Medical Marijuana Coalition 158 Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics 158 American Alliance for Medical Cannabis 159 American Medical Marijuana Association (Michigan) 159 Americans for Safe Access 160 Arkansans for Compassionate Care 161 Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis 161 Common Sense for Drug Policy 163 Drug Policy Alliance 163 Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) 163 Marijuana Policy Project 164 NORML 164 Ohio Medical Cannabis Association 165 Pennsylvanians for Medical Marijuana 166 People United for Medical Marijuana (Florida) 166 Sensible Colorado 167 Students for Sensible Drug Policy 167 Other Organizations 168 Medical-Related Interest Groups 168 American Medical Association 169 American College of Physicians 169 Conclusion 171 Review/Discussion Questions 171 Key Terms 171 Chapter 9 · Bureaucracies 173 Introduction 173 marion 00 FMTCX 4thF 10/29/13 2:45 PM Page xi CONTENTS xi Early History 173 Federal Bureau of Narcotics 174 Drug Enforcement Agency 176 Budget 178 Office of National Drug Control Policy 178 Surgeon Generals 181 Conclusion 182 Review/Discussion Questions 182 Key Terms 183 Chapter 10 · Campaigns and Elections 185 Introduction 185 Public Opinion 186 2010 186 2011 187 2012 189 2013 190 Medical Marijuana in Campaigns and Elections 190 Political Parties 191 Republican Party 191 Democratic Party 192 Grassroots Party: Minnesota 192 Grassroots Party: Vermont 193 Marijuana Party 193 Marijuana Reform Party 194 Federal Campaigns 194 Barack Obama 195 Herman Cain 195 John McCain 195 Gary Johnson 195 Mitt Romney 196 Michelle Bachman 197 John Kerry 197 Rick Perry 197 Ron Paul 197 Hillary Clinton 198 Dennis Kucinich 198 Rudy Giuliani 198 Jill Stein 199 marion 00 FMTCX 4thF 10/29/13 2:45 PM Page xii xii CONTENTS Newt Gingrich 199 Conclusion 200 Review/Discussion Questions 200 Key Terms 200 Chapter 11 · The Cannabis Industry 203 Introduction 203 BG Medical Technologies 204 Cannabis Science, Inc. 205 Cannavest Corp 205 GWPharmaceuticals 205 Medical Marijuana Inc. 206 Others 209 Conclusion 210 Review/Discussion Questions 210 Key Terms 210 Chapter 12 · Conclusion 213 Endnotes 217 Index 247.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Actors and Incentives in Cannabis Policy Change: an Interdisciplinary Approach to Legalization Processes in the United States and in Uruguay
    1 UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO INSTITUTO DE RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS Fernanda Mena Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay São Paulo 2020 FERNANDA MELLO MENA 2 Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay Original Version Ph.D. Thesis presented to the Graduate Program in International Relations at the International Relations Institute, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil, to obtain the degree of Doctor in Science. Advisor: Prof. Dr. Leandro Piquet Carneiro São Paulo 2020 Autorizo a reprodução e divulgação total ou parcial deste trabalho, por qualquer meio convencional ou eletrônico, para fins de estudo e pesquisa, desde que citada a fonte. 3 Catalogação na Publicação* Instituto de Relações Internacionais da Universidade de São Paulo Mena, Fernanda Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay / Fernanda Mello Mena -- Orientador Leandro Piquet Carneiro. São Paulo: 2020. 195p. Tese (doutorado). Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Relações Internacionais. 1. Relações exteriores (História) – Brasil 2. Relações internacionais (História) - Brasil 3. Política externa – Brasil I. Mena, Fernanda II. Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay CDD 327.81 4 MENA, Fernanda Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay Ph. D. Thesis presented to the International Relations Institute, at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, to obtain the degree of Doctor in Science.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a 21St Century Approach to Drugs
    Briefing | January 2018 Building a 21st century approach to drugs The ’war on drugs’ is collapsing. Now let’s build the alternative. The ‘war on drugs’ was built on shaky Building a new drug policy foundations. Now, countries around the world from Canada, to Uruguay, Portugal architecture and many US states are beginning to This new approach will ensure that rather than dismantle it piece by piece. Its collapse is penalising or criminalising people involved in the drug good news for people and communities trade, we recognise that it is often injustice, inequality around the world, providing us with the and vulnerability that drives them to engage in that opportunity to build a new approach to trade in the first place, whether that is as consumers, producers or suppliers. Rather than compounding drugs that prioritises, promotes and problems like poverty, powerlessness and stigma with a protects human health and well-being. hard-line prohibitionist approach, which has failed on its This shift, from a criminal justice approach own terms, we must aim to approach drug policy in a to health-based policy making, is essential way that works to address these drivers of engagement if we want to take drug policy into the with the drug trade, and at the same time makes 21st century. It is time for the UK to catch engaging in that trade as harm-free as possible. If we do up, and develop and promote appropriate, this effectively we have the chance to develop and build a whole new paradigm to replace the ‘war on drugs.’ evidence-based, and sustainable alternatives both in the UK and globally.
    [Show full text]
  • Tobaccocontrol40881 293..295
    Endgame visions Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tc.2010.040881 on 16 February 2012. Downloaded from What are the elements of the tobacco endgame? George Thomson, Richard Edwards, Nick Wilson, Tony Blakely Department of Public Health, ABSTRACT SOME ELEMENTS OF ENDGAME STRATEGIES University of Otago, Wellington, The available literature on tobacco endgames tends to be The following elements attempt to define ‘real’ New Zealand limited to discussing means, targets and difficulties. This endgame strategies, as opposed to purely aspira- Correspondence to article offers additional ideas on the key elements of tional ideas. We visualise endgame strategies as George Thomson, University of endgame strategies and the circumstances in which a process of both planning and implementation. Otago, Box 7343, Wellington these are likely to be adopted and implemented. We The process includes questions such as: how do we South, Wellington 6002, New suggest such strategies will include explicit plans, will reach the endgame goal within the planned time Zealand; [email protected] define the nature of ‘the end of tobacco use/sale’ and period and what other things can be done now or have target dates within 20 years. The likely within the planned period to help achieve the goal? Received 27 February 2011 circumstances for endgame strategy development We suggest that effective government endgame Accepted 2 August 2011 include low (probably under 15% adult smoking) strategies will have the elements of: prevalence and/or rapid prevalence reductions, wide 1. Having an explicit government intention and support and strong political leadership. Even with some plan to achieve close to zero prevalence of or all these circumstances, opposition from business, tobacco use.
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing Unit Cover and Text
    Public Hearing before ASSEMBLY OVERSIGHT, REFORM, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS COMMITTEE “The public hearing will be held in accordance with Article IX, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution and Rule 19:3 of the General Assembly” Assembly Concurrent Resolution 840 “Proposes constitutional amendment to legalize cannabis for personal, non-medical use by adults who are age 21 years or older, subject to regulation by Cannabis Regulatory Commission” LOCATION: Committee Room 16 DATE: December 12, 2019 State House Annex 10:00 a.m. Trenton, New Jersey MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE PRESENT: Assemblyman Joe Danielsen, Chair Assemblyman Eric Houghtaling, Vice Chair Assemblywoman Yvonne Lopez Assemblywoman Annette Quijano Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer Assemblyman Brian E. Rumpf ALSO PRESENT: Stephanie M. Wozunk Martin Sumners Natalie Ghaul Office of Legislative Services Assembly Majority Assembly Republican Committee Aide Committee Aide Committee Aide Hearing Recorded and Transcribed by The Office of Legislative Services, Public Information Office, Hearing Unit, State House Annex, PO 068, Trenton, New Jersey TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Karen O’Keefe, Esq. Director State Policies Marijuana Policy Project 5 William J. Caruso, Esq. Trustee New Jersey Cannabis Industry Association 8 Sarah Fajardo Policy Director American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU) 11 Scott Rudder President New Jersey CannaBusiness Association 11 Barbara Eames Representing Morris Patriots 15 Shawn Hyland Director of Advocacy Family Policy Alliance of New Jersey 18 Justin Escher Alpert, Esq. Private Citizen 21 Monica B. Taing, Pharm.D. Board Member and Membership Director Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DFCR), and National Director Research and Clinical Education Minorities for Medical Marijuana, Inc. (M4MM) 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Jon-Henry Barr, Esq.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Injustice: Cannabis & the Rise of the Carceral State
    CANNABIS & THE RISE OF THE CARCERAL STATE PART I: POLICING 1 PART I THE POLICING OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION CRIMINAL INJUSTICE: CANNABIS & THE RISE OF THE CARCERAL STATE BROUGHT TO YOU BY: THE LAST PRISONER PROJECT COPYRIGHT © 2020 NATALIE PAPILLION ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Last Prisoner Project (LPP) is a But our work cannot end there. nonprofit organization dedicated to cannabis criminal justice Now, more than ever, it is reform. imperative that we seize on the opportunity to reform our justice As the United States moves away system through cannabis-related from the criminalization of policy solutions that work to end cannabis, giving rise to a major the vicious cycle of Americans new industry, there remains the being caught up in every aspect of fundamental injustice inflicted the criminal legal system. upon those who have suffered under America’s unjust policy of I am hopeful that this work will cannabis prohibition. enable us to more effectively push for broad, systemic change Through intervention, advocacy so that we may see the day where and awareness campaigns, the the last cannabis prisoner walks Last Prisoner Project works to free. redress the past and continuing harms of these unjust laws and policies. To date, a key focus of LPP has been our direct service work to S A R A H G E R S T E N release currently incarcerated E X E C U T I V E D I R E C T O R , cannabis prisoners. L A S T P R I S O N E R P R O J E C T On July 28, 1973, President Richard Nixon signed Reorganization Plan No.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Leadership—Perspectives and Practices
    Public Leadership Perspectives and Practices Public Leadership Perspectives and Practices Edited by Paul ‘t Hart and John Uhr Published by ANU E Press The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at: http://epress.anu.edu.au/public_leadership _citation.html National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Public leadership pespectives and practices [electronic resource] / editors, Paul ‘t Hart, John Uhr. ISBN: 9781921536304 (pbk.) 9781921536311 (pdf) Series: ANZSOG series Subjects: Leadership Political leadership Civic leaders. Community leadership Other Authors/Contributors: Hart, Paul ‘t. Uhr, John, 1951- Dewey Number: 303.34 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design by John Butcher Images comprising the cover graphic used by permission of: Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development Australian Associated Press Australian Broadcasting Corporation Scoop Media Group (www.scoop.co.nz) Cover graphic based on M. C. Escher’s Hand with Reflecting Sphere, 1935 (Lithograph). Printed by University Printing Services, ANU Funding for this monograph series has been provided by the Australia and New Zealand School of Government Research Program. This edition © 2008 ANU E Press John Wanna, Series Editor Professor John Wanna is the Sir John Bunting Chair of Public Administration at the Research School of Social Sciences at The Australian National University. He is the director of research for the Australian and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG).
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Cannabis Regulations Working Group
    FEDERAL CANNABIS REGULATIONS WORKING GROUP: CORE GROUP MEMBERS a working group of experts convened by the Drug Policy Alliance to explore and develop policy recommendations for federal cannabis regulations grounded in public health, equity, and justice reform considerations. QUEEN ADESUYI Queen Adesuyi is a policy manager at the Drug Policy Alliance’s National Affairs office in Washington, D.C., where she works to advance several of DPA’s legislative priorities on the federal level, including marijuana legalization with a racial justice focus, drug decriminalization, and eliminating punitive consequences for drug use and previous convictions. She also advocates for equity/racial justice in plans for the District of Columbia’s emerging marijuana industry, in addition to advancing overdose prevention measures and harm reduction in the District. While at DPA, Queen saw through the introduction of the Marijuana Justice Act, Congress’ first marijuana reform bill that addressed racial justice and justice reform issues. She helped convene and co-leads the Marijuana Justice Coalition. Under her co-leadership, the Marijuana Justice Coalition has worked on the introduction and the historic passage of the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment & Expungement (MORE) Act by the U.S. House of Representatives in the 116th Congress. The Coalition continues to work to see the continued improvement of the MORE Act and its successful reintroduction and movement through both chambers of Congress. AAMRA AHMAD Aamra Ahmad is currently the Senior Policy Counsel for the Justice Division of the ACLU and an advocate for federal criminal justice reform. She previously served as legislative counsel to Congressman Bobby Scott (VA-3) and in her previous role at the Federal Public & Community Defenders, oversaw their national litigation strategy that contributed to reduced sentences for over 3,363 people incarcerated under racially unjust drug laws.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Contribution Refund Summary for Political Party Units Democratic
    2019 Contribution Refund Summary for Political Party Units Note: Contributions from a married couple filing jointly are reported as one contribution Party Units Contribution Number Refund Democratic Farmer Labor Party 1st Senate District DFL 5 $450.00 2nd Congressional District DFL 16 $696.28 3rd Congressional District DFL 6 $435.00 5B House District DFL 7 $360.00 5th Congressional District DFL 1 $50.00 5th Senate District DFL 1 $40.00 6th Congressional District DFL 9 $621.42 6th Senate District DFL 2 $150.00 8th Congressional District DFL 1 $100.00 8th Senate District DFL 4 $250.00 9th Senate District DFL 1 $50.00 10th Senate District DFL 1 $50.00 11A House District DFL 1 $50.00 11th Senate District DFL 1 $50.00 12th Senate District DFL 2 $200.00 13th Senate District DFL 17 $1,266.67 14th Senate District DFL 9 $620.00 16th Senate District DFL 36 $2,534.98 19th Senate District DFL 2 $100.00 20th Senate District DFL 7 $350.00 22nd Senate District DFL 3 $200.00 Party Units Contribution Number Refund 25B House District DFL (Olmsted-25) 64 $4,092.75 25th Senate District DFL 4 $200.00 26th Senate District DFL 1 $100.00 29th Senate District DFL 25 $1,920.00 30th Senate District DFL 1 $50.00 31st Senate District DFL 4 $300.00 32nd Senate District DFL 27 $1,900.00 33rd Senate District DFL 43 $3,070.00 34th Senate District DFL 74 $5,310.00 35th Senate District DFL 17 $1,301.30 36th Senate District DFL 2 $150.00 37th Senate District DFL 1 $100.00 38th Senate District DFL 11 $730.00 39th Senate District DFL 14 $1,185.00 40th Senate District DFL
    [Show full text]
  • Idpc Drug Policy Guide 3Rd Edition
    IDPC DRUG POLICY GUIDE 3RD EDITION IDPC Drug Policy Guide 3 IDPC DRUG POLICY GUIDE 3RD EDITION Acknowledgements Global Drug Policy Observatory) • Dave Borden (StoptheDrugWar.org) IDPC would like to thank the following authors for drafting chapters of the 3rd Edition of the • Eric Gutierrez (Christian Aid) IDPC Drug Policy Guide: • Fabienne Hariga (United Nations Office on • Andrea Huber (Policy Director, Penal Reform Drugs and Crime) International) • George McBride (Beckley Foundation) • Benoit Gomis (Independent international • Gloria Lai (IDPC) security analyst, Associate Fellow at Chatham House, and Research Associate at Simon Fraser • Graham Bartlett (former Chief Superintendent University) of the Sussex Police) • Christopher Hallam (Research Officer, IDPC) • Gregor Burkhart (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction) • Coletta Youngers (Consultant, IDPC & Washington Office on Latin America) • Ines Gimenez • Diana Guzmán (Associate investigator, • Jamie Bridge (IDPC) DeJusticia, Associate Professor at Colombian • Javier Sagredo (United Nations Development National University and PhD candidate at Program) Stanford University) • Jean-Felix Savary (Groupement Romand • Diederik Lohman (Associate Director, Health d’Etudes en Addictologie) and Human Rights Division, Human Rights • Juan Fernandez Ochoa (IDPC) Watch) • Katherine Pettus (International Association for • Gloria Lai (Senior Policy Officer, IDPC) Hospice and Palliative Care) • Jamie Bridge (Senior Policy and Operations Manager, IDPC) • Luciana Pol (Centro de Estudios
    [Show full text]
  • Manifiesto Internacional OMS Cannabis Traducido 1:12
    Naciones Unidas E/CN.7/2020/NGO/7 Distr.: General Consejo Ecónomico y Social 25 November 2020 English only Comisión en drogas narcóticas Reanudada la sexagésimo tercera sesión Vienna, 2–4 diciembre 2020 Item 5 de la agenda provisional* Implementación de tratados de control de drogas internacionales Declaración presentada por la coalición europea por la justicia y políticas de drogas eficaces, una organización no gubernamental reconocida como entidad consultiva por el Consejo Social y Económico El Secretario-General ha recibido el siguiente manifiesto, el cual está siendo circulado de acuardo a los párrafos 36 y 37 de la resolución 1996/31 del Consejo Económico y Social __________________ * E/CN.7/2020/1/Add.1. ** Issued without formal editing. V.20-06992 (E) 261120 291120 *2006992* E/CN.7/2020/NGO/7 Manifiesto Apoya el acceso de pacientes a su medicina, ¡vota que sí! La cannabis ha sido una medicina convencional desde el amanecer de la civilización. En 1902 y 1929 las medicinas cannábicas fueron discutidas en la Conferencia Internacional por la Unificación de las Fórmulas Farmacopeicas para Drogas Potentes, la cual proporcionó pautas para armonizar las medicinas de cannabis y proveer a pacientes de drogas seguras y estandarizadas para sus tratamientos. Para este tiempo la cannabis ya era bastante aceptada en la práctica clínica y había sido reportada en las Farmacopeas de Austria, Bélgica, Francia, Hungaria, Italia, Japón, Holanda, Suiza, Reino Unido, Estados Unidos de América, así como en México y España. En 1958, las Naciones Unidas reportaron que la cannabis estaba también en las Farmacopeas de Argentina, Brazil, China, Egypt, Finland, India, Portugal, Romania, la URSS, y Venezuela.(2) Muchas preparacionas cannábicas están en textos ancestrales que componen la Farmacopea Ayurvédica (Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita, Shargandhara Samhita) y en las Farmacopeas Mediterráneas de Umdat at-tabîb, Jami' al-mufradat, Hadîqat al-azhâr or Tuhfat al-ahbâb.
    [Show full text]
  • Synthetic Cannabinoid Fact Sheet
    Synthetic Cannabinoid Fact Sheet 09 June 2016 What is synthetic marijuana? Why do people use synthetic cannabinoid “Synthetic marijuana” is a common, but misleading, products like “Spice” and “K2?” term that refers to a class of substances more The emergence of synthetic cannabinoids has accurately called cannabinoid receptor agonists or mirrored the same trends seen with other novel synthetic cannabinoids.i Whereas marijuana usually psychoactive substances. People may use synthetic refers to the dried flowered buds of the actual plant, cannabinoids when experimenting with other which derives its main psychoactive effect through substances, and in some cases use may be THCii, synthetic cannabinoids get their name from their accidental. action on various cannabinoid receptors in the brain. Sacrificing accuracy for simplicity, people in public Most people aren’t aware that the effects are unlike office, the media, and law enforcement use the term marijuana – thus repeated use is rare. And, if given “synthetic marijuana” or the brand names of products the choice, adults would very likely choose to use sold, such as “Spice” or “K2,” that are known to contain marijuana if it were legally available.vii various synthetic cannabinoids.iii The first and most well-known synthetic cannabinoids in laboratory research are known as the JWH Series, but soon after Due to the ongoing prohibition of marijuana, those were banned, newer and less researched emergence of the synthetic cannabinoid market over iv synthetic cannabinoids, such as XLR-11, AB- the last decade has met demand by being a legal or v vi PINACA, and AB-FUBINACA were found in products quasi legal alternative.
    [Show full text]
  • Cannabis and Racial Justice
    Cannabis and Racial Justice What do we gain by arresting and citing more than 650,000 Americans on cannabis charges every year? The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world; almost half of all offenders are serving time for drug offenses. Many advocates interested in combating institutional racism see ending cannabis prohibition as a critical step in forging a new approach. Although cannabis use is roughly equal among blacks and whites, African Americans are over three times more likely to be arrested or cited for cannabis possession as compared to whites, according to an ACLU review of government data. Cannabis prohibition has racist origins. Cannabis prohibition began in the early 20th century and was based on racism, not science. The laws were originally used to target Latinos and black jazz musicians. This history continues to manifest itself in the current criminal justice system. Cannabis prohibition plays a major role in filling our prisons with people of color. While African Americans are far more likely than whites to be arrested for cannabis, use rates are about the same across races. The federal National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that, in 2014, 49% of whites reported having consumed cannabis at least once in their lifetime. This is compared to 42% of African Americans and 32% of Latinx. Two-thirds of all people in state prisons for drug offenses are people of color. According to FBI data, half of all drug arrests are for cannabis; of those, 92% are for possession. Each year, roughly 6,000 people are deported for cannabis possession.
    [Show full text]