Ganja Vibes Blog

Eric Shevin, Attorney at Law

MEDICAL MARIJUANA EXPERTISE Mr. Shevin represents clients exclusively in the area of State and Federal criminal law with a focus on marijuana and drug cases. Mr. Shevin’s practice also represents clients in matters dealing with medical marijuana business formation and corporate representation. Presently, Mr. Shevin teaches a course on Medical Marijuana Laws to the Los Angeles County Judiciary, provides continuing legal education on Medical Marijuana Laws for the National Business Institute and teaches at the NACDL Advanced Criminal Law Seminar in Aspen, Colorado. Mr. Shevin represents individuals nationally and has won significant victories for his clients in Hawaii, Louisiana, North Carolina, Utah, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, New York, Nevada, Texas and Tennessee. Mr. Shevin has been featured and/or quoted in more than 25 articles and news stories including the following media outlets: Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Daily Journal, ABC News, CBS News, MSNBC, Newshour with Jim Lehrer, Huffington Post, National Public Radio, Hartford Courant, Orange County Register, The 420 Times, West Coast Leaf, Marijuana Anti Prohibition Project, Press Enterprise, Metropolitan News Enterprise, Hemp Evolution, The Compassion Club, Cannabis News, The Medical Marijuana Magazine, The Marijuana News, OC Weekly and High Times Freedom Fighter of the month. Boy did I find all kinds of interesting case work while googling Mr. Shevin. He seems to have seen it all and then some. I hope we become friends and only friends.

2 Governors Asking U.S. to Ease Rules on Marijuana to Allow for Its Medical Use

By MICHAEL COOPER Published: November 30, 2011 The governors of Washington and Rhode Island petitioned the federal government on Wednesday to reclassify marijuana as a drug with accepted medical uses, saying the change is needed so states like theirs, which have decriminalized marijuana for medical purposes, can regulate the safe distribution of the drug without risking federal prosecution. The move by the governors — Christine Gregoire of Washington, a Democrat, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, an independent who used to be a Republican — injected new political muscle into the long-running debate on the status of marijuana. Their states are among the 16 that now allow medical marijuana, but which have seen efforts to grow and distribute the drug targeted by federal prosecutors. “The divergence in state and federal law creates a situation where there is no regulated and safe system to supply legitimate patients who may need medical cannabis,” the governors wrote Wednesday to Michele M. Leonhart, the administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Marijuana is currently classified by the federal government as a Schedule I controlled substance, the same category as heroin and L.S.D. Drugs with that classification, the government says, have a high potential for abuse and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” The governors want marijuana reclassified as a Schedule II controlled substance, which would put it in the same category as drugs like cocaine, opium and morphine. The federal government says that those drugs have a strong potential for abuse and addiction, but that they also have “some accepted medical use and may be prescribed, administered or dispensed for medical use.” Such a classification could pave the way for pharmacies to dispense marijuana, in addition to the marijuana dispensaries that operate in a murky legal zone in many states. “What we have out here on the ground is chaos,” Governor Gregoire said in an interview. “And in the midst of all the chaos we have patients who really either feel like they’re criminals or may be engaged in some criminal activity, and really are legitimate patients who want medicinal marijuana. “If our people really want medicinal marijuana, then we need to do it right, we need to do it with safety, we need to do it with health in mind, and that’s best done in a process that we know works in this country — and that’s through a pharmacist.” The State of Washington approved medical marijuana in 1998, with a ballot question that won 60 percent of the vote. But like many states, Washington soon found itself in a legal gray area. The Legislature tried to clarify things last spring, when it passed a bill to legalize and regulate marijuana dispensaries and growers. But the Justice Department warned that growing and distributing marijuana was still against federal law, and said that “state employees who conducted activities mandated by the Washington legislative proposals would not be immune from liability.” Ms. Gregoire, while sympathetic to the goals of the bill, wound up vetoing much of it. It was similar on the other side of the country, where Rhode Island passed a law authorizing state-regulated marijuana dispensaries. This fall Governor Chafee said he could not go ahead with the plan because federal prosecutors had warned him that dispensaries could be targets of prosecution. Advocates for medical marijuana praised the move on Wednesday, but said the governors should not wait for the federal government before going forward with state initiatives. Opponents said that even if marijuana was reclassified, it was unlikely that pharmacies would be able to dispense it, because the drug is usually smoked and comes in varied strengths. As recently as June the D.E.A. denied a petition to reclassify marijuana, based on a review conducted several years earlier. But Ms. Gregoire and Mr. Chafee said the attitude of the medical community had changed since the government last reviewed the issue. In 2009 the American Medical Association changed its position and called for reviewing the classification of marijuana, saying that the current classification was limiting clinical research. Ms. Gregoire noted that many doctors believe it makes no sense to place marijuana in a more restricted category than opium and morphine. “People die from overdose of opiates,” she said. “Has anybody died from marijuana?” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/us/federal-marijuana-classification-should-change-gregoire-and-chafee-say.html

16 Legal Medical Marijuana States & DC

Source: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881

Medical Marijuana

This statement was adopted by the full Medical Board on May 7, 2004. For more information, please see our news release dated May 13, 2004. On November 5, 1996, the people of California passed Proposition 215. Through this Initiative Measure, Section 11362.5 was added to the Health & Safety Code, and is also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The purposes of the Act include, in part: "(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where the medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief; and (B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction." Furthermore, Health & Safety Code section 11362.5(c) provides strong protection for physicians who choose to participate in the implementation of the Act. - "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes." The Medical Board of California developed this statement since medical marijuana is an emerging treatment modality. The Medical Board wants to assure physicians who choose to recommend medical marijuana to their patients, as part of their regular practice of medicine, that they WILL NOT be subject to investigation or disciplinary action by the MBC if they arrive at the decision to make this recommendation in accordance with accepted standards of medical responsibility. The mere receipt of a complaint that the physician is recommending medical marijuana will not generate an investigation absent additional information indicating that the physician is not adhering to accepted medical standards. These accepted standards are the same as any reasonable and prudent physician would follow when recommending or approving any other medication, and include the following: History and an appropriate prior examination of the patient. Development of a treatment plan with objectives. Provision of informed consent including discussion of side effects. Periodic review of the treatment's efficacy. Consultation, as necessary. Proper record keeping that supports the decision to recommend the use of medical marijuana. In other words, if physicians use the same care in recommending medical marijuana to patients as they would recommending or approving any other medication, they have nothing to fear from the Medical Board. Here are some important points to consider when recommending medical marijuana: Although it could trigger federal action, making a recommendation in writing to the patient will not trigger action by the Medical Board of California. A patient need not have failed on all standard medications, in order for a physician to recommend or approve the use of medical marijuana. The physician should determine that medical marijuana use is not masking an acute or treatable progressive condition, or that such use will lead to a worsening of the patient's condition. The Act names certain medical conditions for which medical marijuana may be useful, although physicians are not limited in their recommendations to those specific conditions. In all cases, the physician should base his/her determination on the results of clinical trials, if available, medical literature and reports, or on experience of that physician or other physicians, or on credible patient reports. In all cases, the physician must determine that the risk/benefit ratio of medical marijuana is as good, or better, than other medications that could be used for that individual patient. A physician who is not the primary treating physician may still recommend medical marijuana for a patient's symptoms. However, it is incumbent upon that physician to consult with the patient's primary treating physician or obtain the appropriate patient records to confirm the patient's underlying diagnosis and prior treatment history. The initial examination for the condition for which medical marijuana is being recommended must be in-person. Recommendations should be limited to the time necessary to appropriately monitor the patient. Periodic reviews should occur and be documented at least annually or more frequently as warranted. If a physician recommends or approves the use of medical marijuana for a minor, the parents or legal guardians must be fully informed of the risks and benefits of such use and must consent to that use. Physicians may wish to refer to the following CMA documents: ON-CALL Document #1315 titled "The Compassionate Use Act of 1996", updated annually for additional information and guidance - http://www.cmanet.org/bookstore/freeoncall2.cfm/CMAOnCall1315.pdf?call_number=1315&CFID=745764&CFTOKEN=27566287 "Physician Recommendation of Medical Cannabis", Guidelines of the Council on Scientific Affairs Subcommittee on Medial Marijuana Practice Advisory - http://www.mbc.ca.gov/medical_marijuana_cma-recommend.pdf Although the Compassionate Use Act allows the use of medical marijuana by a patient upon the recommendation or approval of a physician, California physicians should bear in mind that marijuana is listed in Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act, which means that it has no accepted medical use under federal law. However, in Conant v. Walters (9th Cir.2002) F.3d 629 the United States Court of Appeals recognized that physicians have a constitutionally-protected right to discuss medical marijuana as a treatment option with their patients and make oral or written recommendation for medical marijuana. However, the court cautioned that physicians could exceed the scope of this constitutional protection if they conspire with, or aid and abet, their patients in obtaining medical marijuana.