Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.A- City Clerk DOC ID: 4526 E CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO — O REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Q Election From: Georgeann "Gigi" Hanna M/CC Meeting Date: 07/05/2016 Prepared by: Georgeann "Gigi" Hanna, Dept: City Clerk Ward(s): All Subject: Consideration of the San Bernardino Regulate Marijuana Act of 2016 and Either Pass Said Ordinance Without Alteration or Call a Special Election to be Set for November 8, 2016 in the Presidential Election Conducted by the County of San Bernardino and Authorizing the Prepayment of the Costs for the Said Election to the County of San Bernardino. (#4526) Current Business Registration Certificate: Not Applicable Financial Impact: Account Budgeted Amount: <<Insert Amount>> Account No. <<Insert Account No.>> Account Description: <<Insert Account Description>> Balance as of: <<Insert Date>> Balance after approval of this item: <<Insert Amount>> Motion: The Mayor and Common Council hereby pass the San Bernardino Regulate Marijuana Act of 2016 as presented by the Petitioners without alteration and do hereby enact the addition of Chapter 19.420 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code. OR The Mayor and Common Council call for a Special Election at which the San Bernardino Regulate Marijuana Act of 2016, without alteration, will to be submitted to a vote of the people during the Presidential Primary Election held on November 8, 2016 Conducted by the County of San Bernardino and Authorizing prepayment of the costs for said election to the County of San Bernardino. Background: On April 6, 2016, a Notice of Intent to Circulate a Petition was filed in the City Clerk's office. (Attached) by proponents for the San Bernardino Regulate Marijuana Act of 2016. This set off a series of actions that are outlined in the attached Initiative Process Outline, which is a cheat-sheet of sorts that explains how the City's Municipal Code, Charter and the State Election Codes combine to create deadlines for the process. On April 21, the City Attorney provided a Ballot Title and Summary (attached) to the proponents. They began circulating petitions shortly thereafter. Updated: 6/27/2016 by Linda Sutherland E ;"�" �'sl'0 4526 On June 8, the proponents turned in six boxes of petitions to the City Clerk's Office for review. The City Clerk did an initial analysis and turned the petitions over to the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters (ROV) on Monday, June 13. The ROV was unable to do a 100% count of the ballots because of the workload involved in counting ballots for the Presidential Primary, which had occurred the week before. State law allows a statistically significant sample of the petitions to suffice. The ROV counted approximately 8 percent of the returns and found 87 % of them valid. As this sample is larger than that required by the California Elections Code, the City Clerk accepted this sample as large enough to determine sufficiency and issued a certificate indicating that, on June 21, 2016. The Mayor and Common Council have two options: Pass such ordinance without alteration within 20 days after the Certificate of Sufficiency is issued. (by July 11) If the ordinance is passed by Council, but vetoed by the Mayor, and on reconsideration shall fail of passage by the Council, then, within 5 days after determination that said ordinance shall have so failed of final adoption, the Council shall proceed to call a special election at which said ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted to a vote of the people; OR Proceed to call a special election at which said ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted to a vote of the people. The cost of this special election has not yet been determined by the Registrar. However, as this would be consolidated with the Presidential election, the costs would be less than a stand-alone special election. The Clerk estimates the cost to be $65,000 to $100,000, based on previous elections. This amount is included in the elections budget for 2016-17. Supporting Documents: Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition (PDF) BallotTitleandSummary_SBRMA (PDF) CertificateofSufficiency (DOCX) 1 Initiative Process Outline-Revised 4-29-2015 (DOC) 1 1 Updated: 6/27/2016 by Linda Sutherland E Rg, SAN BERNARDINO REGULATE MARIJUANA ACT OF 2016 Nib APR M 3: 44 The People of the City of San Bernardino do ordain as follows: U) a� o! SECTION 1: TITLE g This initiative shall be known as and may be cited as the San Bernardino Regulate Marijuana Act of 2016. a W 0 N 1,- SECTION 2: FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS ° U Q We the people of the City of San Bernardino do find and declare the following: A. The people of the State of California have enacted Proposition 215,the Compassionate Use Act of 1996("CUA")(codified in Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq.), which allows for the possession and cultivation of marijuana for use by certain qualified persons. a; B. In 2004, the State of California enacted Senate Bill 420,the Medical Marijuana Program Act a, ("MMPA") (codified in California Health and Safety Code section 11362.7 et seq.),which purports to clarify the scope of the CUA and which also recognized the right of cities and other governing bodies to °c adopt and enforce rules and regulations consistent with the MMPA. M _ C. In 2015,the State of California passed the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act CD ("MMRSA") to provide a State framework for licensure and regulation of medical marijuana within the m State,while continuing to recognize the authority of local governments to regulate medical marijuana U) related activity within their respective jurisdictions. N LO D. Without regulation, the cultivation and manufacturing of marijuana,and its subsequent transportation, distribution,and dispensation has potential adverse effects to the health and safety of the e community. By creating a fair anti reasonable regulatory environment for marijuana businesses,the City 0 will be able to maintain order while avoiding undue burdens on its financial resources. a a� E. Bringing marijuana into a regulated and legitimate market will create a transparent and accountable system. City revenues from a legal and regulated market can cover not only the cost of administering the L new law,but can also be used to invest in many programs,including but not limited to;public health v programs that educate youth to prevent and treat serious substance abuse;train local law enforcement to enforce the new law;invest in the community to reduce the illicit market and create job opportunities. w 0 w SECTION 3: PURPOSE AND INTENT 0 It is the intent of the people of the City of San Bernardino hi enacting this measure to: Z A.Provide for a means of cultivation,production, manufacturing,testing,transportation, E E distribution, dispensing,acquisition and use of marijuana by persons who qualify to obtain, possess,and use marijuana for purposes consistent with State law. ¢ e B.Protect public health and safety through reasonable limitations on marijuana businesses as they relate to noise,air and water quality,food safety, community safety,security,nuisance conditions and other health and safety concerns. C.Promote lively street life and high quality neighborhoods by Iimiting the concentration of marijuana businesses in the City. W o_ D.Impose fees to cover the cost to the City of regulating marijuana businesses in an amount o sufficient for the City to recover its related costs,and to help mitigate against possible adverse secondary effects. a. T E. Adopt a mechanism to monitor compliance with the provisions of this City Code and State N law. o F.Create regulations that address the particular needs of the residents and businesses of the City Q and coordinate with laws and regulations that have been or may be enacted by the State regarding the same,including but not limited to marijuana for medical or recreational use. L G.Facilitate the implementation of State law without going beyond the authority granted to the City by the State. H.Allow marijuana businesses only by persons that have demonstrated an intent and ability to comply with this City Code and State law. 0 c 1. Protect public safety by limiting the locations in the City where marijuana businesses may to operate. L C) m c co SECTION 4:AMMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT CODE w N Section 19.02:060(1),Establishment of Zoning Districts,is hereby amended to add Marijuana Business LO Overlay 1 (M-B Overlay 1)and Marijuana Business Overlay 2(M-B Overlay 2). 0 m a. SECTION S:ADDITION OF CHAPTER 19.420,"MARIJUANA BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONES a; (M-B OVERLAY),"TO TITLE 19 OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE L Chapter 19.420,entitled, Marijuana Business Overlay Zones (M-B Overlay), of Title 19,entitled Zoning, U of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code is added to read as follows: w c CHAPTER 19.420 MARIJUANA BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONES(M-B OVERLAY) 19.420.010 Intent and purpose. 0 W It is the intent and purpose of the marijuana business overlay zones(hereinafter zone"M-B Overlay 1" o and zone"M-B Overlay 2")to allow marijuana businesses in portions of the commercial and industrial Z I zones where such uses would be consistent with the general plan, compatible with surrounding commercial and industrial uses and not materially detrimental to adjacent properties;it is the further Ee intent of this chapter to regulate the location,cultivation,production,manufacturing,testing, transportation,distribution, dispensing, acquisition and use of marijuana in a manner that is consistent Q with the State Compassionate Use Act("CUA"),the State Medical Marijuana Program Act("MMPA"), and the State Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act("MMRSA"),as well as with laws and i 4Yh A< regulations that have been or may be enacted by the State regarding the same,including but not limited to marijuana for medical or recreational use; it is the further intent of this chapter to regulate marijuana businesses which,unless closely regulated,have the potential of causing serious adverse secondary effects upon the community. This chapter is intended to minimize this potential impact. To do so, the following regulations: a� A. Provide for a means of cultivation,production, manufacturing,testing, transportation, distribution,dispensing,acquisition and use by persons who qualify to obtain,possess,and use marijuana 0 for purposes consistent with State law. a. B. Protect public health and safety through reasonable limitations on marijuana businesses as they to relate to noise,air and water quality,food safety, community safety,security,nuisance conditions and N ~- other health and safety concerns; 0 U C. Promote lively street life and high quality neighborhoods by limiting the concentration of marijuana businesses in the City; D.Impose fees to cover the cost to the City of regulating marijuana businesses in an amount sufficient for the City to recover its related costs,and to help mitigate against possible adverse secondary effects; a� E.Adopt a mechanism to monitor compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and State law; 0 F. Create regulations that address the particular needs of the residents and businesses of the City E U and coordinate with laws and regulations that have been or may be enacted by the State regarding the M same, including but not limited to marijuana for medical or recreational use; F in G. Facilitate the implementation of State law without going beyond the authority granted to the � City by them; H. Allow marijuana businesses only by persons that have demonstrated an intent and ability to LO comply with this Chapter and State law; I.Protect public safety by limiting the locations in the City where marijuana businesses may o operate. 0 0 19.420.020 Definitions. � "Assessor's Parcel Number" or"(APN)"means the Assessor's Parcel Number as assigned by the San ` U Bernardino County Assessor and relates to the real property which it identified as of January 1,2015. o "Building"means any structure having a roof supported by columns or by walls and designed for the shelter or housing of any person,chattel or property of any kind. 4- 0 "Bureau"has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time,but if that definition is amended by State law in the future,as amended. Currently under MMRSA,it means the Bureau of o Medical Marijuana Regulation within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Z c "Canopy"means the area of floor space covered by any part of a marijuana plant when viewed from E above. U R "Cannabis"has the same meaning as cannabis or marijuana as provided in MMRSA at this time,but if Q that definition is amended by State law in the future,as amended. Currently under MMRSA,Cannabis � ,� q 1Pack�eyt�Pg��3,9�0; 4 means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis,whether growing or not;the seeds thereof;the resin,whether crude or purified, extracted from any part of the plant;and every compound,manufacture,salt, derivative,mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin. "Cannabis"also means the separated resin,whether crude or purified, obtained from marijuana. ILI "Cannabis"also means marijuana as defined by Section 11018 of the Health and Safety Code as enacted by Chapter 1407 of the Statutes of 1972."Cannabis"does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber W a� produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant,any other compound,manufacture, c salt,derivative,mixture,or preparation of the mature stalks(except the resin extracted therefrom),fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.For the purpose of this chapter,"cannabis"does not mean"industrial hemp"as defined by Section 81000 of the Food and Agricultural Code or Section 11018.5 of the Health and Safety Code. CD w "City" means City of San Bernardino,California. Q "City council"shall mean the city council of the City of San Bernardino, California. M "Code" means City of San Bernardino municipal code, including development code. CZ "Commercial cannabis activity"has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time, but if that definition is amended by State law in the future,as amended. Currently under MMRSA, it means cultivation,possession,manufacture,processing,storing,Iaboratory testing,labeling,transporting, distribution, or sale of marijuana or a marijuana product, except as set forth in Section 19319,related to qualifying individuals. _ 'a low" "Conviction" means a plea or verdict of guilty,or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere. � L "Cultivation"has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time,but if that definition m is amended by State law in the future,as amended. Currently under MMRSA, it means any activity involving the planting,growing,harvesting,drying, curing,grading,or trimming of cannabis. "Cultivation Site"has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time,but if that 0 definition is amended by State law in the future,as amended. Currently under MMRSA,it means a facility where marijuana is planted,grown,harvested,dried,cured,graded, or trimmed,or that does all or any combination of those activities,that holds a valid state license pursuant to this chapter,and that holds a) a valid local license or permit. (L 2 "Delivery"has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time,but if that definition is amended by State law in the future, as amended. Currently under MMRSA,it means the commercial U transfer of marijuana or marijuana products from a dispensary,up to an amount determined by the bureau to a primary caregiver or qualified patient as defined in Section 11362.7 of the Health and Safety Code, or a testing laboratory. "Delivery"also includes the use by a dispensary of any technology platform owned c and controlled by the dispensary, or independently licensed under this chapter, that enables qualified o individuals to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer by a licensed dispensary of marijuana or 0 marijuana products. o Z "Dispensary" has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time,but if that definition is amended by State law in the future, as amended. Currently under MMRSA, it means a facility where E E marijuana,marijuana products,or devices for the use of marijuana or marijuana products are offered, U either individually or in any combination, for retail sale,including an establishment that delivers,pursuant Q s to express authorization by local ordinance, marijuana and marijuana products as part of a retail sale. , cketPg 1391 I?a "Dispensing" has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time,but if that definition is amended by State law in the future,as amended. Currently under MMRSA, it means any activity involving the retail sale of marijuana or marijuana products from a dispensary. "Distribution"has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time,but if that definition —� is amended by State law in the future, as amended. Currently under MMRSA, it means the procurement, sale,and transport of marijuana and marijuana products between entities licensed pursuant to this chapter. c 0 "Distributor" has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time,but if that definition is amended by State law in the future,as amended. Currently under MMRSA, it means a person licensed a. under this chapter to engage in the business of purchasing marijuana from a licensed cultivator,or marijuana products fi-om a licensed manufacturer,for sale to a licensed dispensary. ,N 0 "Director" means the City of San Bernardino Planning Director,'or his/her designee. Q "Greenhouse"means a building, typically constructed of a translucent building material in which plants are grown in a controlled environment. For the purposes of this chapter a cultivation site within a Greenhouse is considered to be an indoor cultivation site. "Indoor"means situated,conducted,or used within a building or under cover. 5 "Licensee"means a person issued a state marijuana business license under State law. o: "Manufacturer"has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time,but if that °c definition is amended by State law in the future,as amended. Currently under MMRSA,it means a person that conducts the production,preparation,propagation,or compounding of manufactured marijuana, as described in subdivision(ae), or marijuana products either directly or indirectly or by ra extraction methods, or independently by means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis at a fixed location that packages or repackages marijuana or marijuana products or U) labels or relabels its container,that holds a valid state license pursuant to this chapter,and that holds a N LO valid local license or permit. "Manufactured cannabis"has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time,but if o that definition is amended by State law in the future,as amended. Currently under MMRSA,it means raw cannabis that has undergone a process whereby the raw agricultural product has been transformed a. into a concentrate,an edible product,or a topical product. "Manufacturing site" has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time,but if that L definition is amended by State law in the future, as amended. Currently under MMRSA,it means a o location that produces,prepares,propagates,or compounds manufactured marijuana or marijuana products, directly or indirectly,by extraction methods,independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis,and is owned and operated by a licensee for these ,- 0 activities. m "Marijuana"has the same meaning as cannabis. 0 0 z "Medical marijuana"has the same meaning as marijuana. 1 E "Nursery"has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time,but if that definition is amended by State law in the future,as amended. Currently under MMRSA,it means a licensee that .r produces only clones, immature plants,seeds,and other agricultural products used specifically for the a planting,propagation,and cultivation of marijuana. Plac 1cetPg' 7'3,9,2 . "Permit"means a marijuana business permit issued by the City that authorizes a person to conduct commercial marijuana activity,pursuant to this chapter. "Permittee"means a person issued a permit under this chapter to engage in commercial marijuana activity. "Person"has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time,but if that definition is amended by State law in the future,as amended. Currently under MMRSA,it means an individual, firm, o partnership,joint venture,association,corporation, limited liability company, estate,trust,business trust, receiver,syndicate,or any other group or combination acting as a unit and includes the plural as well as a. the singular number. c N "Premise"means a distinct and definite location, which may include a building,a part of a building,a o room or any other defined contiguous area. a "Parcel" means a contiguous quantity of land,in the possession of,or owned by,or recorded as the property of the same claimant or person. "State law"means the State Compassionate Use Act("CUA"),the State Medical Marijuana Program Act ("MMPA"),and the State Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act("MMRSA"),as well as with laws and regulations that have been or may be enacted by the State regarding the same,including but not limited to marijuana for medical or recreational use,as it existed as of January 1,2016. 0 "Transport"has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time,but if that definition is amended by State law in the future,as amended. Currently under MMRSA,it means the transfer of marijuana or marijuana products from the permitted business location of one licensee to the permitted a business location of another licensee, for the purposes of conducting commercial cannabis activity 00 authorized pursuant to this chapter. "Transporter"has the same meaning as the term as provided in MMRSA at this time, but if that definition N LO is amended by State law in the future,as amended. Currently under MMRSA, it means a person issued a state license by the bureau to transport marijuana or marijuana products in an amount above a threshold determined by the bureau between facilities that have been issued a state license pursuant to this chapter. m "Zoning code" means Title 19(zoning)of the Code. �- a� 19.420.040 Location,type,and numerical limits requirements. To provide for safe, convenient access for the citizens and patients of San Bernardino: v 0 A. Marijuana businesses shall only be located within the M-B Overlay I or M-B Overlay 2,and shall not be located: c w 1.Within the distance restrictions of the uses as described in Business and Professions Code 0 w Section 19322 as of January 1, 2016; or Y 0 2.Within 600 feet from an property zoned RE RL RS RU RM RMH or RH as of January 1 Z Y p P Y � Y 2016. a� E The distances specified in this section shall be measured in a straight line,without regard to intervening v structures, from the nearest point of the property line of the premises in which the proposed marijuana Q business is to be established to the nearest point of the property line of a use or zoning classification listed above. Pii'd etlt?g �� Non-conforming residential uses are not sensitive uses. The subsequent establishment of a sensitive use or sensitive zone as outlined in this section shall not N disqualify an existing marijuana business. N N B.Only the following marijuana business state license types:Cultivation(IA, 1B,2A,213,and 4); Manufacturing(6,7);Testing(8);Dispensary(10, l0a);Transportation(11);and Distribution(12)as o defined in the State law will be allowed within the M-B Overlay zones as follows: m a Table 1: r O State License Types Allowed by M-B Overlay zones N 4- 0 M-B Overlay zone , State License M-B Overlay 1 - - - ._...._..........._...............- - - - - .._IA, 1B,2A,2B,4,6,7,8, 11 and 12. .........-- -- ..:_..........._j �s --- - M-B Overlay... ................................................_..................._........;...lA,6,8, 10, l0A, 11 and..l?_:.. ...... .......................... ..t CU C.Assignment of M-B Overlay 1 and M-B Overlay 2 on Specific Parcels. Table 2(Assignment of M-B Overlay 1 and M-B Overlay 2 by Parcel)lists every parcel within the City that is included in either M-B Overlay 1 or M-B Overlay 2. a� O C Table 2: a ro Assignment of M-B Overlay 1 and M-B Overlay 2 by Parcel. m c v) APN Overlay one APiV Overlay one ----.._....----------- -- ----Y---- -_...-- — ---__.._.-.... -------.-._.....►......--- .—y._.......... -- --...--- --i co 0136-462-01 M-B Overlay 1 0136-451-12 M Overlay 1 u 0136-462.02 _ - -M_B Overlay 1 ——; M-B Overlay 1 _ 0136-462-03 M B Overlay 1_ __^ 0136-451-14 _ M B Overlayl_ o 0136-462-04 M-B Overlay 1 0136-451-16 M-B Overlay 1_ — } ---- -_ m 0136-462-05 M-B Overlay 1 0136-451-17 _ I M_B Overlay 1 _ _- d 0136-462-06 M-B Overlay 1 _ 0136-451-22 M-B Overlay 1 - 0136-462-07 M-B Overlay 1 0136-441-02 r M-B Overlay 1 _0136-462-08 ^_ M-B Overlay 1__—� 0136-441-03 _ _ _ M_B Overlay 1 0136-462-09 _ _ M-B Overlay 1_ _ 0136-441-04 M-B Overlay 1 0 0136-462-10 M-B Overlay 1 - 0136-411-01 ___ ,1 M-B Overlay 1 —__..........-j 0136-4 1 �..0136 411-02 ? M-M-13 Overlay-1 62-11 M-B Overlay t- --lay c 0136-462-12 M-B Overlay 1- _ 0136-411-03 ; M-B Overlay 1 -0136_462-13__.._..__ ._--M_B Overlay 1 - - — 0136-411.04 _- 1 M-B Overlay 1 ----- 0136-462-14 M-B Overlay 1 -_ - 1 0136-411-05 - ! M_B Overlay l_._.............._.... 0136-462-16 M-B Overlay 1 0136-411-06 M-B Overlay 1 _ ? O --.__ z _0136'452-01._..__-.----._.__..._..M:B.Overlay i ----_ 0136-411_07 ( M-B Overlay 1-- ---- 0136-452-02 M-B Overlay 1--- 0136-411-08_ _ ,( M-B Overla 1 0136-452-03 M-B Overlay 0136-41109 �M-B Overlay 1 c 0136-452-04 M-B Overlay 1 0136-411 10 1 M-B Overlay 1 k ..._...._ _._.__.__.-_._.... __ .-..........._ ____._.__._._. ! 0136-452-05 M-13 Overlay 1 _ i 0136-411-11 ;_M-B Overlay 1 - Q ............. - - Packet Pg. 1394 X0136-452-06 _ W M-B Overla „1-- 0136-411-12 ! M-B Overla 1 0136-452-07 M-B Overlay 1 _ _ 0136-411-13 0136-452-08 M-B Overlay 1_ -- 0136-4 411-14 M-B Overlay 1 0136-452-10 M-B Overlay 1_ �- 0136-411-15�-~- M-B Overlay 1 -j 0136-452-11 M-B Overlay 1 0136-421-01 M-13 Overlay 1 o! _-.__.._....................... ..._._ ___.._......._ _......._ 0136-452-12 M-B Overlay 1 0136-421-02 M-B Overlay 1 0 0136-452-13 M-B Overlay 1 - _ 0136-421-03 — M-B Overlay 1- ! 0136-452-14 _. ._.____.._._._M-B Overlay 1- __- 0136-421-04 _ M-B Overlay_1_......_..____.._...i a 0136-452-15 M-B Overlay 1 _ - 0136-421-05 _1 M B Overlay 1 -__- 0136-452-16 M-B Overlay 1 -_ 0136-421-06 - M B Overlay 1 - N 0136-452-17 M-B Overlay 1 0136-421-07 M-B Overlay1 j o 0136-452-18 M-B Overlay 1 0136-421-08 M-B Overlay _0136-4_52-19 J- M-B Overlay 1 _- 0136-421-09 _ _-^�M_B Overlayl 0136-452-23 M-B_Overlay 1 M�-- 0136412-01_---_ M B Overlay 1 0136-452-24 - M-13 Overlay 1 0136-412-02 M B Overlay 1 0136-452-25 M-B Overlay 1 0136-412-03 M-B Overlay 1 0136-452-26 M-6 Overlay 1 0136-412-04 M-B Overlay 1 ____.--_-__._....__...._....._.._...... 0136-442-01_ M-B Overlay 1_ 0136-412_05 __-„- -_M_B Overlay 1 - _ - ! 0136-442-02 M-B Overlay 1 0136-412-06 1 M-B Overlay 1 0136-442-03 M-B Overlay 1 -- _ 0136-412-07 1 M-B Overlay 1 -` -i °c 0136-442-04 M-B Overlay 1 _...._..__.0136-412-0$ __ 1 M-B Overlay 1 0136-442-05 M-B Overlay 1 1 0136-412-09 M-B Overlay 1 ! 0136-442-06 M-B Overlay 1 0136-412-10 M-B Overlay 1 .._.._._._.___..__......__...._.._._._._._.__...__...___.._._.._..__.._--'----....._..__.. ._ ._._....._----_......._..._................_.._.III.._ __.____._..__..__...................___1 0136.442-07 -_ M-B Overlay 1�— _~ 0136-412-11 _ , M-B Overlay 1 0136-442-08 M-B Overlay 1 0136-412-12 MB Overlay 1 0136-431-14 - - M_B Overlay 1 _ 0136-412-14 _I M-B Overlay 1 -_ 0136-431-15 _ M-B Overlay 1 X0136-412^28 - - 1 M-B Overlay 1 - -; 6-431-33 - - M-B Overlay 1 -- _ 0136-422-01 -- -1 M-13 Overlay 1 0136-431-34 M-B Overlay 1 0136-422-02 . M-B Overlay 1 j c 1 0136-461-01 _ M-B Overlay 1 - _0136-422-03 _ !_M_B Overlay 1_ 0136-461-02 M-B Overlay 1 0136-422-04 ! M-B Overlay 1 i 0136-461-03 M-B Overlay 1 0136.422-05 M-B Overlay 1 w 0136-461-04 M-B Overlay__- -_ 0136-422-06 1__M-B.Overlay 1 0136-461-05 -- - M-B Overlay 1- -^ 0136-422-07 _ _ _M_B Overlay 1 0136-461-0� M-B Overlay 1 0136-422-08 M-B Overlay 1 - U 0136-461-07 M-B Overlay 1 M-B Overlay 1 0136 0136-461-08 B_ .....M- Overlay 1 0136-422-10 --�M-B Overlay 1...._......- 0136-461-09 M-B Overlay 1 0136-422-11 ! M-B Overla y 1 _ 0136-461-10 M-B Overlay 1 0266-362-25 - M-B Overlay 1 - --; o 0136-461-11 M-B Overlay 1 _ 0266-362-10 ! M-B Overlay 0136-461-12 - -M-B Overlay 1 _ _...__..___..0266362-07 _ ! M-B Overlay l _ _ z 0136-461-13 M-B Overlay 1 _ �- 0266-362-06 _-- _M-B Overlay 1 - -1 -0136-461-14 -- .M-B Overlay 1 -0266-362-01 .__._M-B Overlay 1 0136-461-15 E M-B Overlay 1 0266-362-24 - , M-8 Overlay 1 0136-461-16 M-B Overlay 1 0266-362-05 rM-B Overlay_1 - - o ! 0136-461-17 ..................._1._M-B Overlay 1 ..._..................1.._0266-362-03 _._........__......._..1...M-B Overlay 1•.........._...._...... Q 1111L Packet Pg. '1395 rr��r 7A.a ------------- 0136-451-01 M-B Overlay 1 - 0266-362-04 1 M-13 Overlay 1 0136-451-02 ' M-B Overla 1 0266-362-20 M-B Overlay 1 ! - - ------ --- ------ -- ..Y -------- ----------..._.._. 0136-451-03 M_-B Overlay 1 _ 0266-362-19 M-B Overlay 1 , = 0136-451-04 -- -M-B Overlay 1 -0266-362-18 - ^M-B Overlay 1 0136-451-07__..---...___._...M--B-Overlay 1_.__.___..__._....0266.362-17 ---- _.._.__..._M-B Overlay.1 _..._........... 0136-451-08 _ M-13 Overlay 1 _ w 026636216 _..__... .M-B Over}ay_1•,-_._-..---.__......j °_ 0136-451-09 - M-B Overlay 1 -^0266-721-04 M-B Overlay 1 0136-451-10 M-B Overla 1 0266-721-01 M-B Overla 1 ; o- ...___.____..___.___._...___.__......____.__..---...._._.._......___Y....__...._________.._.._..___..___.._..._....___.... .__....__..' cD 0136-451-11 _ M-B Overlay 1 _ 026_6-721-02 t M-B Overlay 1 _ _- .... - - ------------- o 0154-241-38 M-B Overlay 2_ - -_ 0266-363-33 M-8 Overlay 1 N ___._._..._.... 0149-191-24 M-B Overlay 2 0266-363-34 M-B Overlay 1 } o .. . _ F...- --- .__..._............._......._....--} ... --.. -__.._.._..........._._.._....._..., 0150-323-05 M-B Overlay 2_ _ _ 0266-363-63 M-B Overlay 1 <t f0285-176-01 _ _M-B Overlay 2 _ ( 0266-363-62 _ M-B Overly 1 _- } 011_4-201-61 M-B Overlay 2^ -- I-0146-241-16 - M-B Overlay 2 -- j i 0146-241-12---- -y - M-B Overlay 2 0138-081-19 -M-B Overlay 2 ------ ---.-----....-............_ 0138-081-18 MA- Overlay 2__- 0141-222-24 M-B Overlay 2..... 0141-222-26 M-B Overlay.2....._..__...__.._...._... _0135-081-34._.........._ }.M--B Overlay 2 .._............. _._..._.......! co 0135-081 20 M-13 Overlay 2 0135-081-22 M-B Overlay 2 i 0135-081-21 -- _-M-B Overlay 2 - - 0135-081-28 M-B Overlay 2 i } 0141-412-38 M-B Overlay 2 i 0142-541-37 M-B Overlay 2 o (. -- ..._....._......_....._...................._ .__..._..._........ ......_........_. .....a.. --------........._._......................._'._..._..— ..._.................... ! c D.Should a lot be split or a different Assessor's Parcel Number(APN)be assigned,for any reason,in m whole or in part,to any real property listed in the table above,all rights,permissions,and restrictions granted by the establishment of the overlay zone shall run with the real property as identified by the APN cn in Table 2 of this Chapter as of January 1,2016. N Lo E. No more than a total of five(5)marijuana business dispensaries may operate within the City at any one time. 0 19.420.050 Development Standards. 4 The following development standards shall apply to: A. All marijuana businesses 1. No marijuana business shall be located in any temporary or portable structure. �y 2. Trash dumpsters shall be enclosed by a screening enclosure so as not to be accessible to the o public. 3. No exterior door or window on the premises shall be propped or kept open at any time while the c business is open,and all exterior windows shall be covered with opaque covering at all times. - 4. Permanent barriers shall be installed and maintained to screen the interior of the premises from d public view for each door used as an entrance or exit to the business. 5. The entire exterior grounds,including the parking lot,shall be lighted in such a manner that all zo areas are clearly visible at all times. 6. Signage shall conform to the standards established for the zone and shall not contain marijuana oriented photographs,silhouettes or other marijuana oriented pictorial representations. 7. All entrances to marijuana businesses shall be clearly and legibly posted by a notice indicating that minors are prohibited from entering the premises. a • Packet Pg. 1396 8. No residential structure shall be converted for use as a marijuana business. 9. No marijuana business shall be operated in any manner that permits the observation of any persons or material depicting,describing or related to specified marijuana activities inside the premises,from any public way or from any location outside the building or area of such establishment.This provision shall apply to any merchandise, display, decoration,sign,show N window or other opening. 10. All exterior areas of the marijuana business, including buildings,landscaping,and parking areas o shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner at all times. 11. Any business license or permit required by this Code shall be kept current at all times n 12. Shall install and maintain a fully operational digital video surveillance and camera recording system that monitors no less than the front and rear of the Premises,all points of ingress and C14 egress at the marijuana business. The video and surveillance system shall,at a minimum meet the o following requirements: Q a. Capture a full view of the public right-of--ways and any parking lot under the control of the marijuana businesses; b. Be of adequate quality,color rendition and resolution to allow the ready identification of CZ any individual committing a crime anywhere on or adjacent to the exterior of the a� property; c. Record and maintain video for a minimum of fourteen(14)days. a� 13. Install and use a fire and burglar alarm system that is monitored by a company that is staffed o twenty-four hours(24)a day,seven(7)days a week. �a 14. Shall not maintain more marijuana on the premises than is permitted under applicable State law. CD 15. Report to the proper authorities any diversion,theft,or loss as required by State law. m CO ca 16. Shall be ventilated so that the odor of marijuana cannot be detected at any property adjoining the CD parcel on which the marijuana business is located. 17. Shall operate in a manner consistent with State law governing the activities of their marijuana business license type. 2 w B. Marijuana business dispensaries a 1. Shall not operate or be open between the hours of 12:00 a.m.(midnight) -and 6:00 a.m. 2. Shall install and use a safe for storage of any processed marijuana and cash on the property when U the business is closed to the public. For marijuana-infused products that must be kept refrigerated v or fi•ozen,the business shall lock the refrigerated container or freezer in place. 3. No person, other than a qualified patient,qualified customer,permittee,licensee, employee, c contractor or individual authorized by State law,shall be in the marijuana business dispensary. 4. Consultations by medical professionals shall not be permitted within the marijuana business o dispensary. 5. Smoking Prohibition. Smoking of Tobacco in all workplaces,including marijuana dispensaries is, Z prohibited. However,recognizing that some qualified patients may have an immediate inedical need, consumption of edible marijuana products,marijuana tinctures,smoking of marijuana and/or vaporizing of marijuana is permitted,provided such consumption occurs within the dispensary and is not visible from any public place. Q 19.420.060 Permitted zone classification. PPackeOft 397, Premises may be used for marijuana businesses only in zones M-B Overlay 1 and M-B Overlay 2 in accordance with section 19.420.040 of this chapter. 19.420.070 Marijuana business permit—Required, Y No marijuana business shall be established until an application for a marijuana business permit is approved by the director pursuant to the procedures set forth in this chapter. c 0 19.420.080 Marijuana business permit—Application, Y m Applications for a marijuana business permit or marijuana business permit renewal shall be filed,with a co a director,on a form supplied by the city. An application for a marijuana business permit or renewal shall o be filed in a manner consistent with the requirements contained in Chapter 19.32(Applications and Fees). o Such application shall contain: Q co A. The name and address of the applicant; c B. Evidence that the applicant: 1. Is the owner of the premises involved,or 2. Has the permission of such owner to make such application, or a: 3. Is or will be the plaintiff in an action in eminent domain to acquire the premises involved; 0 �a ' C. The legal description of,and if there is a street address,the street address, otherwise a description o of,the premises upon which the requested use is to be maintained; P � m D. If the applicant is not the owner,the name and address of the owner, and the nature of the applicant's interest in the premises involved; E. A detailed site plan showing,at a minimum, the proposed location of all buildings and structures, LO landscaped areas,parking areas, driveways and means of ingress and egress; c 0 F. A statement detailing the uses for each building and structure as shown on the site plan; a.Y m G. A detailed facility floor plan showing,at a minimum,the proposed uses of the floor area depicted on the floor plan. The floor plan need not be professionally prepared,but must be drawn to a designated scale or drawn with marked dimensions of the interior of the premises to an accuracy of plus or minus six inches. v 0 Y H. Three copies of white background prints of a map drawn to scale specified by the city engineer, showing the location of the property concerned; and the location of all highways,streets and alleys and all lots and parcels of land within a distance of six hundred feet from the exterior boundaries of the proposed o w use; � I. One copy of the map referred to in subsection H of this section shall show the use to which each Z and every lot and parcel of land is put; w J. A plan for ventilation of the marijuana business that describes the ventilation system that will be E used to prevent any odor of marijuana off the premises of the business. M K. Live Scan fingerprints of the applicant to enable the San Bernardino Police Department to Q perform a background check on the applicant. xPa c ketPg�1398Ek= L. A fully legible copy of one valid government issued form of photo identification,such as a State Driver's License or Identification Card showing that the applicant is 21 years of age or older. M. A signed statement by the applicant that he/she certifies under penalty of perjury that all N information contained in the application is true and correct. d 19.420.090 Application fee. c When a marijuana business permit application is filed, it shall be accompanied by a filing fee in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars($250.00), n 19.420.100 Permit application and renewal—Review and approval. o N A. Within 30 days after the application has been submitted,the director shall review the application, cause the property to be inspected as he or she deems appropriate,and shall approve, or deny the Q application under the following conditions: 1. The director will issue the marijuana business permit if all applicable requirements of this :L chapter and this Code are satisfied. a� 2. If the director finds that any of the applicable requirements of this chapter or this code are not satisfied, or finds that the applicant has been previously found guilty of a felony within the last 10 years,or finds evidence that the applicant has provided materially false information,the application will be denied. 0 ..,, 19.420.110 Permit fee. c A. When a marijuana business permit application is approved or renewed,permittee shall remit to the m City a permit fee in the amount of set forth by State issued license type below: 1.Marijuana business cultivation-Any and all State License Type IA, 1B,2A,and 2B marijuana N businesses shall pay an annual fee of five dollars($5.00)per square foot of canopy as defined in LO this Code. c 0 2. Marijuana business manufacturing-Any and all State License Type 6,and 7 marijuana businesses shall pay an annual fee of five dollars($5.00)per square foot of the premises occupied by such businesses. 3. Marijuana business testing-Any and all State License Type 8 marijuana businesses shall pay an annual fee of five dollars($5.00)per square foot of the premises occupied by such businesses. 0 0 4.Marijuana business distribution-Any and all State License Type 11 marijuana businesses shall pay an annual fee of one hundred dollars($100.00)per transportation and distribution vehicles and five dollars($5.00)per square foot of the premises in which their offices and marijuana o storage facilities occupy. 0 5.Marijuana business transportation-Any and all State License Type 12 marijuana businesses z shall pay an annual fee of one hundred dollars($100.00)per transportation and distribution vehicle and five dollars($5.00)per square foot of the premises in which their offices and E marijuana storage facilities occupy. Y 4 6. Marijuana business dispensaries Any and all State License Type 10,and I OA marijuana businesses shall pay an annual fee of five dollars($5.00)per square foot of the premises occupied by such businesses. 7.Marijuana business nurseries—Any and all State License Type 4 marijuana businesses shall pay an annual fee of one dollar($1.00)per square foot of canopy as defined in this Code. B. The permit fees generated shall be deposited into the general fund and the City Council shall consider o the following priorities before distributing the funds: a. 1.Enforcement of this provision. r- 0 N 2.Mitigating possible adverse effects on local area youth through support of after school o programs,drug education,and at risk youth programs d 3.Infrastructure improvements within the City limits. _ ca 4.Funding of City employee pension obligations. CZ C. The City Council may impose the fees authorized by this section at a lower rate. No action by the City Council under this subsection shall prevent the City Council fi-om subsequently increasing the fee rate for marijuana business permits to the maximum rates specified in section 19.420.110. tY 19.420.115 Delivery. °c Retail delivery of marijuana within the City of San Bernardino shall only be permitted by marijuana businesses that hold a valid state issued dispensary license and a valid marijuana business permit issued by the City of San Bernardino. m 19.420.120 Conflicts. In the event any provision of this Chapter 19.420 conflicts with any provision of the San Bernardino LO Municipal Code,including the Development Code,now or hereinafter enacted,the provisions of this Chapter shall prevail over the conflicting Municipal Code or Development Code provision. o 19.420.130 Compliance with applicable State law a Q Except as may be provided otherwise in this Chapter, any law or regulation adopted by the State governing the cultivation, production,manufacture,possession, transport,testing,or distribution of L marijuana shall also apply to marijuana businesses in the City. This includes, but is not limited to State v laws and regulations regarding:use of childproof product containers; labeling;patient confidentiality; ° quality control;laboratory testing; edible and infused products standards and testing; employee training; delivery;and odor control. Noncompliance with any applicable State law or regulation is unlawful and shall be grounds for revocation or suspension or any permit under this Chapter. o d 19.420.140 Suspensions or revocations. o Z The director may suspend or revoke a marijuana business permit if he/she finds that one or more of the following conditions exist: E A. The marijuana business does not comply with, and fails to remedy such non-compliance in a timely manner,any of the requirements outlined in Section 19.420.050 of this Chapter; Q err' R41«err B. The business owner, its employee,agent or manager has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction of: 1. Any violation of any statute, or any other ordinance arising from any act performed in the N exercise of any rights granted by the permit,the revocation of which is under consideration, or N 2. Any offense involving the maintenance of a nuisance caused by any act performed in the exercise of any rights granted by the permit the revocation of which is now under consideration; o C. The business owner,its employee, agent or manager has knowingly made any false,misleading a or fraudulent statement of material fact in the application for a permit, co 0 N 19.420.150 Appeals. o Any person aggrieved by a decision of the director made under this chapter has the right to appeal such decision as follows: c A. Notice of Appeal. Any decision of the director made under this chapter will become final within ten days from the date such notice is served,unless within that ten-day period an appeal is filed with the city clerk,including payment of the applicable fee established by city council resolution. The appeal notice must state,with specificity,the factual and legal basis of the appeal. a� B. Scheduling of Appeal Hearing.The city clerk will expeditiously schedule a hearing before a hearing officer and notify the appellant,in writing, of the day,time and location of the hearing, which c° may be held no later than thirty days after the notice of appeal is received by the city;provided,however, the hearing may be held after such thirty-day period upon the request or concurrence of the appellant.The E time for compliance of any original order will be stayed during the pendency of the appeal hearing. ap c C. Hearing by Hearing Officer. The hearing officer will consider the testimony of the appellant, city ci staff or agents,and any other testimony or evidence relevant to the decision. The hearing officer must provide the appellant with a written decision within ten days from the date of the conclusion of the LO hearing. The decision of the hearing officer will be final and conclusive. c 0 D. Any person dissatisfied with the hearing officer's decision may seek prompt judicial review of CD such decision pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.8. ate. w 19.420.160 Severability U If any provision in this Chapter,or part thereof,or the application of any provision or part to any person 0 or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional,the remaining provisions and parts shall not be affected,but shall remain in full force and effect,and to this end the provisions of this Chapter are severable. c 4- 0 SECTION 6:REPEAL OF EXISTING CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO CODE z A. Chapter 5.05 of Title 5 of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code is hereby repealed. B. Section 19.06.026 of Chapter 19.06 of Title 19 of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code is = 1 hereby repealed. tr 4 1 1 Packetll? pa� + � Acknowledgement of Proponent;, 4016 APR --6 PH 3, 44 I, t 6f,?,vL� acknowledge that it is a misdemeanor under state (Print Name) u law(Section 18650 of the Elections Code)to knowingly or willfully allow the signatures c 0 on an initiative petition to bd used for any purpose other than qualification of the a. proposed measure for the ballot. I certify that I will not knowingly or willfully allow the o N 4- signatures for this initiative to be used for any purpose other than qualification of the 1 Cz Q measure for the ballot. 'C fCS Q1 fC Signatur 0 c Dated this 6 day of A ,20_ZI�'_ m m �o N LO r- 0 r N L1. N w R 0 O +r C d r+ _C r.. O O V O Z +s C O E M U M Q iSl l� i Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition 4UIUMPR -6 PtI 3? 44 Notice is hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate the petition within the City of San Bernardino, CA for the purpose of regulating the marijuana industry. A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows: _ 0 • Protect the public health and safety through reasonable limitations on marijuana businesses. a. 0 N • Create regulations that address the particular needs of the residents and businesses o of the City and coordinate with laws and regulations that have been or may be Q enacted by the State. _ cc _ • Provide for a means of cultivation,production,manufacturing, testing, transportation,distribution,dispensing, acquisition and use of marijuana by persons who qualify to obtain,possess, and use marijuana for purposes consistent with State law. rn a • Bring $00+living wage jobs to the City of San Bernardino. 0 :a • Provide annual revenue of between 15 and 21 million dollars to the City of San Bernardino`s General Fund. CO LO N _ O Vincent z n San Bernardino, CA a. d U 0 c m c 0 m U O z _ m E v M a 'o- it { ."ti�:vt�:1 V 1�t� Request that a Ballot Title and Summa be re ared b tie Cl Attorne �p16 RPR -� I, �uA, GUZAMO-A , a resident of the City of San Bernardino and a (Print Name) proponent of the Regulate Marijuana Act submitted to the City Clerk of San Bernadino today, ADO,f �,_ ,2016,request that the City Attorney of San Bernardino a a. prepare a Ballot Title and Summary for the proposed measure. w 0 N 4- O U qJ� a 1 Print Name: VIIAMIA ' 7 AM b"_6 _ Signature: I' M _ a� CD w O c v c y m c CD N LO c O O a. O a+ M 7 V U O Y C M� _c 4- O 4) U a+ O Z c O E U M Q "Packet��Pg X114',04';°'' 1 PAYMENT DATE City of San Bernardino BATCH NO �� aa�' 04/06/2016 300 North "D" Street 201 6-1000 COLLECTION STATION San Bernardino, CA 92418-0001 RECEIPT NO. /alerie Montoya 2016-00014046 RECEIVED FROM CASHIER VINCENT GUZMAN Valerie Montoya DESCRIPTION MARIJUANA DISPENSARY INITIATIVE- FILING FEE a� 0: PAYMENT c 0 CODE a TRANSACTION AMOUNT, m o. CC-Lien Fees City Clerk Lien Fees $200.0 MARIJUANA DISPENSARY INITIATIVE _IV E-FILING _G..FEE ----------------------------------------- . - - -.. —_.._ Total Cash $200.00 0 Total Check $0.00 Q Total Charge $0.00 Total Other $0.00 c Total Remitted $200.00 Change $0.00 Total Received 200.00 _..._..._.............._._..............__.._$ _ g m rn m O c �a E a) m c co N d' c O r=. a7 0. O U 0 c m c 4- O a� O Z c O v Q Total Amount; $200.0 Customer Copy -----.----------------------------------------------------....................------ -- ---------- Printed by:Valerie Montoya Page 1 of 1 041061 'Packet Pg. 1405 1 INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIREW,y�q "I§°/VOTERS ZUI"The City Attorney of the City of San Bernardino has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: BALLOT TITLE A Proposed Measure Adopting Regulations Establishing Standards for the Operation of Medical Marijuana Businesses within the City of San Bernardino and Repealing Existing Municipal Code a. Provisions Prohibiting Medical Marijuana Uses. 0 N BALLOT SUMMARY o U This measure, titled "San Bernardino Regulate Marijuana Act of 2016" ("SBRMA") would repeal the City of San Bernardino's ban on certain medical marijuana uses and would establish regulations for the location, operation, and permitting of medical marijuana uses in the City of San Bernardino ("City"). The Mayor and Common Council, citing public health and safety concerns regarding medical marijuana uses and concerned about the status of state and federal law, passed Ordinance No. o MC-1349 in 2011 prohibiting medical marijuana uses within the City. The Ordinance makes the o establishment or operation of medical marijuana uses unlawful subject to administrative fines, F misdemeanor criminal prosecution,or civil nuisance abatement. m The SBRMA would repeal this ban and create operation regulations for lighting, signage, m security, odor control, and operating hours for medical marijuana uses. Medical marijuana N businesses would be required to obtain a permit by applying to the Director of Community �'- Development and would be required to pay a $250 application fee. Additional fees would be a allowed based on the type of marijuana license type and total square footage. Deliveries within m the City would only be permitted by state licensed dispensaries holding a City permit. Persons z convicted of certain felonies would be prohibited from operating a medical marijuana business. The 5BRMA would allow medical marijuana uses in two newly created overlay zones: M-B E Overlay 1 and M-B Overlay 2. _ M a M-B Overlay I allows indoor and mixed-light cultivation, manufacturing with and without Y volatile solvents,nurseries,testing,distribution,and transportation. —° m M-B Overlay I consists of two areas zoned Industrial Light. The first area is generally defined by Orange Show Road to the South, Waterman Avenue to the East, Central Avenue to the North, E and a flood control channel to the West. The second area is generally defined by University 10 Parkway to the South, Interstate 215 to the East, a flood control channel to the North, and Cajon Q Boulevard to the West. %Packe�Pg x7 1,`4,06 ^ �rr■rrr. -■ter M-B Overlay 2 would allow indoor cultivation,manufacturing without volatile solvents, testing, dispensary, distribution, and transportation. The M-B Overlay 2 is composed of 20 parcels in 12 locations distributed across the City. To operate in either M-B Overlay 1 or M-B Overlay 2 the parcel must be at least 600 feet from W any schools or residential zones. o CERTIFICATION a. This ballot title and summary are hereby submitted to the elections official in conformance with N Section 9203 of the Elections Code of the State of California. o U Dated: April 21, 2016 co cc Gary D. Saenz City Attorney m Attest: 0 c L C Georgeann anna m City Clerk N LO tt' Q m U) i E E c 0 m s c w E . s ' U Q 4 June 21, 2016 I, Georgeann Hanna, City Clerk of the City of San Bernardino, do hereby certify that there are sufficient valid signatures on the petition entitled "A Proposed Measure Adopting Regulations Establishing Standards for the Operation of Medical Marijuana Businesses within the City N of San Bernardino and Repealing Existing Municipal Code Provisions Prohibiting Medical Marijuana Uses"to qualify for the November 8, 2016 ballot. o o. r Georgeann Hanna O U Q W c ra L Q� d-+ Q L F L M(D W C co N LO !t. 7, U C N U w O O cC V d U c a� E .r Q M� CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO INITIATIVE PROCESS OUTLINE Pursuant to City Charter (Section 120), California Elections Code (Division 9, Chapter 3, Article 1), and San Bernardino Munici al Code Section 2.56 170 ACTION TIME FRAME 1 Proponents(or any person or persons authorized in writing by the proponents)file with the City Clerk: a) Notice of Intention(signed by at least 1,but not more than 3 proponents)accompanied by written text of the initiative(EC 9202) o b) (Optional)Written statement with reasons for the proposed petition, not to exceed 500 words(EC 9202) a. c) Request for ballot title/summary(must be accompanied by address r of proponent)(EC 9203a) d) Pa $200 filing fee(EC 9202b)(Resolution No.92-82) o 2 City Clerk sends proposed measure to City Attorney EC 9203a Immediately upon receipt of Item No. 1 3 City Attorney returns ballot title/summary to City Clerk(EC 9203a) Within 15 days of Item No. 1 4 City Clerk furnishes ballot title/summary to proponents(EC 9203b) As soon as received from City Attorney- 3 L 5 Proponents publish notice of intention and title/summary of proposed measure EC 9205 p; 6 Proponents file with the City Clerk a copy of the notice and Within 10 days after date of publication title/summary together with an affidavit of publishing signed by the or posting, or both newspaper re presentative EC 9206 7 Proponents begin circulating petitions(EC 9207) After publication or posting, or both,of the title and summary 2 8 Proponents file petitions(EC 9208) Within 180 days from the date of L (Must be signed by electors equal in number to 30%of entire vote cast receipt of the title and summary, or after m for all candidates for Mayor at last preceding City election at which a termination of any action for a writ of Mayor was elected (City Charter Section 120 mandate. N 9 City Clerk to check petitions(City Charter Section 120 Within 10 days of filing petitions N 10 City Clerk to issue Certificate of Results(City Charter Section 120) Next regular Council meeting LO If petition signatures are sufficient,the City Clerk shall issue a LO Certificate of Sufficiency and Council shall either: o N a) Pass such ordinance without alteration within 20 days after the cQ1� Certificate of Sufficiency is issued. If the ordinance is passed by d Council,but vetoed by the Mayor,and on reconsideration shall fail of passage by the Council,then,within 5 days after determination "> that said ordinance shall have so failed of final adoption,the Council shall proceed to call a special election at which said ordinance,without alteration,shall be submitted to a vote of the people; OR O b) Proceed to call a special election at which said ordinance,without alteration,shall be submitted to a vote of the people. c If petition signatures are insufficient, it shall be returned forthwith by the y Clerk to the filer(s)thereof who shall have an additional 10 days from the > t, date the petition is returned to them by the Clerk,to obtain the required number of signatures. The Clerk shall,within 10 days after such additional 10-day period to obtain additional signatures,make like examination of said petition,and if his/her certificate shall show the same to be insufficient,it shall be returned to the person filing same,without prejudice,however,to the filing of a new petition to the same effect. 1 If the Council proceeds to call a special election,it shall be held on a Q Tuesday. If an established election date falls within the same time period,such special election shall be held on that date(SBMC 2.56.170). Revised 4/29/2015 Packet Pg.. 1409 7A4'd�°. ����u CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO INITIATIVE PROCESS OUTLINE GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Any number of ordinances may appear on the ballot, but the same subject matter shall not be voted upon twice within any 12-month period at a special election (EC 9218). C 0 2. A total of 12,245 votes were cast at the Mayoral election held on February 4, 2014.1 Thirty a. percent (30%) of the entire vote cast for all candidates for Mayor= 3,674. - r O 3. Depending on which is taken above in Items 10 or 11, additional information will be provided o concerning election date, publication of election notice, arguments for and against ordinance, etc. a c L .Id C L C L • M� W C f0 to N LO d' Ln r O N O N d' N N N C 0 N N N V O 0- cC C d E U cC a � According to San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters: http //�.v���-v sbcountvelections com/Port�isi9/Iilectionsi2014/0204/StatemcntOf��ote 2014-02-04.pdf Revised 4/29/2015 � a�= "d WN R� �. ca C*4 CD x ca cc W s CID W m ca U Cll Q)' cN cz cz Cll E o cc OZ5 ,., o cn O N O ccz N N 0 co C- ±� O O C)— cz N > U O Cll O }' _ U O Cll O O N O C 1� U) a) � > � , . O :. :tf COD v 'c o � Q `�—� E _� }' 41, O O M � � C/) 06 �' v CIO c O Ron E �. co ca ca L Q CD c U O cc CL) - d Q CZ 06 +O+ cc cu cz US .N co as cj to «t s cc -I--- ca L E U cB CA � N �, � cp v .� M o O C- t= z ca o _0 cn -0 CM N cn Cll o 1� U U O cn N C Ca Ca C C6 O Q C:> � U U U GE r') Ca Cl) �+ U cc p E _p O O }, V I. =O E °6 o U = -0 .�- O - O O O L _ 'a O m cr (� L n +> , (n O U) W EL i0 06 C-) O -0 4 �_ O > CIO () CU N 2 N `� O C6 O 0 Co Qp C'6 Cn Cll O O Cll j (n O C6 O C-) (L) Cll A > " .p O - V O O (3.) U) m N �_ cn � Cn -F-.. 0 0 M, -� p = i N O '`'' M O � U Q O l L L -- CU CIO c CU CZ CU s- U CD ° CZ- cz °6 Q :3 r ° o ca 0 j O tR ca >, - u Y■1 n .*.r O LO E L � � V C- U) O -t-3 ca � y U Q� 7t_3 F =3 O Q >+ J U .L N > CL � Q a O r J C O -� W O . 06 a cc (1) c LO 0 O �> o� cc 0O V t ,> E ca v t M -~' �.+ L cn CB .F.+ O CZ CDtQ O .� E cn N .> 4 Co -0 Y ..-. r= ._ O O Q 06 CL O N C O v C t/> >+ cc 0 w G C7 > 0 w t/) o - Q C6 > > > > > > > O O 12- m ca L (U O (L) _ H c o CO ea COFD Q ACC a � ea cu CII w cz (1) 1� Cc am m 0 C/) 3z cc Co 4- U U >- d d O m CIS m � m wee E Ad CM y r � � 'a � M �•+ OO cn o ro i CD co O L t- 4" CO cccc a CQ Go 0 0 >_ mod O tl? tL3 m t ro 06 cc U) = Cc C O Co iD V N cc O CZ > `� O d \° V (n N G� A AM V-- CL CD -7v COD a N Z 0 -0 Uj LJJ W c H :D � � cfl sz E 0 Q ca .� Q � o � ►-7 i .'~-� tp O CD OJ ;6o A g t< a+ o cn o 0 cn o°Jo C� �•, ; `c a` • bA O O to g g g g g g g g 4 r i o oii %6 -v r-i o b b d 0 � o _ saraALI -ZLsa0e 2 V )o.luaMad • • O CQ N_ O O N � � z O 06mmW p O :. .. N • �`��� ' .. . O O .. . O M6=mm O COD cc CZ rz cc O O �••r . L O Cc t eC � O O am c C: c cc U Cl)'* (� O CC5 cu •� O � U �cu 1� O O O � N a) CZ CO Z3 0 O O O O N CZ -�-+ U) cn Q� Q •V 0 73 N &- O � N j +_ + O -E U) cu o E- z O }, CB C� > �_ D O I— k mss§ z O L 4- O cu co >'+ Qo O M O O O 0 U O }. cz -- -0 L O o L E U) � O OO CI) O O O cn ->O.% 4— a� a) L C- L cu L6 C� C- = . c0 4 '- 0 cn O cN L� cry ca o U M O C m L > L O U) cy) co 0) N W cu cz � Q3 ° .CZ U O O -� ' U 4z I C� Ron ` . Cr- O o Q to CO 1 O �- Go > 1 0 U c o � Z5 an o O 0 °D , ■� O cn No � 7" O L O s— Cz N > co cz Co U m cz U cz Go o 0 E (D C CZ CO 0 CZ rm Co _ i E 1� 'C � O C CZ 0 .cz O cn U �_ O OU o t'� Q .� N cn •O �:. O M cn O 0 co rz Q i Qj O in O O �L- U O O O Q •V E O V O C ; U) LO Co 4-0�r o O m cc p C: O p (� •� Q N Co Q O O 0 C > N �N O � p N O p E 4� ca L.L U O 0 +� vi E O O N cn — U V U V O X O E CU U U 0 C6 O 000 w E E O - Q cn to a) N •— O O CU X -� cn N U) O ,� Q CCT Cn — O -O =5 o CCf N U CC5 'a X L N � U O CZ 0 E O a� °0 c� O 0- ° = (n a� — 4 0 � 0 0 � M N >, O m t-- o 5 m m 3 o f m a� -cn D a� CA a� ca ca > -0 Q II C 0 C 1 �, — l , o IPLbE1I' I i a r � m o N31 •r. Q $ J CJ W Ls 7 ; — 1 ' tz z i Z m C U U .< x:e C J N I r o a q 3 � cm � •Mh � r3oa� W Z llt3 I _ d i Y Ifs »�rx Y YM j q fo _ r l ,� a • 0 ik n m o Li �a 0 Jt f+r Z � � g 0. w a ; R Jam R t ( f, t n Y 8 c1 q i ' i ! t e 1 I i r r m a I__,( E t r � � 1 F ^ 1 sti s�?r L fez ,ill '�® • ,y w i �4•i - ,• 1. :� F r � 1 r ° \ r ' Q� coz qg �- U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Deputy Attorney Gene ^h The Deputy Attorney General Wuhingron,D.C. 20530 V August 29,2013 _G �i c MEMORANDUM FOR ALL UNITED ST ES ATTORNEYS o FROM: James M. Cole °-C -� ��0 Deputy Attorney eneral SUBJECT: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement In October 2009 and June 2011,the Department issued guidance to federal prosecutors concerning marijuana enforcement under the Controlled Substances Act(CSA). This memorandum updates that guidance in light of state ballot initiatives that legalize under state law the possession of small amounts of marijuana and provide for the regulation of marijuana production,processing, and sale. The guidance set forth herein applies to all federal enforcement activity, including civil enforcement and criminal investigations and prosecutions, concerning marijuana in all states. As the Department noted in its previous guidance, Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs,and cartels. The Department of Justice is committed to enforcement of the CSA consistent with those determinations. The Department is also committed to using its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources to address the most significant threats in the most effective, consistent, and rational way. In furtherance of those objectives, as several states enacted laws relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes,the Department in recent years has focused its efforts on certain enforcement priorities that are particularly important to the federal government: • Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors; • Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises,gangs, and cartels; • Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states; • Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity; Memorandum for All United States Attorneys Page 2 Subject: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement • Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana; • Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use; • Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; and • Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property. These priorities will continue to guide the Department's enforcement of the CSA against marijuana-related conduct. Thus, this memorandum serves as guidance to Department attorneys and law enforcement to focus their enforcement resources and efforts, including prosecution, on persons or organizations whose conduct interferes with any one or more of these priorities, regardless of state law.I Outside of these enforcement priorities,the federal government has traditionally relied on states and local law enforcement agencies to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws. For example,the Department of Justice has not historically devoted resources to prosecuting individuals whose conduct is limited to possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use on private property. Instead,the Department has left such lower-level or localized activity to state and local authorities and has stepped in to enforce the CSA only when the use,possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana has threatened to cause one of the harms identified above. The enactment of state laws that endeavor to authorize marijuana production, distribution, and possession by establishing a regulatory scheme for these purposes affects this traditional joint federal-state approach to narcotics enforcement. The Department's guidance in this memorandum rests on its expectation that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health, and other law enforcement interests. A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice. Jurisdictions that have implemented systems that provide for regulation of marijuana activity ' These enforcement priorities are listed in general terms; each encompasses a variety of conduct that may merit civil or criminal enforcement of the CSA. By way of example only,the Department's interest in preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors would call for enforcement not just when an individual or entity sells or transfers marijuana to a minor,but also when marijuana trafficking takes place near an area associated with minors;when marijuana or marijuana-infused products are marketed in a manner to appeal to minors; or when marijuana is being diverted, directly or indirectly,and purposefully or otherwise,to minors. Memorandum for All United States Attorneys Page 3 Subject: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement must provide the necessary resources and demonstrate the willingness to enforce their laws and regulations in a manner that ensures they do not undermine federal enforcement priorities. In jurisdictions that have enacted laws legalizing marijuana in some form and that have also implemented strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems to control the cultivation, distribution, sale,and possession of marijuana,conduct in compliance with those laws and regulations is less likely to threaten the federal priorities set forth above. Indeed, a robust system may affirmatively address those priorities by, for example, implementing effective measures to prevent diversion of marijuana outside of the regulated system and to other states, prohibiting access to marijuana by minors, and replacing an illicit marijuana trade that funds criminal enterprises with a tightly regulated market in which revenues are tracked and accounted for. In those circumstances,consistent with the traditional allocation of federal-state efforts in this area, enforcement of state law by state and local law enforcement and regulatory bodies should remain the primary means of addressing marijuana-related activity. If state enforcement efforts are not sufficiently robust to protect against the harms set forth above,the federal government may seek to challenge the regulatory structure itself in addition to continuing to bring individual enforcement actions, including criminal prosecutions, focused on those harms. The Department's previous memoranda specifically addressed the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in states with laws authorizing marijuana cultivation and distribution for medical use. In those contexts,the Department advised that it likely was not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on seriously ill individuals, or on their individual caregivers. In doing so,the previous guidance drew a distinction between the seriously ill and their caregivers, on the one hand, and large-scale, for-profit commercial enterprises, on the other, and advised that the latter continued to be appropriate targets for federal enforcement and prosecution. In drawing this distinction, the Department relied on the common-sense judgment that the size of a marijuana operation was a reasonable proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the federal enforcement priorities set forth above. As explained above,however, both the existence of a strong and effective state regulatory system, and an operation's compliance with such a system,may allay the threat that an operation's size poses to federal enforcement interests. Accordingly,in exercising prosecutorial discretion,prosecutors should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the Department's enforcement priorities listed above. Rather,prosecutors should continue to review marijuana cases on a case-by-case basis and weigh all available information and evidence, including,but not limited to,whether the operation is demonstrably in compliance with a strong and effective state regulatory system. A marijuana operation's large scale or for-profit nature may be a relevant consideration for assessing the extent to which it undermines a particular federal enforcement priority. The primary question in all cases—and in all jurisdictions—should be whether the conduct at issue implicates one or more of the enforcement priorities listed above. Memorandum for All United States Attorneys Page 4 Subject: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement As with the Department's previous statements on this subject,this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion. This memorandum does not alter in any way the Department's authority to enforce federal law, including federal laws relating to marijuana,regardless of state law. Neither the guidance herein nor any state or local law provides a legal defense to a violation of federal law, including any civil or criminal violation of the CSA. Even in jurisdictions with strong and effective regulatory systems, evidence that particular conduct threatens federal priorities will subject that person or entity to federal enforcement action,based on the circumstances. This memorandum is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. It applies prospectively to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in fixture cases and does not provide defendants or subjects of enforcement action with a basis for reconsideration of any pending civil action or criminal prosecution. Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution, even in the absence of any one of the factors listed above, in particular circumstances where investigation and prosecution otherwise serves an important federal interest. cc: Mythili Raman Acting Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division Loretta E. Lynch United States Attorney Eastern District of New York Chair,Attorney General's Advisory Committee Michele M. Leonhart Administrator Drug Enforcement Administration H. Marshall Jarrett Director Executive Office for United States Attorneys Ronald T. Hosko Assistant Director Criminal Investigative Division Federal Bureau of Investigation o c � 3 °rr o � n rD rr � -• � Z CD o - `� 3 °' ' 'D 3 D v A_ v n 2- p� go ° o o W D N N A O �+ D n �' Q ro v FD = can �_ o � _2 N -0 <Q fb cn 3 v n S 0 a (D N p rD -r � < e-+ rD O o N rn' a v O v N �^ cu `c : r+ ro o X O �o c m D 3 rr, O 0 CL =mo=o = ;03= 0`D<_ �n='-m<. m m tl m ���<. =f n v n o =ca Jo3 oa .�. _ d oN°:a o_=ma ?gym vm c Z C� mad Nvc on <,= tl S N C' °tea`� RO°gym O 2 N 3 -0.op= an� SMp3 m= = °-' onn �aa� rD O�i3v 0 3 o `.3 0 q= = O T n tD O �••�••� m e°' R n n O A W w- 3. °,.' m,=, O t100 W -3 v� -•.tra v a a d 3m ° rwmry w� � � a NJ .0 ao. to (D ��o.m mw< uV�im �,p1. �+ N �• invo�, law -os ?. N , C O ?m ' o Oa c' o) w n v a Qoo °m N < N \V a3.no -moo 03 ad v .�.�° ��3 m3 0 o= E;42 ,m, _ m " X0,3 01 o a n`°< m'2 0•+ (/�• m=3 D zj 0 0", `SO n Vl• xm am 3 a D rF _ 0 � 0 �.� Tm R0 O °-01 °o X00 O Nrr Oa S �v otw T '. 0�0=' 3n n :E �/� 3-ao a o m ` _ 3 m 3�. m m o5 a c d a an d =O' 0 -3. _ N N _ - a3 W,W �c ? 0-a w a °i0� 0°1 c3 Na 0mo �o �n m m 3 1 m a�d 3- c c 3 a o o g m o ?o d - ~3 n n< mF c o'o ° o ., °°- ?3 v Ln N O N �' O'1 w p v Q p 3 -N N s D N D M p O_ ,rt fD Q <o r <m< rao n n v+ N V �^ cu 3 O �' Q Q .Q.o�-� c 03 00 3 G Q + Q m w F v Q (D (D to fl_ s m �,0i, rr A O 6 D m o < <0 n Q S D O N O p "p (D O 3°- Q m fl. s a- 3,^.vim,. (D O a- a1 O O• j (f G a w 9 N S v (D 3� N f01 tn. a) - (D N Ill N ,'^. < o (<D- 3 o d a �, 'a r•r C 3' W o m �;v n" O m 7 O < 3 _0� v ---h m o_ na v nQ + (� O 6 (D Ln O O �. N �* v s m U4 �� O O .G O (�D d N 'D., r r (D DJ v O . 3 p Q° N - C N v O_ 3 O (D p N N O n' (D N 3 N (D o O 3 (D n FD = -D- - ° o 1 _ CU (p O .0 .. m n (D D N a3i (D �� O 4 3 �� 3 � v � O X I � � v (D 3 any vsID 0 0 0 'a (7 C (D 6 3 O v 0 Q a N N c m m p ( Q O C a n < -�' 0:3 a- A N rr Q- p C s- m sm ". < O cn O O°'O N n p N_ (D c n 33 3 N• Q S °i a. n3c o(D p (D O < M (. O 3+A — O rr -h rD o ° � n -0a MoD (D `tin C7 I v 1Z (D cu ID ��s N H aQ n N N (ND 3 p rt N. .c an �N rN+ (D (D S r+ (D �0 N vc � N rD x O Z (D O n ((DD C= u 0 0 c � v � �� � S n � t � -0 O 90 O Ln 0 r 3 � 3 0 Q- a.F o H Iv (D � m�-.� O c3C v �0 CL N N W (D< iD ^ o D Wn c °M N v 1+ v cu N QO_-�.w NNfl_ 30n (D (n 03rD- 0 2:- CU r0r a O V 7 - I O 2:0 =3 Q V Cn N O F� N Ol 0MrDrDn Z =3 c v 7 CU v (DD n n v p a w",c D o CL z 0 rD �^ d fD N .O m �' r} m m w w o ? o u a n n T n rrs 0 NQ-C O� � (D ^annM mnro'^ I = ,rz H � O3 lZV�' N ,c—»o ' "D r�D nom'^ o o t O fD W O N r'F <S.00'. 0 3.D Z CL o3�'zn oc <oo—�� r c v+c r ro n 3 H DO D N aC 0 Gw+ N w N N N V O N 3 0 SL C 0'tD O �' N� � l0 �- � � Q w fSD , � �• c> 3o ,Q wrcm ^_ oCL b �• awjrorD nN°i'c D3j.n noc� = DCO N 4-5. rD a c o O O N O rD O nl ' (D _ >> w 3 N o 06) DO d p n w O �' 3 n rD w ort` w — n<on Qc3v3 Saw m � w ti�Cw M�fD� D.w t=l --4 rD w w n.-. (D O pp fD rD c� 0 v.. � O n =• o D — 3 N O f"F O f"F 0- 3 o fD a(�p �• fD O d 2 v �IJ rD Ln I S ao D 0 �. n5 o 0 �. Oro �' 3 ° � m cu - !r K 0 v v 0 u 4-12F k ED E' 0 ? `: L— d 0. `. n, 0 m C 0 cu Q. M 3 I 0 ire o v O no 0 p 0O >> Y ^n• m -0 0 T ,� a �. o T � v x,0 _ rD v m n (7 n 0 ,-rtY C7 3 0 N D p rh 0 3 Q N 3 m 0 3 n A rD r v to N O W � D < m DO - Nv�ciD 'DD Q I I I �� OJm� mmon nnJ fl-3J Ic n N 3 ^ c_ N O 3 W 3 > <o c °o m D o o0 o m c F+ c F+ SJ N W J J F y. O d n S vi c OJ C 2 D DO O O_ O n 3 O OE: A W 3 D g m C O O O Dm C .00 O p� r+ ID m= I m J I 'O 0 N 0 !° O -Q N O cc 3 J :E -'o N F \V W ° moo c mac^ �� l� Boa °? N 0 Oi °, � ^m 6-O+. Ol°-Oi. m J�C _ � °" GJi n.JeN J fl- f�'� 3 3 , 3 N 3 0 3 ^o ° 'O N d o p D?,o -'0 o ^ N o (D o fD O C _.��S SC S aN a� .�m n� m o-v Q � .,. O0 E;Q mC Ord �°Ir Q Vl N l0 00 O V m J V CL d N J m N n Sg N 1- `• m (D r.o m Q O m O m v m (p O J fD .0 J n <'^ OZ n v v n -J � O m O 0 m (l '�O'O d m O O. �C OID O o pm prom Q J M /T^�` N n p°�j°- N O N fl' Q d 0 C Q� 3 O O O J <J V1 m m CL m n o 0 I l x 13 o z 0 N0 n nn (D — rt 1O n v v c 3� 3N r A -0 0' o 0 �fl-, OG�Cl 0 U0 O v 5 ° M O ! o ` O o of m C nL o O 0 d v _ pO) • 3 O J rr :3 fl 3 �m 0 04 a?N > > G SS 00N3 -rD 3 3 - < m? F-` N n ^ m O v F 0, (D 0 to m n < (D O 3 3 l / 3 C '� v O C � N A m '^ O J m m Q (D N N N � Dl Q 0 0 O O o o ut 0 Ohm - W 3 O =3 v 3 3 < v iD 3 3 O Q A v \ � Q Q 0o O° p - - ? N Q 7 (D 0 - o J o Iv * n (D CL Q. Q (D 'H1 Ln 0 cr n v a to C < O d 0 N C' (D O r-F J J < O N rF L. I.... D f'f r7 Q O _ aQ N NO {Z rF (D n O 00 v o m (D 3 v 3 w S Q J .r o T Q rt n (D _H1 io O m (D v?i (D J S N (D O O (D fl_ O m J J N -h m Ul N O N J & 2 ■ & E/±f / / § G / / . ■ ■ . . R ƒe o[ 2 \ *� q — \ " § rD �rD 0 \ } / g e ® n n ® � ) 3\ ; nn % }_\\ \ 0 114, / *| [ ( ° o g § \/ \ } 0 i/� 00 ID „ \}$ / 0j G � / \ ° 3 \ Ln (D CL rD NJ CD / 0 / $ 2 \ \ w / . , . . . . / 2 \ zy- / § zF( / ƒ < ] n = ° \ __/`~ \ ® E f / \ /` r.+ \\ \ � = y = » _ � n g � = m - ■ m 0- ƒ c CL / f ° ƒ / \ \ m _ § r ° ± / / \ - / / • \ � p ® ƒ Ul � c Qq / cL (D_ r' C �' � 3r� 3 � 3 ° m gm m CD v N In � M3' r�oQr�oNrt � a °' Q „n m n w n m O m < D n' fl] v Uq n N A' O O .+ r = N m D v (D 3QE T v ° � f+� m A N fD cu p O N r+ 0q =3 — c m G) � -0 Lj O v N (D rrowv vrt CU 3•W < N (D Q O 2. rh rh N 7 6:C �e0-r O"m rt -t m W e•-F N :3 A �n,in '"' N O N vii m y 7 01 N O p (7q v n o n n o p W D '+' r. CL r+. m ma o O n Q1 3 O O (D fD .0 r+ '� h Q vrti O ~' N N K v Or � v N m 3 cL O Q III vii O D <'3 m :3 * (D n O n p N 3 Q' ;CL � � O � O cu s (D Dq FD. cj p rD m Q r+ �, ry a v ci p n a <Sr p c � v� O CU �_ oo C v m 3 v m n D p Q Q fD m CL I I I I L I Im I I l r L+ D m O c� r�r 41 0 3 a cn v D N O ( O W (D n ID 3 v. Z7 O 7 A ,< S m m CD N 6 3 v m O O O 7 t�D v3 r"D � nOi u' n30 �D � (D n'� (D O < a O + (D CL vo am n, 0 (D �. .a n N o N < = ] CD n � C M m 0o N m C C O (D�' m e < O N 7 C rr QC b y v p m "O d n =r(D —O0 OO an 7r DJ — m C .< p� — m v fD (D O < CD O CD O s r r rr C O - N rD N '+ O CD N O O lD o m m < °' OV m N �+ _ m ° m r) cu [D M. m O m v n• nmo` Q v D 3 0 `D ° m D ID �' ,, c C ° M. O m y, E• m n' v Q a Q D, 3 3 m O O 3 ;q: "O L, v p O O -h -S SZ �• m 3 m v cu D) O m Q 0 tn m ° N N O N DQ (D r+ m m r' O v Ln N O N 01 � D o o W _� o o rD v �'+ t-j fl m y cu w� � rD rD ~ Q n N rD M O rD _ O i; O f ° q 7 v, rh as n v �^ N - r+ 3 m H v O3• cu � o � rn10 - N ° r�D � rD p O�az (`�D O (DD O �+ rD <• r-+ n < v N °; nOi °; �' * �; N m ° M c rD an m (M r� 0 N a '* rD � = - rD (D n v a� 3 5 3 cu < N s �^ rD rD ° N O n' rt r, cu -,< � rD Svc O _s v a ::p cu O o O. o 173 n rD ani cD < m Cl 3 N v°, o = ^ < N N. O 0 Z N 3 —. S rD V) N x _ m n L a- 0 —_ K 0 O W M'O ,•+ c 0 rD L,o w « Oo c 0 N ,n D O CL N 7 v' C n O- 3 N 3 f�D s rD n o 0 0 0 0 ° o 3 C 7 ry fD .'O 0 O G W rD 0 rD D I v v C m70 m x cu o Quo < '* 7 7 < r� Q;-n rD 0 d° O m ro N �� O-Q C 7 i5 "N6 3rD l- c <'~<. FD n O O —O `c'—c- 3 c D N K CD n (D i, N 0 0) N N N M r+ rD rD S fD QUO DJ O 0 r3-r r+ Q v°, e-+ Q '"04 rD 700 0 !1 N• (DOU lD n v m 3 v v = :3 � Z'-I m r,' p n o O _.m ° fD ° f �0- ff 1y '• .•....�..s N C y lV N © y D n f Oa 3.< N O 3 so O T� Q �< n a V \ Lrl N O N V � C. I I I C I I I D v o d Q �► -i c a n v p n m m O 0 (D lD v rah n (D V) ., < -a v v O (/') X — p OtD Q_ (D ("h N S A n = = C 2 CD m 3 C �i (ND O� _ rf � F --3 O0- � r rD CU '* O — (D r+ � 3 v n G In N N N (D v O N N Q Q rr ( /� (D ..� �. rt O fl! C (D Cl N i �( °o c CL r N O �' Q_ 70 Q Q CL o �° v O 1 a Q (D V) 3 D N p N v rD N (D c pp N Y CL O O (D ( -< Vii;' N O A C• �.+ r) 3 �rf Cu n FD' rD(D O (a 00 o N rD N O. < Q- a ffDD (D (D Ln O 3 I I I I j I l y CU p () p (n rD : n (n < () Q_-a rr-p w f�D .0-r Q n O � ten.(0 v � n v in O (o - -a o m o D m 2 s °(D N< ro CO O � a ?°C-° O T O .a v O (D F r•'F (D O DO Q- * 7 � �' rD E I- 'V vi < (D N - r-F C - ,�, o N np n s D C ED M fu c'f O Q_ N . rt .+ m n H Q N O rD/D CS f"'f (D 7 Q N N n n 7 On d M N O. o -o N C (7 � Q (D rD j6 C. o � rD(D 0c « o v (D Son ^ � _ ° v (D �n G rD D1 O rD - or ". n O Q" �_ M C a r-r N = o- tlO o S N 70 p N 3 O Q D Q W Q N. aQ ? a m m N N Q Q (^ n Q' K p o Dc D�q < C 7 M , o- v F p v r+ (D - r. (D N C C 0 Q S C � CD Cu Z3 N N Q_ a. 0) l V .Z j = (D Q \D 6 v, 2. o �. N o o a N CIL S rD Q_ ((D N fD ° 3 a vi (D can o rip 1 Doo 7 7 v U'1 N O N 00 a) v o- cn O r) D n f1 n v n 0 0 p rD `n D O O rf C -1 o O C rr+ (D m O= t< O ' \(D�a. D UO n (D < O n _ r+ r+ O O D a "6 Q r+ (D D O a�!O Q(+ , Q (D = :3 O f7 O rD N , (D _n r+ (D v n 3 :;D CL) Q- CU O N r+ (D O r+ �_ v Q Q rD p (D F-' N O �? rD O N — N v C rD r+ Qi -� (7 -n v n � - rD 07 Q � n 'r = v n (D (D p 3 0 G•as = r+ r+ ° .a n � Ln rr rD rnr r+ O n rr+ v < �. O — < v v rD N N N v 0 (D v CL m M rD 3 °' fD+ gym �= " �° rro 0 CU O as (n Q 3 v r+ CD O < c r+ r+ r+ Q -0 O- c' rt LA -0� Cl ° rD 3 v ao v I I I I 10 Z+.° O o`Ni n'Q r+ aq W C � � CD 0 0 2L 0� ',,:2 c o r `: -? LA 7'(D v+ n 70 S al of '^.to a x v 6-. •-a 3 N Q i]7 O O V) ! T r( J (D D o o< D 3 p v. aq O - "6 (D a c a rD _� a G O to fD Z D o 0�c v �C Q-° Q' �� CL o nom `$ �� - c fID rD n r+ Q. fD v o n o Gl n r*Q= o o v x w 3 - ? (D n O r�r v O CD 3 ? o r' a X rC+ 3 O MD�° � O o C rr� O v au � O = c mr* m C -N�� rrDD � c- S.v�, D n o 3 � � 3 p N (D O D n (D n o Waco w n 0Q 3 n j o v o v c -0 O—qo C p 3 0 Q o L N o m O UO `' (D C a _ Q < O 7 7 CL cu n Gl o C m C O fD �• � r-r i1J rD rD °' ,nr p Q 3 �. ° v x o rn 7 O rr;Q<� rD Q S �'` r�•h N ID c cu v o r+ Q' 0 C (D 7 rD V Ln N O N l0 . . . . . . . . . . n U)+ 00 O co W Q 3 o Q3 2 CD fl 6 o iD Qw (D r+ (D (D N F•-' >Z O0 '�'. m n o. °1.00 fl; ro v (D LL O C N (D (D N' v l!'1 �; M N (D of 0-. n O p n Q O N v D 3 ° ° o'°s,c - q rD (D C r+ �� K ° F o °3 �° no rD to t -0 Q (D rr+ ° 3 ^ m v ° cr o N (D 0- v O — (°D o o s� —� n Q (D OG (D r+ O (o ?n o 06° c (D (D f7 7r d 13 v rD °_0 0, N O C f7 (M D^ v 3 <m wa3 3 M r1+ N S O O3 -- O jDOi• 20o w r'F C � Ln rD(n Oq m3 3_�. c r ,n w 3-5 0 ° (D _ v O 3 (D DO a 0 C,- O �' 00 00 r r ° ° (D !D v rD n o CD 3 E O o m ON 00 3 a (D ID O° O rD `C 3 3 N C O NO N S <IT O O �' 3 (D D N v c C Di rD v+ 0 = D v Q 3 O a Q I I I aNi 3 < Q- z r X 0 3 0 O 0 w -0 cu 7 01 n Ott =; O x O =3:3 1 "O n Z O 0q O. XO w fD r0•r '* (p -h (A � O w 0 ((DD (DD CD 3 �'^„ o � o N < M. - �' n ao o v O (D e--h O (D + (p 3 aJ - 7 'z G1 v Q y (D �• a X Q cn r+ 3 e"h rw+ r+ 0 j N G (D O �' (D O N O O < - °1 V) N. Q �• O Q O � NLn O 7 0U v Ln N O N N O p� Attention: City Clerk Public Speaking Request to be read @ City Council Meeting 7/5/16 Re: Item 7A Council Members, I am writing today as a concerned member of our community and a high school teacher in our school district.As you consider a petition regarding the issue of regulated marijuana dispensaries, please be mindful of the long-term consequences of approving the petition at this time. The effects of this decision could be very costly, not just in monetary terms, but also how it may impact the lives and well- being of members all across our community. While it may seem that making this decision is simply responding to the "will of the people," the effects may be very difficult to reverse once this decision is made. I would prefer to see this issue placed before the voting public for their consideration at a later date. This would offer more time for a variety of views to be considered, for the city leadership to more thoughtfully consider their options on this issue, and for alternatives proposals to be created in the best interest of our community. I can't be certain of all the ways that this decision will impact our city. But speaking as an educator in this city, I can tell you how poverty, crime and drug use, in whatever form, impact the lives of our students and their families.And regardless of the arguments supporting expanded legalization,the data of the overall impact of these decisions in places like Colorado tell a very cautionary tale. Many of the indicators used to evaluate the efficacy of this kind of legislation are all up - drug use among targeted sub-groups, driving while intoxicated arrests and drug-related crime. As San Bernardino struggles to fix the problems we currently face, do we really want to create the potential for more problems by making a rash decision on this issue? Please, make the right decision in the best interest of our children and all the members of our community. Respectfully, Eric Harworth Entered Into Rec, at MCC/CDC Mtg:� by: Agenda Item by. City eNCD,C Secretary City of San Bernardino Attention: City Clerk Public Speaking Request to be read @ City Council Mtg. 7/5/16 Re: Item 7A Council Members, As an involved citizen of this community, as well as a long time educator in this city, I respectfully ask your help in, at the very least, putting the issue of regulated dispensaries to the voting public. This will buy time for adequate education of the voting public, adequate time to offer a counter initiative, and adequate time for consideration of all views. This is a slippery slope we are facing. One law leads to another, and it concerns me deeply how little imagination it takes to see into the future with legalized marijuana. With the effects of marijuana, particularly as strains get stronger and more concentrated, still being debated (including their medicinal value), and knowing that marijuana use impacts attention,judgment and balance,this puts are citizens at a higher risk for little to no return. I refuse to think of the disastrous effects this could have upon our school children. We already see the effects, and legalizing will not make it better, no matter how small the increments of legalization are instituted. The idea of taxing marijuana as a revenue source is a juvenile argument at best. If that were the driving force behind decisions,we would also legalize all drugs, prostitution and the like. We don't, because it would have disastrous effects upon our society. This is an opportunity to take a stand for our children and for our safety.While many cleverly written articles espousing the virtues of marijuana in Colorado have been published, the hard numbers to not lie. Children use up, college use is up, crime in the urban areas is up, and so are marijuana related driving deaths. Please stand behind law enforcement, medical establishments, and common sense. Respectfully, Q Eastwood San Bernardino Entered Into Rec. of MCC/CDC Mtg;�s- by: C� Agenda Item /-7 by' City Clerk/CDC Secretary City of San Bernardino How Cannabis Businesses Are Making Communities Stronger Page 1 of 7 Search Q (https-Hwww.facebook.com/civilized.life) 0 (https-Htwitter.com/civilized_life) Menu How Cannabis Businesses Are Making Communities Stronger () (https://www.facebook,com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.civilized.life/businesses-strong-communities-1851316858.html% 3Fxrs%3DRebe1Mouse_fb) V(https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://www.civilized.life/businesses-strong-communities- 1851316858.html&text=How%20Cannabis%20Businesses%20Are%20Making%20Communities%20Stronger%20via%20%40civilized_life) fv(http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.civilized.life%2Fbusinesses-strong-communities- 1851316858.html) 16(http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=https://www.civiIized.Iife/businesses-strong-communities- 1851316858.html&title=How%20Cannabis%206usinesses%20Are%20Making%20Communities%20Stronger) V(mailto:? subject=How%20Cannabis%2OBusinesses%2OAre%2OMaking%2OCommunities% 20Stronger&body=https://www.civilized.life/businesses-strong-communities-1851316858.html) I June 10,2016 by)ulia Wright i t In 2016,the realities of selling marijuana differ substantially from the old, negative stereotypes perpetuated by generations of anti-drug propaganda. No longer are those who sell marijuana portrayed as bad guys looking to hook kids on dangerous substances,destroying communities and livelihoods; rather,the industry is consistently giving back to communities,whether in the form of tax revenue,donations,or volunteer initiatives. Here are five ways important players in the cannabis industry are giving back. 5 11 1 . Scholarships Entered Into Rec. at MCC Mtg. by: Agenda by: City Clerk City of San Bernardino https://www.civilized.life/businesses-strong-communities-1851316858.htmi 7/5/2016 How Cannabis Businesses Are Making Communities Stronger Page 2 of 7 Search Q (https://www.facebook.com/civilized.life) V er.com/civili ed_l' e) M e I TI { aw y 'ate' ! g T P k Ai � Ia American students are already benefitting from some of the country's first scholarships funded by taxes on legal marijuana. Overseen by the Pueblo Hispanic Education Program,the $1,000 bursaries will be awarded to 25 students,according to USA Today.(http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/05/17/these-kids- going-college-pot/84457898/) Next year, PHEF expects to generate as much as $700,000 for the scholarships; thanks to the state's commitment to matching dollars,that fund could reach almost$1-million over the next 18 months. 2. Affordable, accessible medical marijuana https://www.civilized.lifelbusinesses-strong-communities-1851316858.html 7/5/2016 How Cannabis Businesses Are Making Communities Stronger Page 3 of 7 F, Dispensaries like San Francisco's High Bridge(http://www.guns.com/2016/05/16/putting-the-high-back-in-high- bridge-san-franciscos-last-gun-shop-to-become-cannabis-dispensary/) have committed to providing patients in need with medicine either for free,or at a drastically reduced cost,with the aim of a)increasing patients' quality of life and b)sending a message to the public about the legitimate, medical uses of the drug.According to Natural Blaze(http://www.naturalblaze.com/2016/05/this-dispensary-will-provide-free-medical-cannabis-to- patients-in-need.html), High Bridge owner Sean Killen has made a commitment to"pay$60,000 a year to give (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/san-francisco-gun-shop-pot-shop-article-1.2640641)cannabis to low and no-income patients who have a valid medical marijuana (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/san-francisco-gun-shop-pot-shop-article-1.2640641)card [...] Killen's non-profit project is a breath of fresh air for those suffering from everything from cancer (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/marijuana-and-cance r_n_1898208.html)to depression (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000226)." To honour and assist veterans during Memorial Day week,Colorado cannabis retailer LivWell Enlightened Health(http://www.livwell.com/)provided more than $800,000 worth of medical marijuana to veterans who suffer from PTSD.They were charged just a penny each because cannabis can't be given away under Colorado state law. "We provided ounces of cannabis that have a particularly high CBD concentration,which has demonstrated potential benefits for those who suffer from PTSD(https://www.civilized.life/pioneers-ptsd-and- cannabis-1447451836.html)and other physical ailments,"said John Lord,CEO of LivWell. "This is just our way of showing appreciation to all of our men and women in uniform." 3. Helping the homeless https://www.civilized.life/businesses-strong-communities-185131685 8.html 7/5/2016 How Cannabis Businesses Are Making Communities Stronger Page 4 of 7 In Aurora,Colorado,where city officials predict$8-million in marijuana taxes will be collected by the end of this year, $4.5-million in marijuana tax revenue has been directed toward fighting homelessness.Since each city in legal states like Colorado is permitted to make its own decisions on how marijuana tax dollars are allocated, the city of Aurora has opted to fund after-school programming for youth in unstable housing situations,as well as affordable housing initiatives.According to FOX News(http://kdvr.com/2016/05/16/aurora-gives-4-5-million- in-marijuana-tax-money-to-fight-homelessness/),"the rest of Aurora's marijuana tax revenue will go to fund transportation projects,a new recreation centre,and a handful of other local nonprofits." 4. School funding https://www.civilized.life/businesses-strong-communities-1851316858.html 7/5/2016 How Cannabis Businesses Are Making Communities Stronger Page 5 of 7 ww Search (https://www.facebook.com/civilized.) ) �`IN (https://twitter.com/civilize '_lift Menu" AN s r e � y y v i In Colorado-which collected $9.7-million in marijuana sales taxes in June of last year alone, up nearly $5-million from the same month in 2014-public schools have been a major winner since legalization. In 2014, when the city of Denver encountered financial hurdles in the building of a new recreation centre,an allocation of$3.2-million toward the $33-million facility was made possible largely by higher-than-expected retail marijuana revenue. "I would never say that single-handedly legalizing recreational cannabis would be the solution to every government's problem,"Tyler Henson, president of the Colorado Cannabis Chamber of Commerce,told the Denver Post(http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6233976-marijuana-tax-revenue-paying-for-sidewalks- schools-in-colorado-why-not-here-/). "But it's a good tool to have,and it can alleviate some problems especially, if a city or a county is looking at a budget deficit." 5. Charity fundraisers https://www.civilized.life/businesses-strong-communities-1851316858.html 7/5/2016 How Cannabis Businesses Are Making Communities Stronger Page 6 of 7 Search Q (https://www.facebook.com/civilized.life) V (https:Htwitter.com/civilized—life) Menu Denver dispensary chain The Clinic(http://www.thecliniccolorado.com/)holds an annual golf tournament sponsored by cannabis-related businesses,including Dixie Elixirs(http://dixieelixirs.com/)and WeedMaps (https://legalmarijuanadispensary.com/),to raise funds for multiple sclerosis research. Since 2009,The Clinic has raised nearly$300,000 for the National MS Society,and hopes to raise another$25,000 this year. "Far too often businesses focus on operations,expansion and the bottom line,"writes Rick Talley,a wholesaler for The Clinic,on the dispensary's site(http://www.thecliniccolorado.com/the-clinic-cares/). "Contributing to non-profits like the MS Society is something that separates The Clinic from other business out there, regardless of industry." h/t The Denver Post(http://www.denverpost.com/), FOX 31 Denver(http://kdvr.com/), New York Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/),The Huffington Post(http://www.huffingtonpost.com), USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/). Sign up for our newsletter(http://eepurl.com/byhNYb) 1 https://www.civilized.life/businesses-strong-communities-1851316858.html 7/5/2016 How Cannabis Businesses Are Making Communities Stronger Page 7 of 7 (https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.civiIized.Iife/businesses-strong-comr k4!oQ 1851316858.html%3Fxrs%3D Rebel Mouse_ff� ift�gs.//Wt r f&� IN bbt6k.e(fdm/civilized.life) V url=https://www.civilized.life/businesses-strong-communities-18 1 5 t= 0 i o 20Businesses%2OAre%2OMaking%2OCommunities%2OStronger o2Ovia% 0%40civilized_life) v Menu (htt p://www.stu m b leu po n.co m/su b m it?u rl=https%3A%2 F%2 Fwww.civi I ized.l ife%2 Fbus i nesses-strong- communities-1851316858.html) (http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=https://www.civiIized.Iife/businesses- strong-communities-1851316858.html&title=How%20Cannabis%20Businesses%20Are%20Making% 20Communities%2OStronger) S(mailto:?subject=How%20Cannabis%20Businesses%20Are%20Making% 20Communities%2OStronger&body=https://www.civilized.life/businesses-strong-communities- 1 851 31 6858.html) https://www.civilized.life/businesses-strong-communities-1851316858.htm1 7/5/2016 7/3/2016 Print This Article Special Report: New Agency Created to Regulate California's Marijuana Industry By Paul Parcellin SCVBJ Writer June 9, 2016 Medical marijuana has been legal in California for 20 years, and now there's a new agency that will help oversee the industry that produces cannabis, one of the state's leading cash crops. Lori Ajax was appointed chief of the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation in February, and as head of the new state agency, Ajax will set up California's first system to license, regulate and tax the state's burgeoning medical marijuana industry. I For Ajax, the new job, which earns a $150,636 salary, follows the Sacramento-area Republican's 21-year career with the Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control, where she rose through the ranks to chief deputy director in Jan. 2014. Both the bureau and Ajax's position were created last October when Gov. Jerry Brown signed the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act into law. By some estimates, California accounts for half of the nation's marijuana industry, and the new bureau, which is under the Dept. of Consumer Affairs, will likely have its work cut out for it. Reining in the Industry The new bureau and regulations passed in October are intended to control an industry that has at time struggled to maintain legitimacy ever since the state legalized medical marijuana 20 years ago. Although the state permits the sale and use of medical marijuana, the federal government still prohibits it. The state continues to classify the recreational use of marijuana as illegal. According to the new state regulations, the agency can be transformed into a Bureau of Marijuana Control, regulating non-medical marijuana as well. If the state approves recreational marijuana on the November ballot, the number of marijuana businesses is likely to increase, as will Ajax's responsibilities. Preparing to Issue Licenses The state has provided $10 million to the new agency, and Ajax's mandate is to set up a 25-person bureau that can begin issuing licenses on Jan. 1, 2018. Between now and then, the agency is tasked with creating 17 different licenses that must be in place when regulations are slated to begin. Amid the race to get all of the pieces of the regulatory agency in place, Ajax took time 1/3 7/3/2016 out to answer some questions we posed about the new bureau and the outlook for the marijuana industry in California: .SCVB-7: What components of the marijuana industry is the state now working to regulate? Lori Ajax: The Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, enacted on Jan. 1, 2016, establishes a statutory framework for the regulation of medical cannabis. Under the new law, the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation is required to issue licenses and develop regulations for distributors, dispensaries, and transporters. The California Department of Food and Agriculture is the agency responsible for licenses and regulations related to cultivation. It is also responsible for implementing the state's track and trace program. The State Department of Public Health is the agency responsible for licenses and regulations related to manufacturers and testing laboratories. SCV J; Will new regulations be drafted with an eye toward accommodating recreational marijuana, assuming that it becomes legal? Ajax: Right now, the Bureau is only charged with drafting regulations to implement the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act and the work to be done between now and Jan. 1, 2018 will focus on medical marijuana. SCVBJ If recreational use becomes legal, what differences, if any, would there be between regulations for medical vs. recreational marijuana? Ajax: It's really too early to tell - If the voters of California pass an initiative to legalize the use of recreational marijuana, all related regulations will be based on the language of that initiative. SC Ja Will municipalities be able to regulate the amounts of marijuana that are cultivated and possessed for recreational use? Will communities have the right to opt out of allowing the legal use of recreational marijuana? Ajax: Again, we really don't know what will happen in the future and this information is unknown at this time. The Bureau will work with local jurisdictions and work to educate Ithem on the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. SCV J: What factors might be considered when the state begins evaluating candidates for recreational marijuana licenses? Ajax: The only statutory requirements for the state relate to the medicinal use of marijuana, so that is our focus now and we have a lot of work to do to be ready to accept applications by our target date of Jan. 1, 2018. SCV J° Will the state regulate marijuana's strength, as it does alcohol, or its purity to ensure that it's free from pesticides or other drugs being introduced today such as Fentanyl? Ajax: The licensing authorities will be determining those details through the regulatory process. There are a lot of aspects when developing protocol for this, and this early in the regulations development process there is really nothing to report yet. SC'll J: How will you go about drafting regulations, and when would they take effect? Ajax: In California, regulations must go through a specific process called the Administrative Procedures Act. We anticipate holding pre-regulatory meetings with stakeholders, conducting research, and consulting with experts, to assist with drafting our regulations. Once proposed regulations have been drafted, there will be a public comment period before the regulations are finally adopted. We anticipate our regulations 2/3 7/3/2016 being. effective Jan. 1, 2018. SCVBJ., Do you anticipate any resistance from Washington, D.C., over marijuana productions and distributions, which could bleed into other states where it's not legal? Ajax: The Bureau is focused on implementing its responsibilities under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. We can't predict the future, but having comprehensive, clear and strong regulations should help prevent diversion to other states. http://www.signalscv.com/section/24/article/153088/ 3/3 r 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org ;—MPMedical Manitiana Last updated on:2/1012016 12:59:05 PM PST 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana Medical Studies Involving Cannabis and Cannabis Extracts (1990 - 2014) of Peer reviewed studies on medical - — - tudses marijuana, listed by condition Pro Con Not Clearly' 'treated Pro or Con �ALS 1 0 0 Bipolar Disorder 2 0 0 Cancer 5 1 1 General Use 2 0 0 Glaucoma 0 0 1 HIV/AIDS 5 1 2 Huntington's Disease 0 0 1 IBD/Crohn's 1 0 1 Multiple Sclerosis 11 3 5 Nausea 1 0 0 Pain 6 0 1 Parkinson's Disease 2 0 1 PTSD 1 0 0 Psychosis / Schizophrenia 1 0 1 Rheumatoid Arthritis 1 0 0 Tourette's Syndrome 2 0 0 TOTALS (6g 3%) 5 (8.3%) (23.3%) Our list includes only peer-reviewed studies from 1990 to present that have been done using the marijuana plant or extracts derived from the plant, such as Sativex and Epidiolex. Studies involving synthetic reproductions of isolated compounds from the marijuana plant—e.g. products such as Mannol, Nabilone, Cannabinor, and others —were not included. Double-blind studies (in which neither the subjects nor the researchers know which patients are receiving the placebo or actual treatment) have been noted as such. The studies are categorized as Pro, Con, or Not Clearly Pro or Con in relation to the specific purpose being investigated in the study. For example, a study showing a benefit of using marijuana to treat Multiple Sclerosis would be categorized as Pro. If the results were mixed, the study would be listed as Not Clearly Pro or Con. A study concluding that marijuana is not useful for treating the specific condition would be labeled Cott. http://m edi calm arij uana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 1/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org We tried to find all the peer-reviewed studies related to testing the utility of marijuana in treating various health conditions since 1990, however we likely missed some. Despite our good faith efforts, please recognize that this list is neither exhaustive nor comprehensive. --.._........._.......... ..... 1. ALS patients said marijuana provided appetite stimulation, aided i sleep, relieved anxiety and depression, and provided muscle s PRO relaxation Jacob Kaufman, MD, third year resident in the Department of Neurology at the University of Pennsylvania,et al., --- ------ -- stated the following in their Apr. 29, 2014 study titled"Medical Marijuana Utilization and Perceived Therapeutic Value in Patients with ALS (P3.014)," published in Neurology: "Cannabis has immunomodulatory [capable of regulating immune functions] properties and effects upon excitotoxicity [process by which neurons are damaged] that suggest that it might have a disease- modifying role in ALS [amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, aka Lou Gehrig's Disease]. There have also been some anecdotal reports suggesting that marijuana may be effective in alleviating certain ALS symptoms... DESIGN/METHODS: We conducted an anonymous survey of all ALS patients attending the Penn ALS Center from June 2013 to the present... RESULTS: The survey was given to 127 patients and 102 were completed (93% response rate). In total, 21% reported current or prior use of medical marijuana to treat their ALS symptoms. Of that 21%, large majorities considered it very effective in providing appetite stimulation (75%), aiding sleep(65%), relieving anxiety (80%), relieving depression (70%), and providing muscle relaxation (60%)... CONCLUSIONS: Those of our patients currently using marijuana report a very significant treatment effect on many ALS symptoms." Apr.29:2014-Jacob Kaufman;MID Return to Top Bipolar Disorder i. Bipolar patients who also had cannabis use disorder (CUD) had significantly better neurocognitive performance than those without PRA} CUD t Raphael J. Braga, MD, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, et al., stated the following in their May 2012 study titled"Cognitive and Clinical Outcomes Associated with Cannabis Use in Patients with Bipolar I Disorder," published in Psychiatry Research: "The objective of the present study was to compare clinical and neurocognitive measures in individuals with bipolar disorder with a history of cannabis use disorder(CUD)versus those without a history of CUD... Results from our analysis suggest that subjects with bipolar disorder and history of CUDs demonstrate significantly better neurocognitive performance, particularly on measures of attention, processing speed, and working memory... http://m edicalm arijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourcel D=000884&pri nt=true 2/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org These data could be interpreted to suggest that cannabis use may have a beneficial effect on cognitive functioning in patients with severe psychiatric disorders. However, it is also possible that these findings may be due to the requirement for a certain level of cognitive function and related social skills in the acquisition of illicit drugs." May 2012-Raphael J.Braga.MD ti5 ti;s`i� _............................. 2. Patients with bipolar disorder report that marijuana is more PRO effective than conventional drugs. Lester Grinspoon, MD, Professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, et al., wrote in an Apr.-June 1998 article titled"The Use of Cannabis as a Mood Stabilizer in Bipolar Disorder: Anecdotal Evidence and the Need for Clinical Research" in Journal of Psychoactive Drugs: 1 "The authors_present case histories indicating that a number of patients find cannabis (marihuana) use in the treatment of their bipolar disorder. Some used it to treat mania, depression, or both. They stated that it was more effective than conventional drugs, or helped relieve the side effects of those drugs. One woman found that cannabis curbed her manic rages; she and her husband have worked to make it legally available as a medicine. Others described the use of cannabis as a supplement to lithium (allowing reduced consumption)or for relief of lithium's side effects. Another case illustrates the fact that medical cannabis users are in danger of arrest, especially when children are encouraged to i inform on parents by some drug prevention programs. An analogy is drawn between the status of cannabis today and that of lithium in the early 1950s, when its effect on mania had been discovered but there were no controlled studies. In the case of cannabis, the law has made such studies almost impossible, and the only available evidence is anecdotal. The E potential for cannabis as a treatment for bipolar disorder unfortunately can not be fully explored in the present social circumstances." Apr.-June 1998-Lester Grinspoon,MD 1 Return to Top Cancer PRO I 1. Cannabidiol inhibits proliferation of breast cancer cells Sean D. McAllister, PhD, Scientist at California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, et al., stated the following in their Aug. 2011 study titled "Pathways Mediating the Effects of Cannabidiol on the Reduction of Breast Cancer Cell Proliferation, Invasion, and Metastasis," published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment journal: "There is a general consensus in the field of cancer research that targeting multiple pathways that control tumor progression is the best strategy for the eradication of aggressive cancers. Since CBD has a low toxicity, it would be an ideal candidate for use in combination treatments with additional drugs already used in the clinic. Importantly, CBD appears to be interacting through a cellular system that regulates the expression of key transcriptional factors (e.g., Id-1)that control breast cancer cell proliferation, migration, and invasion. The experiments described in this manuscript not only define the pathways that CBD is working through to control breast cancer cell aggressiveness, but also demonstrate the efficacy of CBD in pre-clinical models. A greater understanding of this system may lead to future therapies for breast cancer patients, including the additional refinement of CBD analog synthesis." Aug.2011 -Sean D, l`AcAilister,PhD [Editor's Note: The CBD was acquired from the National Institute of Health through the National Institute of Drug Abuse. CBD was extracted from marijuana plants grown at the University of Mississippi.] http://m edical m arij uana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 3/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org 2. Cannabis-based medicine protected against chemotherapy- p► i induced nausea and vomiting Marta Duran, MD, Clinical Pharmacologist in the Fundacio Institut CatalA de Farmacologia at the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, et al., stated the following in their Nov. 2010 study titled"Preliminary Efficacy and Safety of an Oromucosal Standardized Cannabis Extract in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting," published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology: I "AIMS: Despite progress in anti-emetic treatment, many patients still suffer from chemotherapy-induced t nausea and vomiting (CINV). This is a pilot, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II clinical trial designed to evaluate the tolerability, preliminary efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of an acute dose titration of a whole-plant cannabis-based medicine (CBM) containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol, taken in conjunction with standard therapies in the control of CINV. { METHODS: Patients suffering from CINV despite prophylaxis with standard-anti-emetic treatment were randomized to CBM or placebo, during the 120 h post-chemotherapy period, added to standard anti- emetic treatment... CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, CBM added to standard antiemetic therapy was well tolerated and provided better protection against delayed CINV. These results should be confirmed in a phase III clinical trial." Nov.2010-Marta Duran:MD Double-Blind Study 3. Cannabidiol (THC:CBD) extract relieved pain in patients with PRO advanced cancer Jeremy R. Johnson, MBChB, former Medical Director at the Shropshire and Mid Wales Severn Hospice, et. al, wrote the following in a Nov. 6 2009 article titled"Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study of the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of THC:CBD Extract and THC Extract in Patients with Intractable Cancer-Related Pain," published on the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management website: "The primary analysis of change from baseline in mean pain Numedcal Rating Scale (NRS)score was statistically significantly in favor of THC:CBD compared with placebo... Conclusion I This study shows that THC:CBD extract is efficacious for relief of pain in patients with advanced cancer pain not fully relieved by strong opioids." Nov 6,2009-Jeremy R.Johnson.MBChB Double-Blind Study 4. Cannabis extract (CE) and THC were well-tolerated, but no differences in appetite or quality of life were found at the doses NC investigated Florian Strasser, MD, Assistant Medical Director of the Swiss Society of Palliative Care et al., wrote in a July 2006 article titled"Comparison of Orally Administered Cannabis Extract and Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol in Treating Patients with Cancer-Related Anorexia-Cachexia Syndrome: A Multicenter, Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial from the Cannabis-in-Cachexia-Study-Group" in the Joumal of Clinical Oncology: "PURPOSE: To compare the effects of cannabis extract (CE), delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and placebo (PL) on appetite and quality of life(QOL) in patients with cancer-related anorexia-cachexia syndrome (CACS)... http://m edical m arij uana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 4/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org CONCLUSION: CE at the oral dose administered was well tolerated by these patients with CACS. No differences in patients' appetite or QOL were found either between CE, THC, and PL or between CE and THC at the dosages investi gaited." July 2006-Florian Strasser,MID Double-Blind Study 5. Cannabinoids have pain relieving effect in cancer patients and may PR inhibit the growth of tumor cells Manuel Guzman, PhD, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Madrid Complutense University, stated the following in his Oct. 2003 article titled"Cannabinoids: Potential Anticancer Agents," published in the journal Nature Reviews -Cancer. "Cannabinoids—the active components of Cannabis sativa and their derivatives—exert palliative effects in cancer patients by preventing nausea, vomiting and pain and by stimulating appetite. In addition, these compounds have been shown to inhibit the growth of tumour cells in culture and ('( animal models by modulating key cell-signaling pathways. f Cannabinoids are usually well tolerated, and do not produce the generalized toxic effects of { conventional chemotherapies." Oct.2003-Manuel Guzman,PhD 6. A review does not find persuasive evidence to recommend CON I marijuana for preventing vomiting in cancer patients Richard H. Schwartz, MD, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Georgetown University, Eric A. Voth, MD, Chairman of the Institute on Global Drug Policy, et al., wrote the following in their Feb. 1997 article titled"Marijuana to Prevent Nausea and Vomiting in Cancer Patients: A Survey of Clinical Oncologists" in the Southern Medical JoumaL "Marijuana, if rescheduled by the Drug Enforcement Agency, would be the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug to be administered by smoking. American physicians need timely, 3 factual information about probable usage patterns and potential adverse effects of medical marijuana, and a factual complete review of the literature on the subject. i We mailed a survey to 1,500 American clinical oncologists. Of particular interest was whether and how often in the past 24 months these physicians recommended smoked marijuana, synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol, or 5-HT3 (serotonin) antagonists (ondansetron [Zofran], granisetron[Kytril])for i their patients. We also inquired whether and how often the oncologists would prescribe marijuana in the j form of cigarettes, were it to be FDA-approved. Completed surveys were received from 1,122 (75%)of the oncologists. i The percentages of oncologists who prescribed or recommended selected antiemetics more than five times between 1992 and 1994 were 98% for 5-HT, antagonists, 6% for dronabinol (Marinol), and 1% for smoked marijuana. We also found that 332 (30%) of the oncologist-respondents to this nationwide survey supported rescheduling of marijuana for medical purposes-, however, two thirds (67%) of the 332 { respondents who were in favor of rescheduling estimated that they would write less than one prescription per month for marijuana cigarettes. A comprehensive literature review failed to provide persuasive evidence to recommend marijuana as a needed antiemetic medicine." Feb. 1997-Richard H.Schwartz,MID Eric Voth.MD fir+** 7. Oncologists have favorable opinions on the use of marijuana to PROI prevent vomiting in cancer chemotherapy patients I Rick Doblin, PhD, President of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), and Mark A. R. Kleiman, PhD, Professor of Public Policy at the UCLA School of Public Affairs, wrote in a July 1991 article titled "Marijuana as Antiemetic Medicine: A Survey of Oncologists' Experiences and Attitudes" in the American Journal of Clinical Oncology: http://m edical m arij uana.procon.org/vi ew.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 5/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org "A random-sample, anonymous survey of the members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)was conducted in spring 1990 measuring the attitudes and experiences of American oncologists concerning the antiemetic use of marijuana in cancer chemotherapy patients. The survey was mailed to about one third (N = 2,430) of all United States-based ASCO members and yielded a response rate of 43% (1,035). More than 44% of the respondents report recommending the (illegal)use of marijuana for the control of emesis to at least one cancer chemotherapy patient. Almost one half(48%)would prescribe marijuana to some of their patients if it were legal. As a group, respondents considered smoked marijuana to be I somewhat more effective than the legally available oral synthetic dronabinol ([THC] Marinol; Unimed, Somerville, NJ) and roughly as safe. Of the respondents who expressed an opinion, a majority (54%) thought marijuana should be available by prescription. These results bear on the question of whether marijuana has a'currently accepted medical use,' at issue in an ongoing administrative and legal dispute concerning whether marijuana in smoked form should be available by prescription along with synthetic THC in oral form. This survey demonstrates i that oncologists' experience with the medical use of marijuana is more extensive, and their opinions of it are more favorable, than the regulatory authorities appear to have believed." July 1991 -Rick Dablh7,PhD 5I' 7 Mark A.R.Kleiman,PhD " _...---.-.__—----- ._.. .. .__....- _. ..... t Return to Top General Use 1. Cannabis extracts improved intractable neurogenic symptoms such as pain, impaired bladder control, muscle spasms, and a PRO spasticity Derick T Wade, MD, Professor in the Department of Clinical Neurology at the University of Oxford, et al., wrote in a Feb. 2003 article titled"A Preliminary Controlled Study to Determine Whether Whole-Plant Cannabis Extracts Can Improve Intractable Neurogenic Symptoms" in the journal Clinical Rehabilitation: If I "OBJECTIVES: To determine whether plant-derived cannabis medicinal extracts (CME)can alleviate neurogenic symptoms unresponsive to standard treatment, and to quantify adverse effects... Measures used: Patients recorded symptom, well-being and intoxication scores on a daily basis using visual analogue scales. At the end of each two-week period an observer rated severity and frequency of symptoms on numerical rating scales, administered standard measures of disability (Barthel Index), I mood and cognition, and recorded adverse events. RESULTS: Pain relief associated with both THC and CBD was significantly superior to placebo. Impaired bladder control, muscle spasms and spasticity were improved by CME in some patients with these symptoms. Three patients had transient hypotension and intoxication with rapid initial dosing of THC-containing CME. i CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis medicinal extracts can improve neurogenic symptoms unresponsive to standard treatments. Unwanted effects are predictable and generally well tolerated. Larger scale studies are warranted to confirm these findings." Feb, 200 -Derick T.Wade,MD_;� Z* Double-Blind Study 2. Marijuana use helps the Compassionate Investigational New Drug (IND) program patients remain stable and take fewer pharmaceutical drugs Ethan Russo, MD, Senior Medical Advisor at the Cannabinoid Research Institute, et al., stated in his study of four of the remaining seven legal medical marijuana patients in the Compassionate IND program, titled "Chronic Cannabis http://m edi cal m arij uana.procon.org/vi ew.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 6/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org Use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program: An Examination of Benefits and Adverse Effects of Legal Clinical Cannabis," and published in the Jan. 2002 edition of the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics: F "The aim of this study is to examine the overall health status of 4 of the 7 surviving patients in the [Compassionate IND] program. This project provides the first opportunity to scrutinize the long-term effects of cannabis on patients who have used a known dosage of a standardized, heat-sterilized quality-controlled supply of low-grade marijuana for 11 to 27 years. i Results demonstrate clinical effectiveness in these patients in treating glaucoma, chronic musculoskeletal pain, spasm and nausea, and spasticity of multiple sclerosis. All 4 patients are stable with respect to their chronic conditions, and are taking many fewer standard pharmaceuticals than previously. Mild changes in pulmonary function were observed in 2 patients, while no functionally significant attributable sequelae were noted in any other physiological system examined in the study, which included: MRI scans of the brain, pulmonary function tests, chest X-ray, neurops ychological testis, hormone and immunological assays, electroence halo g raph,; P300 testin g history, and neurological clinical examination. These results would support the provision of clinical cannabis to a greater number of patients in need. ' We believe that cannabis can be a safe and effective medicine with various suggested improvements in the existing Compassionate IND program." Jan.2002-Ethan Russo,MID Return to Top Glaucoma 1. Sublingual (under the tongue) doses of THC and CBD produced NC mixed results when used to treat intraocular pressure (IOP) Ileana Tomida, MD, Ophthalmology Specialist, et al. wrote in an Oct. 2006 article titled"Effect of Sublingual Application of Cannabinoids on Intraocular Pressure: A Pilot Study" in the Journal of Glaucoma: "PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect on intraocular pressure (IOP) and the safety and tolerability of oromucosal administration of a low dose of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta- 9-THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)... CONCLUSIONS: A single 5 mg sublingual dose of Delta-9-THC reduced the IOP temporarily and was well tolerated by most patients. Sublingual administration of 20 mg CBD did not reduce IOP, whereas 40 mg CBD produced a transient increase IOP rise." Oct.2006-lleana Tomida,MD .xv'`. Double-Blind Study Return to Top ; f -g i i. Smoked cannabis relieved neuropathic pain in patients with HIV Ronald J. Ellis, MD, PhD, Professor In Residence in the Department of Neuroscience at the University of California at San Diego, et al., stated the following in their Aug. 2008 study titled"Smoked Medicinal Cannabis for Neuropathic Pain in HIV: A Randomized, Crossover Clinical Trial," published in Neuropsychopharmacology: "In a double-blind, randomized, clinical trial of the short-term adjunctive treatment of neuropathic pain in http://m edi calm arij uana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 7/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org HIV-associated distal sensory polyneuropathy, participants received either smoked cannabis or placebo cannabis cigarettes... Among completers, pain relief was significantly greater with cannabis than placebo. The proportion of subjects achieving at least 30% pain relief was again significantly greater with cannabis (46%) compared to placebo(18%). It was concluded that smoked cannabis was generally well-tolerated and effective when added to concomitant analgesic therapy in patients with medically refractory pain due to HIV-associated neuropathy." Aug.2008-Ronald J.Ellis,MD,PhD fr Double-Blind Study 2. Marijuana use produced substantial increase in food intake among j HIV-positive patients PR{ Margaret Haney, PhD, Associate Professor of Clinical Neuroscience at Columbia University, et al., wrote the following in their Aug. 15, 2007 study titled"Dronabinol and Marijuana in HIV-Positive Marijuana Smokers: Caloric Intake, Mood, and Sleep," published in the Joumal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes: "Objectives: This placebo-controlled within-subjects study evaluated marijuana and dronabinol across a range of behaviors: eating topography, mood, cognitive performance, physiologic measures, and sleep. Methods: HIV-positive marijuana smokers (n = 10) completed 2 16-day inpatient phases. Each dronabinol (5 and 10 mg) and marijuana (2.0% and 3.9% [DELTA]9-tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]) dose was administered 4 times daily for 4 days, but only 1 drug was active per day, thereby maintaining [ i double-blind dosing. Four days of placebo washout separated each active cannabinoid condition. ' Results: As compared with placebo, marijuana and dronabinol dose dependently increased daily caloric intake and body weight in HIV-positive marijuana smokers. All cannabinoid conditions produced significant intoxication, except for low-dose dronabinol (5 mg); the intoxication was rated positively (eg, "good drug effect") with little evidence of discomfort and no impairment of cognitive performance. Effects of marijuana and dronabinol were comparable, except that only marijuana (3.9% THC) improved ratings of sleep. Conclusions: These data suggest that for HIV-positive marijuana smokers, both dronabinol (at doses 8 G times current recommendations) and marijuana were well tolerated and produced substantial and comparable increases in food intake." Auy. 1�.2007-Margaret Haney,PhD _......._........_._.........................................._....._...._......_....i 3. Smoked cannabis relieved chronic neuropathic pain in patients PRO with HIV a Donald Abrams, MD, Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, et al., wrote in his Feb. 13, 2007 article titled "Cannabis in Painful HIV-Associated Sensory Neuropathy: A Randomized Placebo- Controlled Trial" in the journal Neurology: "Objective: To determine the effect of smoked cannabis on the neuropathic pain of HIV-associated sensory neuropathy, and an experimental pain model... Patients were randomly assigned to smoke either cannabis (3.56% thc) or identical placebo cigarettes with the cannabinoids extracted three times daily for 5 days... Conclusion: Smoked cannabis was well tolerated and effectively relieved chronic neuropathic pain from HIV-associated sensory neuropathy. The findings are comparable to oral drugs used for chronic neuropathic pain." Feb-1 2007-Donald Abrams,MD Double-Blind Study hUp:Hm edicalm arij uana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 8/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org t 4. Smoking marijuana reduced chronic neuro athic pain in HIV RO ■ patients i Donald Abrams, MD, Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, et al., wrote in their 2005 meeting abstract"Smoked Cannabis Therapy for HIV-related Painful Peripheral Neuropathy: Results of a Randomized, Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial," published in the Journal of the International Association for Cannabis j ® as Medicine: "Smoked marijuana is effective in reducing chronic ongoing neuropathic pain as well as acute pain in the experimental pain model. The magnitude of the response of the-neuropathic pain is similar to what is seen with gabapentin, a widely used therapeutic intervention for HIV neuropathy." 2005`Donald Abrams MD ------------- ____.... - 5. HIV patients report that marijuana helps relieve anxiety and _ _--depression, improved appetite, relieved pain, and more Diane Prentiss, MA, MPH, et al., wrote the following in their article titled"Patterns of Marijuana Use Among Patients with HIV/AIDS Followed in a Public Health Care Setting," published in the Jan. 2004 issue of Journal of Acquired i Immune Deficiency Syndromes (JAIDS): "Objectives: To examine prevalence and patterns of smoked marijuana and perceived benefit and to assess demographic and clinical factors associated with marijuana use among HIV patients in a public health care setting... Results: Overall prevalence of smoked marijuana in the previous month was 23%. Reported benefits i included relief of anxiety and/or depression (57%), improved appetite (53%), increased pleasure (33%), and relief of pain (28%). Recent use of marijuana was positively associated with severe nausea and recent use of alcohol and negatively associated with being Latino. Conclusions: The findings suggest that providers be advised to assess routinely and better understand patients' indications for self-administration of cannabis. Given the estimated prevalence, more formal characterization of the patterns and impact of cannabis use to alleviate HIV-associated symptoms is warranted. Clinical trials of smoked and noncombustible marijuana are needed to determine the role of cannabinoids as a class of agents with potential to improve quality of life and health care outcomes among patients with HIV/AIDS." San.2004-Diane Prentiss,MPH 6. HIV patients using marijuana in smoked and pill forms have improved immune function Donald Abrams, MD, Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, et al., wrote the following in their article"Short-term Effects of Cannabinoids in Patients with HIV-1 Infection: A Randomized, Placebo- controlled Clinical Trial," published Aug. 2003 in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine: "Conclusions: Smoked and oral cannabinoids [marijuana] did not seem to be unsafe in people with HIV infection with respect to HIV RNA levels, CD4 and CD8 cell counts, or protease inhibitor levels over a 21-day treatment." The accompanying"Summaries For Patients" provided by the journal stated. "Patients receiving cannabinoids [smoked marijuana and marijuana pills] had improved immune function compared with those receiving placebo. They also gained about 4 pounds more on average than those patients receiving placebo." Aug.2r`03-Donald Abrams, MD 7. Marijuana use may cause lung problems and regular use could CON harm HIV patients http://m edi cal m arij uana.proton.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 9/26 I 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org Donald P. Tashkin, MD, Director of the Pulmonary Function Laboratories at UCLA, stated the following in his June 2001 article titled"Effects of Smoked Marijuana on the Lung and Its Immune Defenses: Implications for Medicinal Use in HIV-Infected Patients," published in Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics: i "Frequent marijuana use can cause airway injury, lung inflammation and impaired pulmonary defense against infection. The major potential pulmonary consequences of habitual marijuana use of particular relevance to patients with AIDS is superimposed pulmonary infection, which could be life threatening in the seriously immonocompromised patient. 3 In view of the immonosuppressive effect of THC, the possibility that regular marijuana use could enhance progression of HIV infection itself needs to be considered, although this possibility remains unexplored to date." ,tune 2001 -Donald P.Tashkin,MIDi -_ .... ......_...._. ..._ ... .. ..._.... _.._.__...._ ...._.._._.. ....'- r......_...._ ....�. 3 8. Cell culture studies show marijuana lowers resistance to infection, �but human studies are required to determine long-term consequences Guy A. Cabral, PhD, stated the following in his June 2001 article titled"Marijuana and Cannabinoids: Effects on Infections, Immunity, and AIDS," published in Journal of Neurology: "The cumulative data obtained through cell culture studies using various immune cell populations extracted from animals or humans, together with those obtained using animal models of infection, are consistent with the proposition that marijuana and cannabinoids alter immune cell function and can exert deleterious effects on resistance to infection in humans.... However, few controlled longitudinal epidemiological and immunological studies have been undertaken to correlate the immunosuppressive effects of marijuana smoke or cannabinoids on the incidence of infections or viral disease in humans. Clearly, additional investigation to resolve the long-term immunological consequences of cannabinoid and marijuana use as they relate to resistance to infections in humans is warranted." June 2001 -Guy A.Cabral;PhD Return to Top ___..._....._ _.......... _ . _.... 1. CBD found to be nontoxic but ineffective at reducing Huntington's Disease symptoms Paul F. Consroe, PhD, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Arizona, et al., wrote the following in their Nov. 1991 article titled"Controlled Clinical Trial of Cannabidiol in Huntington's Disease," published in the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior. "Based on encouraging preliminary findings, cannabidiol (CBD), a major nonpsychotropic constituent of Cannabis, was evaluated for symptomatic efficacy and safety in 15 neuroleptic-free patients with Huntington's Disease (HD). The effects of oral CBD (10 mg/kg/day for 6 weeks) and placebo (sesame oil for 6 weeks)were ascertained weekly under a double-blind, randomized cross-over design... In summary, CBD, at an average daily dose of about 700 mg/day for 6 weeks, was neither symptomatically effective nor toxic, relative to placebo, in neuroleptic-free patients with HD." Nov. 1991 Paui r:.Consroe, PhD Double-Blind Study http//medicalmarijuana.proton.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&print=true 10/26 NEEL- 711/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org Inflammatory E03owei Disease l D IC rohn's Disease -1. Cannabis improved IBD symptoms, but patients with Crohn's Disease (a type of IBD) who used cannabis had a higher risk of ' needing surgery Martin Storr, MD, Associate Professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of Calgary, et al., stated the following in their Mar. 2014 article titled"Cannabis Use Provides Symptom Relief in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease but Is Associated with Worse Disease Prognosis in Patients with Crohn's Disease," published in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: "Methods: Consecutive patients with IBD (n = 313) seen in the University of Calgary from July 2008 to March-2009 completed a structured anonymous questionnaire covering motives, pattern of use, and _._ subjective beneficial and adverse effects associated with self-administration of Cannabis... Results: Cannabis had been used by 17.6% of respondents specifically to relieve symptoms associated with their IBD, the majority by inhalational route (96.4%). Patients with IBD reported that Cannabis improved abdominal pain (83.9%), abdominal cramping (76.8%), joint pain (48.2%), and diarrhea (28.6%), although side effects were frequent. The use of Cannabis for more than 6 months at rong predictor of requiring surgery in patients with Crohn's any time for IBD symptoms was a st disease... Conclusions: Cannabis use is common in patients with IBD and subjectively improved pain and diarrhea[ symptoms. However, Cannabis use was associated with higher risk of surgery in patients with Crohn's disease. Patients using Cannabis should be cautioned about potential harm, until clinical trials evaluate efficacy and safety." € I Mar.2014-Martin Storr, IVID 2. Cannabis cigarettes produced significant clinical benefits with no PRO side effects in 10 of 11 Crohn's Disease patients Timna Naftali, MD, Specialist in Gastroenterology at Meir Hospital and Kupat Holim Clinic (Israel), et al., stated the following in their Oct. 2013 study titled"Cannabis Induces a Clinical Response in Patients with Crohn's Disease: A Prospective Placebo-Controlled Study," published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology: i "BACKGROUND &AIMS: [...]We performed a prospective trial to determine whether cannabis can induce remission in patients with Crohn's disease. METHODS: We studied 21 patients... with Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores greater than 200 who did not respond to therapy with steroids, immunomodulators, or anti-tumor necrosis factor- alpha agents. Patients were assigned randomly to groups given cannabis, twice daily, in the form of cigarettes containing 115 mg of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or placebo containing cannabis flowers from which the THC had been extracted. Disease activity and laboratory tests were assessed during 8 weeks of treatment and 2 weeks thereafter. j RESULTS: Complete remission... was achieved by 5 of 11 subjects in the cannabis group (45%) and 1 of 10 in the placebo group (10%). A clinical response... was observed in 10 of 11 subjects in the cannabis group (90%) and 4 of 10 in the placebo group(40%). Three patients in the cannabis group were weaned from steroid dependency. Subjects receiving cannabis reported improved appetite and sleep, with no significant side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary end point of the study (induction of remission)was not 1 achieved, a short course (8 weeks) of THC-rich cannabis produced significant clinical, steroid-free benefits to 10 of 11 patients with active Crohn's disease, compared with placebo, without side effects." I Uct.2013-Ti„ira Nau:afi, MD Return to Top 11126 http://m edical m arij uana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org Multiple Sclerosis i. Sativex reduced spasticity in MS patients PRO f Peter Flachenecker, MD, Head of the Quellenhof Neurological Rehabilitation Center, et al., stated the following in their June 2014 study titled"Long-Term Effectiveness and Safety of Nabiximols (Tetrahydrocannabinol/Cannabidiol I Oromucosal Spray) in Clinical Practice," published in European Neurology: "Background: Nabiximols (Sativex), in a cannabinoid-based oromucosal spray, is an add-on therapy option for patients with moderate to severe multiple sclerosis spasticity (MSS) resistant to other medications. The study objective was to provide long-term data on clinical outcomes, tolerability, _ quality of life and treatment satisfaction for MSS patients receiving nabiximols in routine care. Results: In total, 52 patients were included in the effectiveness analysis after 12 months. The mean spasticity numerical rating scale(NRS, 0-10)score decreased significantly... The majority of patients (84%)did not report adverse events. Conclusion: Real-life data confirm the long-term effectiveness and tolerability of nabiximols for the treatment of resistant MSS in everyday clinical practice." June 201:4- eter=/ache ecke ,MD _. _,., .,, ....,.., _........._,_......,.,_._.._ .....__..,._,._.,...___..___..,....._.__,..__. .._...__._...._......._......__.. ._ _.._..._._ _.. _-,....__._._________- 2. MS patients using cannabis reported more fatigue, numbness, I tingling or pain, and heat sensitivity, and said they were "more NC " disabled" Tamela Stuchiner, MA, Research Analyst at the Providence Brain and Spine Institute, et al., stated the following in their Apr. 8, 2014 study titled "Use of Medical Marijuana for Symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) among Participants of the Pacific Northwest MS Registry," published in Neurology: "A survey including demographic information, symptoms, disability status, quality of life, use of MS [multiple sclerosis] medications, and alternative therapies in persons 18 or older with MS, was mailed to registry participants in 2013... RESULTS: Sixty-six percent (n=1,283) of surveys were returned. Of those responding, 8.3% (n=107) reported currently using cannabis to treat MS symptoms... Fatigue; numbness, tingling or pain; and heat sensitivity were more prevalent among cannabis users. Cannabis users reported being more disabled... and had worse physical and psychological impact scores... CONCLUSIONS: Results showed that users of cannabis for symptom management reported more disabling symptoms and higher impact of MS on quality of life. This illustrates the need for more options to be provided in the management of MS symptoms." Apr_8:2014-Tamela Stucl-uner,MA [Editor's Note: We had originally classified this study as "Con" based on the conclusions, but in a Feb. 10, 2016 email to ProCon.org, study author Tamela Stuchiner explained why the results are"Not Clearly Pro or Con," stating: "This was a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis in of those persons in our MS population who reported using cannabis for their MS symptoms. As this is what was reported at one point in time, there is no way to know if the cannabis made their symptoms worse. What we did find is that those using cannabis at that time reported the occurrence of some symptoms more than others. This suggests further study is needed. We plan a sub-study for those reporting use of cannabis to determine a relationship. But at this time, no negative relationship can be reported from this data. It is inconclusive."] 3. Conflicting findings on use of Sativex for MS central neuropathic httpWrn edi calm arij uana.proton.org/view.resource.php?res our celD=000884&pri nt=true 12/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org pain NIC Richard Langford, MD, Professor of Anaesthesia& Pain Medicine at Barts Health NHS Trust, et al., stated the following in their Apr. 2013 study titled"A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group Study of THC/CBD Oromucosal Spray in Combination with the Existing Treatment Regimen, in the Relief of Central Neuropathic Pain in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis," published in the Joumal of Neurology: i "Central neuropathic pain (CNP) occurs in many multiple sclerosis (MS) patients... Here we report the i first phase III placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of the endocannabinoid system modulator delta-9- j tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)/cannabidiol (CBD)oromucosal spray (USAN name, nabiximols Sativex, GW Pharmaceuticals, Salisbury, Wiltshire, UK), to alleviate CNP. Patients who had failed to gain adequate analgesia from existing medication were treated with THC/CBD spray or placebo as an add- on treatment, in a double-blind manner, for 14 weeks to investigate the efficacy of the medication in MS-induced neuropathic pain... The results of the current investigation were equivocal, with conflicting findings in the two phases of the study. While there were a large proportion of responders to THC/CBD spray treatment during the phase A double-blind period, the primary endpoint was not met due to a similarly large number of placebo responders. In contrast, there was a marked effect in phase B of the study, with an increased time to treatment failure in the THC/CBD spray group compared to placebo. These findings suggest that further I studies are required to explore the full potential of THC/CBD spray in these patients." Apr.201.E-Richard Langford,MD Double-Blind Study _._...._. . .._.._...._ .__. _....... 4. Cannabis extract relieved muscle stiffness in patients with MS PRO i John P. Zajicek, PhD, Professor of Clinical Neuroscience at the Neurology Research and Clinical Trials Unit of the Peninsula Medical School at the University of Plymouth, et al., wrote the following in a Nov. 2012 study titled"Multiple Sclerosis and Extract of Cannabis: Results of the MUSEC Trial," published in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry: "OBJECTIVE: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is associated with chronic symptoms, including muscle stiffness, spasms, pain and insomnia. Here we report the results of the Multiple Sclerosis and Extract of Cannabis (MUSEC) study that aimed to substantiate the patient based findings of previous studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stable MS at 22 UK centres were randomised to oral cannabis extract (CE) (N=144) or placebo (N=135)... This double blind, placebo controlled, phase III study had a screening period, a 2 week dose titration phase from 5 mg to a maximum of 25 mg of tetrahydrocannabinol daily and a 10 week maintenance phase... RESULTS:The rate of relief from muscle stiffness after 12 weeks was almost twice as high with CE than with placebo... CONCLUSION:The study met its primary objective to demonstrate the superiority of CE over placebo in the treatment of muscle stiffness in MS. This was supported by results for secondary efficacy variables. Adverse events in participants treated with CE were consistent with the known side effects of cannabinoids. No new safety concerns were observed." Nov.2w2-John P.Zajicek.PhD;4"4 Double-Blind Study 5. Smoked cannabis helped with symptom and pain reduction in MS patients Jody Corey-Bloom, PhD, Professor of Neurosciences at the University of California at San Diego, et al., stated the following in their May 2012 study titled "Smoked Cannabis for Spasticity in Multiple Sclerosis: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial," published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal: 13/26 http://m edi calm aril uana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-Procon.org "Methods:We conducted a placebo-controlled, crossover trial involving adult patients with multiple sclerosis and spasticity... Results:Thirty-seven participants were randomized at the start of the study, 30 of whom completed the trial. Treatment with smoked cannabis resulted in a reduction in patient scores on the modified Ashworth scale by an average of 2.74 points more than placebo (p < 0.0001). In addition, treatment reduced pain scores on a visual analogue scale by an average of 5.28 points more than placebo (p= 0.008). Scores for the timed walk did not differ significantly between treatment and placebo (p= 0.2). Scores on the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test decreased by 8.67 points more with treatment than with placebo (p= 0.003). No serious adverse events occurred during the trial. Interpretation: Smoked cannabis was superior to placebo in symptom and pain reduction in participants with treatment-resistant spasticity. Future studies should examine whether different doses can result in similar beneficial effects with less cognitive impact. May 2012-Jody Corey-Bloom,PhD 6. MS patients using cannabis had significantly poorer cognitive CON skills and were twice as likely to be globally cognitively impaired i Anthony Feinstein, PhD, MD, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, et al., wrote in their Mar. 29, 2011 article"Effects of Cannabis on Cognitive Function in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis" in Neurology: # "Given that MS is associated with cognitive deterioration, the aim of this study was to determine the neuropsychological effects of cannabis use in this population. E Results: Cannabis users performed significantly more poorly than nonusers on measures of information processing speed, working memory, executive functions, and visuospatial perception. They were also twice as likely as nonusers to be classified as globally cognitively impaired." Mar.29.2011 -Anthony Feinstein,PhD.MD _._...._._. ... . .........._..._ .. _...__._ ._.._. .._ _._._...... ..._._-_..... ..__._.. . _._..._.... ...._.__ ....._._........................_._ .. _.......-- -._..._.. 7. Sativex improved spasticity caused by MS PRO Alena Novotna, MD, et al., stated the following in their Mar. 1, 2011 study titled"A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Enriched-design Study of Nabiximols (Sativex), as Add-on Therapy, in Subjects with Refractory Spasticity Caused by Multiple Sclerosis," published in the European Journal of Neurology: "Spasticity is a disabling complication of multiple sclerosis, affecting many patients with the condition. Subjects were treated with nabiximols (Sativex], as add-on therapy, in a single-blind manner... This study has shown Sativex to improve spasticity in patients who had failed to respond adequately to other antispasticity medications..." Mar.1 201 -Alma Novofna,MD Double-Blind Study _......_._.__.___ 8. Sativex improved spasticity caused by MS Jeremy R. Johnson, MD, former Medical Director at the Shropshire and Mid Wales Severn Hospice, et al., stated the following in their Nov. 5, 2009 study titled"Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study of the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of THC:CBD Extract and THC Extract in Patients with Intractable Cancer-Related Pain," published in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management: 'This study compared the efficacy of a tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol (THC:CBD) extract, a nonopioid analgesic endocannabinoid system modulator, and a THC extract, with placebo, in relieving pain in patients with advanced cancer. In total; 177 patients with cancer pain, who experienced inadequate analgesia despite chronic opioid dosing, entered a two-week, multicenter, double-blind, http://m edi calm arij uana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 14/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial... Twice as many patients taking THC:CBD showed a reduction of more than 30% from baseline pain NRS score when compared with placebo(23[43%] vs. 12 [21%])... This study shows that THC:CBD ? extract is efficacious for relief of pain in patients with advanced cancer pain not fully relieved by strong opioids." Nov.5.2009-Jeremy R.Johnson,MD Double-Blind Study 1 9. Cannabis-based medicine (CBM) found more effective than ' PRO , placebo for reducing MS spasticity Christine Collin, MD, Senior Consultant in Neuro-rehabilitation at the Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals, et al., ---}-wrote the-following in their article"Randomized-Controlled Trial_of_Cannabis�ased_Medicine in S asticit _Caused_b-_- p y Y -... --- — 1 Multiple Sclerosis," published in the Mar. 2007 European Journal of Neurology: 1 l a "Symptoms relating to spasticity are common in multiple sclerosis (MS) and can be difficult to treat. We have investigated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of a standardized ... cannabis-based medicine (CBM) containing delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), upon spasticity in MS. A total of 189 subjects with definite MS and spasticity were randomized to receive daily doses of active preparation (n = 124) or placebo (n = 65) in a double blind study over 6 weeks... The primary efficacy analysis... showed the active preparation to be significantly superior... We conclude that this CBM [cannabis-based medicine] may represent a useful new agent for treatment of the symptomatic relief of spasticity in MS." F.r':ar.2007-Christine Collin,MD Double-Blind Study io. Cannabinoids found to slightly improve spasticity in MS patients, NC who felt the drugs were helpful John P. Zajicek, PhD, Professor of Clinical Neuroscience at the Neurology Research and Clinical Trials Unit of the Peninsula Medical School at the University of Plymouth, et al., wrote the following in a Dec. 2005 article titled "Cannabinoids in Multiple Sclerosis (CAMS) Study: Safety and Efficacy Data for 12 Months Follow Up" in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry: "OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness and long term safety of cannabinoids in multiple sclerosis (MS), in a follow up to the main Cannabinoids in Multiple Sclerosis (CAMS) study... RESULTS: Intention to treat analysis of data from the 80% of patients followed up for 12 months showed evidence of a small treatment effect on muscle spasticity as measured by change in Ashworth score from baseline to 12 months... There was suggestive evidence for treatment effects of Delta(9)- THC on some aspects of disability. There were no major safety concerns. Overall, patients felt that these drugs were helpful in treating their disease... CONCLUSIONS: These data provide limited evidence for a longer term treatment effect of cannabinoids. A long term placebo controlled study is now needed to establish whether cannabinoids may have a role beyond symptom amelioration in MS." Dec.2005-John R Zaiicek.. PhD Double-Blind Study il. Sativex significantly improved spasticity caused by MS Derick T. Wade, MD, Professor in the Department of Clinical Neurology at the University of Oxford, et al., wrote the http://medicalm ariivana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 15/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org following in an Aug. 2004 article titled"Do Cannabis-based Medicinal Extracts Have General Or Specific Effects on Symptoms in Multiple Sclerosis?A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Study on 160 Patients," published in the journal Multiple Sclerosis: "The primary outcome measure was a Visual Analogue Scale(VAS)score for each patient's most troublesome symptom. Additional measures included VAS scores of other symptoms, and measures of disability, cognition, mood, sleep and fatigue. Following CBME [cannabis-based medicinal extract] the primary symptom score reduced from mean (SE)74.36(11.1)to 48.89 (22.0)following CBME and from 74.31 (12.5)to 54.79(26.3)following placebo[ns]. Spasticity VAS scores were significantly reduced by CBME (Sativex) in comparison with placebo (P=0.001). There were no significant adverse effects on cognition or mood and intoxication was generally mild." Aug.2004-Derick T.Wade,MID Double-Blind „ Study 12. Orally administered cannabis reduced spasms and improved QUO mobility in patients with MS ; Claude Vaney, MD, Medical Director of the Neurological Rehabilitation and MS Centre, Montana, Switzerland, et al., wrote in an Aug. 2004 article titled "Efficacy of Tetrahydrocannabinol in Patients Refractory to Standard Antiemetic Therapy. Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of an Orally Administered Cannabis Extract in the Treatment of Spasticity in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Crossover Study" in the journal Multiple Sclerosis: r "In the 50 patients included into the intention-to-treat analysis set, there were no statistically significant differences associated with active treatment compared to placebo, but trends in favour of active treatment were seen for spasm frequency, mobility and getting to sleep. In the 37 patients (per-protocol set)who received at least 90% of their prescribed dose, improvements in spasm frequency (P = 0.013) and mobility after excluding a patient who fell and stopped walking were seen (P = 0.01). Minor adverse events were slightly more frequent and severe during active treatment, and toxicity symptoms, which were generally mild, were more pronounced in the active phase. 3 CONCLUSION: A standardized Cannabis sativa plant extract might lower spasm frequency and increase mobility with tolerable side effects in MS patients with persistent spasticity not responding to other drugs." i AL;g,2004-Claude Vaney,MD Double-Blind Study , 13. Cannabis-based medicine extracts helps MS patients with lower O urinary tract symptoms I Ciaran M. Brady, Specialist Registrar in Urology at Edith Cavell Hospital, et al., wrote the following in an Aug. 2004 } article titled"An Open-Label Pilot Study of Cannabis-based Extracts for Bladder Dysfunction in Advanced Multiple Sclerosis," published in the journal Multiple Sclerosis: j "The majority of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) develop troublesome lower urinary tract symptoms (LOTS). Anecdotal reports suggest that cannabis may alleviate LUTS, and cannabinoid I receptors in the bladder and nervous system are potential pharmacological targets. In an open trial we evaluated the safety, tolerability, dose range, and efficacy of two whole-plant extracts of Cannabis sativa in patients with advanced MS and refractory LUTS. Urinary urgency, the number and volume of incontinence episodes, frequency and nocturia all decreased significantly following treatment (P <0.05, Wilcoxon's signed rank test). However, daily total voided, catheterized and urinary incontinence pad weights also decreased significantly on both extracts. Patient self-assessment of pain, spasticity and quality of sleep improved significantly (P <0.05, Wilcoxon's signed rank test)with pain improvement continuing up to median of 35 weeks. httpJ/m edi calm arij uana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 16/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org There were few troublesome side effects, suggesting that cannabis-based medicinal extracts are a safe and effective treatment for urinary and other problems in patients with advanced MS." Aug.2004-Ciaran M.Brady __. -_� 14. Cannabis extract did not significantly improve tremor in patients SIC s i with MS Patrick Fox, MD, Clinical Neurologist at the Peninsula Medical School at the University of Plymouth, et al., wrote in an Apr. 2004 article titled"The Effect of Cannabis on Tremor in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis" in the journal Neurology: "BACKGROUND: Disabling tremor is common in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Data from animal model experiments and subjective and small objective studies involving patients suggest that cannabis may be an effective treatment for tremor associated with MS. To our knowledge, there are no published double-blind randomized controlled trials of cannabis as a treatment for tremor in MS patients... I RESULTS: Analysis of the data showed no significant improvement in any of the objective measures of upper limb tremor with cannabis extract compared to placebo. Finger tapping was faster on placebo compared to cannabis extract (p< 0.02). However, there was a nonsignificant trend for patients to experience more subjective relief from their tremors while on cannabis extract compared to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis extract does not produce a functionally significant improvement in MS- associated tremor." Apr.2004-Patrick Fox,MD i Double-Blind Study 15. Cannabinoids did not help with MS spasticity but did improve NC mobility and self-assessment of pain John P. Zajicek, PhD, Professor of Clinical Neuroscience at the Neurology Research and Clinical Trials Unit of the Peninsula Medical School at the University of Plymouth, et al., wrote the following in a Nov. 2003 article titled "Cannabinoids for Treatment of Spasticity and Other Symptoms Related to Multiple Sclerosis (CAMS study): Multicentre Randomised Placebo-controlled Trial" in the journal Lancet[Note: Patients were given oral cannabis extract, delta-9-THC, or placebo]: "Background: Multiple sclerosis is associated with muscle stiffness, spasms, pain, and tremor. Much i anecdotal evidence suggests that cannabinoids could help these symptoms. Our aim was to test the notion that cannabinoids have a beneficial effect on spasticity and other symptoms related to multiple sclerosis... j Interpretation: Treatment with cannabinoids did not have a beneficial effect on spasticity when assessed with the Ashworth scale. However, though there was a degree of unmasking among the patients in the active treatment groups, objective improvement in mobility and patients' opinion of an improvement in pain suggest cannabinoids might be clinically useful." I Nov. ajicek,PhD v.2003-John P. 16. THC and cannabis sativa plant extract did not reduce spasticity in CON MS patients and worsened global impression I i Joep Killestein, MD, PhD, Multiple Sclerosis Researcher in the Department of Neurology at the MS Centre at VU Medical Centre in Amsterdam, et al., wrote in a May 2002 article titled "Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of Orally Administered Cannabinoids in MS" in the journal Neurology: i "The authors conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, twofold crossover study in 16 patients with MS who presented with severe spasticity to investigate safety, tolerability, and efficacy of oral Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and Cannabis sativa plant extract. Both drugs were safe, but adverse events were more common with plant-extract treatment. Compared with placebo, neither THC nor plant-extract treatment reduced spasticity. Both THC and plant-extract treatment worsened the hUp:/Imedicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&print=true 17/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org participant's global impression." May 2002-Joep Killestein,MD,PhD I Double-Blind Study ............ ___......... 17. Cannabis extracts quickly relieves spasms and pain in MS PRO patients Brian A. Whittle, PhD, co-founder of GW Pharmaceuticals, Geoffrey W. Guy, BSc, co-founder and chairman of GW Pharmaceuticals, Philip Robson, MB, Director of the Cannabinoid Research Institute at GW Pharmaceuticals stated i the following in their 2001 study titled"Prospects for New Cannabis-Based Prescription Medicines," published in Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics: "In practice it has been found that extracts of cannabis [processed whole plant compounds] provide greaten relief of pain than the equivalent_amount of cannabinotd given as a single chemical entity [such_ as Marinol].... Some patients with multiple sclerosis who smoke cannabis [marijuana] report relief of spasm and pain after the second or third puff of a cannabis cigarette. This implies very rapid transit to, and absorption into the central nervous system. The time involved is seconds rather than minutes." 2001 -Brian A 0ibittle,PhD Geoffrey\N.\N..Guy..BSC Philip Robson,MB .._..._..._..___. ... -____._....__._........_...-.___................_.._ ... ___.--.__..__... _....... __.._ ........_........ i 18. MS patients report improvement in symptoms after cannabis use ! PRO Paul F. Consroe, PhD, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Arizona, et al., wrote in their Dec. 20, 1997 article titled"The Perceived Effects of Smoked Cannabis on Patients with Multiple Sclerosis" in the journal European Neurology: "Fifty-three UK and 59 USA people with multiple sclerosis (MS) answered anonymously the first questionnaire on cannabis use and MS. From 97 to 30% of the subjects reported cannabis improved (in descending rank order): spasticity, chronic pain of extremities, acute paroxysmal phenomenon, tremor, emotional dysfunction, anorexia/weight loss, fatigue states, double vision, sexual dysfunction, bowel and bladder dysfunctions, vision dimness, dysfunctions of walking and balance, and memory loss. The MS subjects surveyed have specific therapeutic reasons for smoking cannabis. The survey I findings will aid in the design of a clinical trial of cannabis or cannabinoid administration to MS patients or to other patients with similar signs or symptoms." Dec.20,1997-Paul F.Consroe,PhD 19. Smoked marijuana impaired posture and balance in patients with i spastic MS Harry S. Greenberg, MD, Professor in the Department of Neurology at the University of Michigan, et al., wrote the following in their Mar. 1994 article titled"Short-term Effects of Smoking Marijuana on Balance in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis and Normal Volunteers," published in the journal Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics: "A double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study of inhaled marijuana smoke on postural responses was performed in 10 adult patients with spastic multiple sclerosis (MS) and 10 normal volunteers matched as closely as possible for age, sex, and weight. A computer-controlled dynamic posturographic platform with a video line scan camera measured shoulder displacement in response to pseudorandom platform movements. Pre-marijuana smoking patient tracking was inferior to that of the normal volunteers as indicated by the higher noise variance of the former. Smoking one marijuana cigarette containing 1.54% Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol increased postural tracking error in both the patients and normal control subjects with both eyes open and closed; this untoward effect was greatest for the patients. The tracking error was also accompanied by a decrease http://m edical m arij uana.proton.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 18/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org in response speed for the patients with their eyes closed. Marijuana smoking further impairs posture and balance in patients with spastic MS.' Mar.1994-Harry S.Greenberg,MD j Double-Blind Studv I Return to Top Nausea - 1. Smoked marijuana reduces feelings of nausea PRO Anna H. Soderpalm, PhD, Post-doctoral Fellow in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Chicago, et al., # wrote in a July 2001 article titled"Antiemetic Efficacy of Smoked Marijuana: Subjective and Behavioral Effects on Nausea Induced by Syrup of Ipecac" in the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior. i "Although the public debate about the legalization of marijuana has continued for as long as 25 years, few controlled studies have been conducted to assess its potential medical benefits. The present study examined the antiemetic effect of smoked marijuana cigarettes (8.4 and 16.9 mg Delta(9)- tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]) compared to a highly potent antiemetic drug, ondansetron (8 mg) in 13 healthy volunteers. Nausea and emesis were induced by syrup of ipecac. Marijuana significantly reduced ratings of'queasiness' and slightly reduced the incidence of vomiting compared to placebo. ! Ondansetron completely eliminated the emetic effects of ipecac. These findings support and extend previous results, indicating that smoked marijuana reduces feelings of nausea and also reduces emesis in this model. However, its effects are very modest relative to ondansetron, and the psychoactive effects of marijuana are likely to limit its clinical usefulness in the general population." July 2001 -Anna H.Soderpalm,PhDf Return to Top Pain 1. Patients reported 64% average decrease in chronic pain after using PRO cannabis Charles W. Webb, MD, an urgent care physician, and Sandra M. Webb, RN, an emergency and radiology nurse, stated the following in their Apr. 2014 study titled"Therapeutic Benefits of Cannabis: A Patient Survey," published in Hawaii Journal of Medicine and Public Health: "Between July of 2010 and February of 2011, we hand-delivered questionnaires to one hundred consecutive patients who had been certified for the medical use of cannabis for a minimum of one year and were currently re-applying for certification... Results [...j Average reported pain relief from medical cannabis was substantial. Average pre-treatment pain on a zero to ten scale was 7.8, whereas average post-treatment pain was 2.8, giving a reported average improvement of 5 points. This translates to a 64% average relative decrease in pain... Conclusions Cannabis is an extremely safe and effective medication for many patients with chronic pain. In stark contrast to opioids and other available pain medications, cannabis is relatively non-addicting and has the best safety record of any known pain medication (no deaths attributed to overdose or direct effects of medication). Adverse reactions are mild and can be avoided by titration of dosage using smokeless vaporizers." Apr.2C.,14-Charles W,Webb.MD and Sandra M.Webb, RN .........._... ............._....-._ ._._..._.. . ......_... .. ._._........_ ........ _ http:Hm edi calm arijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resource[D=000884&pri nt=true 19/26 7/12016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org 2. Low and medium doses of vaporized cannabis reduced PRA neuropathic pain Barth Wilsey, MD, Director of the University of California at Davis Analgesic Research Center, et al., stated the following in their Feb. 2013 study titled"Low Dose Vaporized Cannabis Significantly Improves Neuropathic Pain," published in the Joumal of Pain: { "We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study evaluating the analgesic efficacy of vaporized cannabis in subjects, the majority of whom were experiencing neuropathic pain despite traditional treatment. Thirty-nine patients with central and peripheral neuropathic pain underwent a standardized procedure for inhaling either medium dose (3.53%), low dose(1.29%), or placebo cannabis... - Mixed effects regression models demonstrated an analgesic response to-vaporized-cannabis.-There_ was no significant difference between the two active dose groups' results (p>0.7)... [C]annabis has analgesic efficacy with the low dose being, for all intents and purposes, as effective a pain reliever as the medium dose. Psychoactive effects were minimal and well-tolerated, and neuropsychological effects were of limited duration and readily reversible within 1-2 hours. Vaporized cannabis, even at low j doses, may present an effective option for patients with treatment-resistant neuropathic pain." j Feb.2013-Barth vWsey,MID Double-Blind Study 3. Smoked cannabis three times a day reduced neuropathic pain and PRO improved sleep Mark A. Ware, MD, MSc, et al., stated the following in their Aug. 30, 2010 study titled"Smoked Cannabis for Chronic j Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial," published in the Canadian Medical Association Joumal: (, "Adults with post-traumatic or postsurgical neuropathic pain were randomly assigned to receive cannabis at four potencies (0%, 2.5%, 6% and 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol)over four 14-day periods in a crossover trial. Participants inhaled a single 25-mg dose through a pipe three times daily for the first five days in each cycle, followed by a nine-day washout period. Daily average pain intensity was measured using an 11-point numeric rating scale. I 3 Conclusion A single inhalation of 25 mg of 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol herbal cannabis three times daily for five days reduced the intensity of pain, improved sleep and was well tolerated." Aug.30:2010-Mark A.Ware, MD;ftASct Ya Double-Blind Study' _..... _ - _. - - 4. Low and high doses of smoked cannabis relieved neuropathic pain , PRO ; of diverse causes i Barth Wilsey, MD, Director of the University of California at Davis Analgesic Research Center, et al., stated the following in his June 2008 study titled "A Randomized, Placebo Controlled Cross-Over Trial of Cannabis Cigarettes in Neuropathic Pain," published in the Joumal of Pain: "This study's objective was to examine the efficacy of two doses of smoked cannabis on pain in persons with neuropathic pain of different origins (e.g., physical trauma to nerve bundles, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, diabetes). In a double-blind, randomized clinical trial participants received either lowdose, high-dose, or placebo cannabis cigarettes... Thirty-eight patients underwent a standardized procedure for smoking either high-dose (7%), low-dose (3.5%), or placebo cannabis-, of these, 32 completed all three smoking sessions. The study http://m edical m arij uana.procon.org/vi ew.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 20/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org demonstrated an analgesic response to smoking cannabis with no significant difference between the low and the high dose cigarettes. The study concluded that both low and high cannabis doses were efficacious in reducing neuropathic pain of diverse causes." June 2008-Barth Wilsey;MDYt N Double-Blind Study ........_...........- _. .. __ .......j 5. Marijuana found to both reduce and increase capsaicin-induced NC pain (injection of chili pepper ingredient) depending on dose Mark Wallace, MD, Professor of Anesthesiology at the University of California at San Diego, et al., stated the following in their Nov. 2007 article titled"Dose-Dependent Effects of Smoked Cannabis on Capsaicin-Induced Pain and I Hyperalgesia in Healthy Volunteers," published in the journal Anesthesiology: j --------- "In summary,-in this model of-human experimental-pain,--smoked cannabis was demonstrated to have a i delayed biphasic [two phase] effect on pain scores induced by intradermal capsaicin [chili pepper heat — — i injected into the skin]. The low dose[of marijuana] had no effect, the medium dose significantly I reduced the pain and the high dose significantly increased the pain... No conclusions on the analgesic efficacy of smoked cannabis on clinical pain states can be made from this study as the relationship between analgesic effects in experimental pain and clinical pain states is unknown." 1 Nov.2007-Mark Wallace,MD " Double-Blind Study i _.__ .... ______._._. 6. Cannabis-based medicines produced significant improvements in PRO pain severity and sleep in patients with brachial plexus root avulsion _ ! Jonathan S. Berman, MA, Consulting Anaesthetist at the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, et al., wrote the following in a Dec. 2004 article titled"Efficacy of Two Cannabis Based Medicinal Extracts for Relief of Central Neuropathic Pain from Brachial Plexus Avulsion: Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial' in the journal Pain: 1 "The objective was to investigate the effectiveness of cannabis-based medicines for treatment of chronic pain associated with brachial plexus root avulsion. This condition is an excellent human model t of central neuropathic pain as it represents an unusually homogenous group in terms of anatomical location of injury, pain descriptions and patient demographics... The primary outcome measure was the mean pain severity score during the last 7 days of treatment. Secondary outcome measures included pain related quality of life assessments. The primary outcome measure failed to fall by the two points defined in our hypothesis. However, both this measure and measures of sleep showed statistically significant improvements. The study medications were generally well tolerated with the majority of adverse events, including intoxication type reactions, being mild to moderate in severity and resolving spontaneously. Studies of longer duration in neuropathic pain are required to confirm a clinically relevant, improvement in the treatment of this condition." Dec,.2004-Jonathan S.Berman,MA Double-Blind Study 7. Patients report improvement in pain, sleep, and mood after cannabis use Mark A. Ware, MSc, Director of Research at the Magill University Health Centre (MUHC) Pain Clinic in Canada, et al., wrote the following in a Mar. 2003 article titled "Cannabis Use for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: Results of a Prospective Survey" in the journal Pain: "There has been a surge in interest in medicinal cannabis in Canada. We conducted a questionnaire survey to determine the current prevalence of medicinal cannabis use among patients with chronic non- cancer pain, to estimate the dose size and frequency of cannabis use, and to describe the main symptoms for which relief was being sought... http://m edicalm arij uana.pracon.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 21/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org Of the 32 subjects who used cannabis for pain, 17 (53%) used four puffs or less at each dosing interval, eight (25%) smoked a whole cannabis cigarette (joint) and four(12%) smoked more than one joint. Seven(22%)of these subjects used cannabis more than once daily, five (16%)used it daily, eight (25%) used it weekly and nine (28%) used it rarely. Pain, sleep and mood were most frequently reported j as improving with cannabis use, and'high' and dry mouth were the most commonly reported side effects. We conclude that cannabis use is prevalent among the chronic non-cancer pain population, for j a wide range of symptoms, with considerable variability in the amounts used." Mar.2003-Mark A.ware,MSc Return to Top kinso n's Disease i. Smoked cannabis produced improvements in patients' Parkinson's PRO symptoms with no significant adverse effects Itay Lotan, MD, physician in the Neurology department at Rabin Medical Center in Israel, et al., stated the following in their Mar./Apr. 2014 study titled"Cannabis (Medical Marijuana)Treatment for Motor and Non—Motor Symptoms of Parkinson Disease: An Open-Label Observational Study," published in Clinical Neuropharmacology: I "Methods: Twenty-two patients with PD [Parkinson's disease] attending the motor disorder clinic of a tertiary medical center in 2011 to 2012 were evaluated at baseline and 30 minutes after smoking cannabis using the following battery: Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale, visual analog scale, present pain intensity scale, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, as well as Medical Cannabis Survey National Drug and Alcohol Research Center Questionnaire. Results: Mean (SD)total score on the motor Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale score improved significantly from 33.1 (13.8) at baseline to 23.2 (10.5) after cannabis consumption (t= 5.9; P < 0.001). Analysis of specific motor symptoms revealed significant improvement after treatment in tremor(P < 0.001), rigidity (P = 0.004), and bradykinesia (P < 0.001). Conclusions: There was also significant improvement of sleep and pain scores. No significant adverse effects of the drug were observed. The study suggests that cannabis might have a place in the therapeutic armamentarium of PD. Larger, controlled studies are needed to verify the results." N11af.lApr.2014-Itay i-otan,MD 2. Orally administered cannabis produced no improvement in NC dyskinesias or parkinsonism I Camille B. Carroll, PhD, Clinical Research Fellow at the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, et al., wrote in an Oct. 2004 article titled"Cannabis For Dyskinesia In Parkinson Disease: A Randomized Double-blind Crossover Study" in the journal Neurology: "Seventeen patients completed the RCT. Cannabis was well tolerated, and had no pro-or anti parkinsonian action. There was no evidence for a treatment effect on levodopa-induced dyskinesia as assessed by the UPDRS, or any of the secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Orally administered cannabis extract resulted in no objective or subjective improvement in dyskinesias or parkinsonism." 1'> Oct.20114-Camille B.Carroll,PhD Double-Blind Study } 3. Patients with Parkinson's report improvement two months after . starting cannabis use http://m edicalm arij uana.procon.org/vi ew.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 22/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org Katerina Venderova, PhD, Assistant Professor at University of the Pacific and former researcher at the Movement Disorders Centre in the Department of Neurology at Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic, et al.,wrote in their Sep. 2004 article"Survey on Cannabis Use in Parkinson's Disease," published in the journal Movement Disorders: "An anonymous questionnaire sent to all patients attending the Prague Movement Disorder Centre revealed that 25% of 339 respondents had taken cannabis and 45.9% of these described some form of benefit.... 'i The late onset of cannabis action is noteworthy. Because most patients reported that improvement occurred approximately two months after the first use of cannabis, it is very unlikely that it could be j _ attributed to a placebo reaction." Sep.2004-Katerina Venderova,µPhD MN Return to Top _ o 1 i + trey- -- f -, i. PTSD symptoms were reduced by more than 75% in patients using cannabis George R. Greer MD a physician in Santa Fe, NM, Charles S. Grob, MD, Director of Division of Child and g p Y Adolescent Psychiatry at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, and Adam L. Halberstadt, PhD, Assistant Research Scientist in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California San Diego, stated the following in their Mar. 2014 article titled"PTSD Symptom Reports of Patients Evaluated for the New Mexico Medical Cannabis Program," published in i the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs: "Background: New Mexico was the first state to list post-traumatic stress disorder(PTSD)as a condition for the use of medical cannabis. There are no published studies, other than case reports, of j the effects of cannabis on PTSD symptoms. The purpose of the study was to report and statistically analyze psychometric data on PTSD symptoms collected during 80 psychiatric evaluations of patients i applying to the New Mexico Medical Cannabis Program from 2009 to 2011. Methods: The Clinician Administered Posttraumatic Scale for DSM-IV(CAPS)was administered retrospectively and symptom scores were then collected and compared in a retrospective chart review j of the first 80 patients evaluated. I Results: Greater than 75% reduction in CAPS symptom scores were reported when patients were using cannabis compared to when they were not. Conclusions: Cannabis is associated with reductions in PTSD symptoms in some patients, and prospective, placebo-controlled study is needed to determine efficacy of cannabis and its constituents I in treating PTSD." Mar.2014-George R.Greer,MD.Charles S.Grob.MD,and Adam L.Halberstadt,PhD � ..._..._.- _.... _.._.. _.................- ...__ .... ..- _._. -._..._... _.. ..._.... .. .................. Return to Top i. Cannabis use had no compounding effects on cognition or emotion/affect-based decision-making in schizophrenia patients Serge Sevy, MD, MBA, Adjunct Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, et al., wrote in their Jan. 11, 2007 article"Iowa Gambling Task in Schizophrenia: A Review and New Data in Patients with Schizophrenia and Co-occurring Cannabis Use Disorders" in Schizophrenia Research: http://m edi cal m arij uana.procon.org/vi ew-resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 23/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org "We reviewed previous studies comparing schizophrenia patients and healthy subjects for performance on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) (a laboratory task designed to measure emotion-based decision- making), and found mixed results. We hypothesize that deficits in IGT performance in schizophrenia may be more specifically related to concurrent substance use disorders. To test this hypothesis, we compared schizophrenia patients with (SCZ(+)) or without (SCZ(-)) cannabis use disorders, to healthy i subjects, on measures of cognition and IGT performance... There were no differences between SCZ(+) and SCZ(-) patients on most of the cognitive tests, and IGT i performance... Schizophrenia patients show widespread impairments in several cognitive domains and emotion-based decision making... More intriguing, it appears that the concurrent abuse of cannabis has no compounding effects on cognition, as well as emotion/affect-based decision-making." Jan. 11,2007-Serge Sevy,MD,MBA . 2. Among patients with schizophrenia, cannabis users had better cognitive functioning John Stirling, DPhil, Principal Lecturer/Reader in the Research Institute for Health and Social Change at Manchester Metropolitan University, et al., wrote in their Oct. 21, 2004 article"Cannabis Use Prior to First Onset Psychosis Predicts Spared Neurocognition at 10-year Follow-up" in Schizophrenia Research: ? F "A priori cannabis use was recorded at index admission for 112 participants in the Manchester first- episode psychosis cohort. 69 of the 100 surviving (mainly schizophrenia) patients were followed up 10— 12 years later and assessed on a battery of clinical, behavioural and neurocognitive measures. Individuals who had not used cannabis before the first episode of illness were generally indistinguishable from cannabis users at follow-up, except that the latter group evidenced a marked sparing' of neurocognitive functions... 1 [C]annabis users had better cognitive functioning than patients without cannabis use in several domains including design memory, verbal fluency, object assembly, block design, picture completion, picture arrangement, and face recognition memory." Pict.2 ,2004 John Stirling,DPhil Return to Top Rheumatoid rt riti 1. Sativez improved pain while moving and at rest in patients with , rheumatoid arthritis David Blake, PhD, Professor of Bone and Joint Medicine at the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, et al., stated the following in their Jan. 2006 study titled"Preliminary Assessment of the Efficacy, Tolerability and Safety of a Cannabis-Based Medicine (Sativex) in the Treatment of Pain Caused by Rheumatoid Arthritis," published in Rheumatology journal: "Objectives. To assess the efficacy of a cannabis-based medicine (CBM) in the treatment of pain due to rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. We compared a CBM (Sativex)with placebo in a randomized, double-blind, parallel group study in 58 patients over 5 weeks of treatment... Results. [...] In comparison with placebo, the CBM produced statistically significant improvements in pain on movement, pain at rest, quality of sleep... Conclusions. In the first ever controlled trial of a CBM in RA, a significant analgesic effect was observed and disease activity was significantly suppressed following Sativex treatment. Whilst the differences are small and variable across the population, they represent benefits of clinical relevance and show the need for more detailed investigation in this indication." ,Jar..2006-David Blake,PhD http'//m edicalm arij uana,procon.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&pri nt=true 24/26 7/1/2016 60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana-Medical Marijuana-ProCon.org i Double-Blind Study Return to Top Tourette's Syndrome 1. THC was "effective and safe in the treatment of tics" from Tourette PRO syndrome Kirsten Muller-Vahl, MD, Director of Tourette Syndrome Clinic at the Medical School of Hannover, et al., stated the following in their Apr. 2003 study titled"Delta 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) Is Effective in the Treatment of Tics in Tourette Syndrome:A 6-Week-Randomized-Trial-,"published in-the Journal-of Clinical Psychiatry_- - - - - "METHOD: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 24 patients with TS [Tourette syndrome], according to DSM-III-R criteria, were treated over a 6-week period with up to 10 mg/day of i THC... I RESULTS: Seven patients dropped out of the study or had to be excluded, but only 1 due to side effects. Using the TS-CGI, STSSS, YGTSS, and video rating scale, we found a significant difference (p<.05) or a trend toward a significant difference (p<-10) between THC and placebo groups at visits 2, 3, and/or 4. Using the TSSL at 10 treatment days (between days 16 and 41)there was a significant difference (p<.05) between both groups. ANOVA as well demonstrated a significant difference (p =.037). No serious adverse effects occurred. E CONCLUSION: Our results provide more evidence that THC is effective and safe in the treatment of tics. It, therefore, can be hypothesized that the central cannabinoid receptor system might play a role in TS pathology." Apr.2003-Kirsten Muller-Vahl,MD vs Double-Blind Study ____.__. _._.. l..__....______.._. 2. Anecdotal reports suggest beneficial effects of marijuana for Tourette's syndrome PR Kirsten Muller-Vahl, MD, Director of Tourette Syndrome Clinic at the Medical School of Hannover, et al., stated the following in their Dec. 1998 study titled"Cannabinoids: Possible Role in Patho-physiology and Therapy of Gilles De La i Tourette Syndrome," published in the journal Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica: "High densities of cannabinoid receptors were found in the basal ganglia and hippocampus, indicating a i putative functional role of cannabinoids in movement and behaviour. Anecdotal reports suggested beneficial effects of marijuana in Tourette's syndrome (TS). ? We therefore interviewed 64 TS patients with regard to use of marijuana and its influence on TS symptomatology. Of 17 patients (27%)who reported prior use of marijuana, 14 subjects (82%) experienced a reduction or complete remission of motor and vocal tics and an amelioration of 1 premonitory urges and obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Our results provide more evidence that marijuana improves tics and behavioural disorders in TS. It can be speculated that cannabinoids might act through specific receptors, and that the cannabinoid system might play a major role in TS pathology." Dec.1998-Kirsten Wller-Vahl.MD Return to I op http//medicalmarijuana.proton.org/view.resource.php?resourcelD=000884&print=true 25/26 Y Why Geraldo Blames America's Heroin Renaissance On Pot Prohibition Page 1 of 7 Search CIL (https://www.facebook.com/civilized.life) V (https:Htwitter.com/civilized-life) Menu Wh y Geraldo Blames America's Heroin Renaissance On Pot Prohibition () (https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.civiIized.Iife/geraldo- prohibition-america-1902979581 .htm1%3Fxrs%3D RebelMouse_fb) V (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://www.civilized.life/geraldo-prohibition- america-1902979581 .html&text=Why%20Geraldo%20Blames%20America%27s% 20Heroin%2ORenaissance%200n%2OPot%2OProhibition%20via%20%40civilized_life) %r%p(http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.civilized.life% 2Fgeraldo-prohibition-america-1902979581 .html) 6 (http://www.reddit.com/submit? url=https://www.civilized.life/geraldo-prohibition-america-1902979581 .html&title=Why% 20Geraldo%20BIames%20America%27s%20Heroin%20Renaissance%200n%20Pot% 20Prohibition) u (mailto-.?subject=Why%20Geraldo%20BIames%2OAmerica%27s% 20Heroin%20Renaissance%200n%20Pot% 20Prohibition&body=https://www.civilized.life/geraldo-prohibition-america- 1902979581 .html) I July 04, 2016 by James McClure https://www.civilized.life/geraldo-prohibition-america-1902979581.html 7/5/2016 Why Geraldo Blames America's Heroin Renaissance On Pot Prohibition Page 2 of 7 Search A _{ ://www tps XS vilized. �tvultte d. P ,s The United States is in the grip of an opioid epidemic that is claiming 78 American lives every day (http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/epidemic/) due to overdoses of drugs such as heroin and oxycodone, according to the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/). And controversial journalist Geraldo Rivera says that we should blame the crisis on marijuana prohibition. In a 2014 article for Latino FOX News (http://Iatino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2014/02/06/geraldo-rivera- smack-is-back-blame-pot-prohibition/), Rivera - who turns 73 today - used the opioid-related death of actor Philip Seymour Hoffman (http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/philip-seymour-hoffmans-last- days-20140725) as a jumping point for a blistering commentary on the War on Drugs. https://www.civiIized.life/geraldo-prohibition-america-1902979581.html 7/5/2016 Why Geraldo Blames America's Heroin Renaissance On Pot Prohibition Page 3 of 7 Search CZ L� (https://www.facebook.com/civilized.li e) V "Withttcp-PPI/tWWotco Ac-ivi l ize _l if e) dying of heroin overdoses in Menu recent months in relatively upscale communities like Ocean County, New Jersey, it was just a matter of time before a high-profile celebrity like 46- year-old, Oscar-winning actor Phillip Seymour Hoffman joined the ranks of previous celebrity junkies like Lenny Bruce, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain and Heath Ledger in a body bag." Rivera considers Hoffman a casualty of the drug war because the American justice system's decision to lump marijuana and heroin together as equally dangerous substances (https-//www.civilized.life/dea-marijuana- reschedule-1712388549.html) distracted law enforcers from cracking down on the real threat to society. Moreover, he argues that the legal equivalence of opioids and cannabis led police to focus on busting marijuana consumers - mainly ethnic minorities - and overlooking heroin. littps://www.civilized.life/geraldo-prohibition-amerlca-1902979581.htm1 7/5/2016 Why Geraldo Blames America's Heroin Renaissance On Pot Prohibition Page 4 of 7 Search Q (https://www.facebook.com/civilized.li e) V "Bghtt J/ tt (u&vVciviIize _life) and dumb laws that did not Menu pot and smack, law enforcement was diluted. All drug abuse was treated equally, and the ax fell heaviest on black and brown kids who were less interested in heroin...and more interested in pot. "Over the ensuing decades," he wrote, "uncounted tens of thousands of mostly minority pot smokers were busted with catastrophic consequences for their futures in terms of city jobs or public housing or college admissions. With that misguided focus on the easy to catch potheads, heroin made its insidious comeback." To solve the problem, he suggests two things: treat drug addiction as a disease instead of a crime, and stop persecuting marijuana smokers. "Time to grow up America; addiction is a disease. Bring it out of the closet of shame and punishment. Everybody has tried marijuana; even your mom and dad. President Obama says pot is less dangerous than alcohol (http-//www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/01/19/264024145/obama- marijuana-is-not-more-dangerous-than-alcohol). It is certainly less dangerous than prescription meds or heroin for God's sake. The War on Drugs is an ongoing tragedy and a tragic waste." https://www.civiIized.Iife/geraldo-prohibition-america-190297958 Lhtml 7/5/2016 Why Geraldo Blames America's Heroin Renaissance On Pot Prohibition Page 5 of 7 Rivera spoke from experience Search CZ (htt s://www.facebook.com/civili�ed.life) �/` The ar icle wa n't the firs time that Rivera waded the.controversial topic of cannabis. In 197 ,' htetpr Vl/�M`�'iju��1q'c1r/givAip�flife) supervision to discuss its effects firsthand. That sort of reporting isn't u groundbreaking by today's standards, but it was arguably a risky career move during the early years of the War on Drugs. Here's a clip from that experiment. Geraldo Gets High h/t NPR (http://npr.org) Banner image: Geraldo Rivera says police resources were needlessly dedicated to enforcing marijuana prohibition, when law enforcement should have been cracking down on the illegal heroin market instead. (a katz (http-//www.shutterstock.com/gallery-940660pl .html) / Shutterstock.com) https://www.civilized.life/geraldo-prohibition-america-1902979581.html 7/5/2016 Why Geraldo Blames America's Heroin Renaissance On Pot Prohibition Page 6 of 7 Search CZ 91 (https://www.facebook.com/civilized.life) V Sign up for our newsletter' C RR - y)Ilized_life) Menu v 91 (https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php? _ u=https://www.civilized.life/geraldo-prohibition-america- 1902979581 .html%3Fxrs%3DRebelMouse_fb) 0 (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://www.civilized.life/geraldo- prohibition-america-1902979581 .html&text=Why%20Geraldo% 20Blames%20America%27s%20Heroin%20 Rena issance%200n%20Pot% 20Prohibition%20via%20%40civilized_life) Xw (http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=https%3A%2F% 2Fwww.civilized.life%2Fgeraldo-prohibition-america-1 902979581 .html) V► (http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=https://www.civilized.life/geraldo- prohibition-america-1902979581 .html&title=Why%20Geraldo% 20Blames%20America%27s%20Heroin%20Renaissance%200n%20Pot% 20Prohibition) u (mailto:?subject=Why%20Geraldo%20BIames% 20America%27s%2OHeroin%20 Rena issance%200n%20Pot% 20Prohibition&body=https://www.civilized.life/geraldo-prohibition- a merica-1902979581 .htm I) E :i https://www.civil]zed.Iife/geraldo-prohibition-america-1902979581.html 7/5/2016 Why Geraldo Blames America's Heroin Renaissance On Pot Prohibition Page 7 of 7 Search Q (https://www.facebook.com/civilized.life) V (https:Htwitter.com/civilized—life) Menu https://www.civilized.life/geraldo-prohibition-america-1902979581.html 7/5/2016 7/312016 DEA approves medical marijuana study for PTSD-Smell the Truth SMELL THE TRUTH BUSINESS DEA approves medical marijuana study for PTSD By Oscar Pascual on April 25, 2016 at 10;09 AM ADVERTISEMEN C Free Dental Implants cosmetiedentistrygrants.org r'ncme+ir lien+ic+ni (,rnn+e Pin Gee �Ai ic+ he 1 Military veterans may soon find z� out just how effectively cannabis can treat symptoms of post- . traumatic stress. Mi The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has given approval to study the effects of medical marijuana on post- traumatic stress disorder, marking the first U.S. study on PTSD that will use actual raw cannabis in its clinical trial, reports the Denver Post. According to the research's non-profit sponsor, Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) the approval now gives researchers clearance to buy the marijuana for the study from the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA). "This is a critical step in moving our botanical drug development program forward at the federal level to gather information on the dosing, risks, and benefits of smoked marijuana for PTSD symptoms," said Amy Emerson, director of clinical research for the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation, to the Military Times. Despite a glaring lack of medical research, many war veterans have turned to http://bl og.sfgate.com/sm el Ithetruth/2016/04/25/dea-approves-m edi cal-m aril uana-study-for-ptsd/ 1/11 7/3/2016 oEA approves medical marijuana study for PTSDsmell the Truth ' - using medical marijuana with high amounts of its main psychoactive compound THCto combat the dreaded symptoms of PTSD, Only five out of 23 states with medical marijuana laws list PT8Dasaqualifying condition, ' w F ree Dental U m U a s CO3nledCdentistnyoraOtSDrg r^°"=",n6, r`cin+/"+", /'_,="+c xu° Fnn xx.."+ IQ,= The study first received approval from the department of Health and Human Sen/ioao in March 2014 and was set to be conducted at the University of Arizona � among other |ocotions, but was delayed when the school controversially terminated the contract of the program's original primary researcher, Dc Sue Sisley. "Mostly xve'na just grateful that we get to see science move fon*und.^ said Oc Sisley to the Post. The University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine's Marcel Bonn-Miller in now head of the project, with 8ia|ay running half the study in Arizona while the other half will be conducted at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. AovsnnosMswr ������� Marijuana �������U°�� ������� ���������^� GU1SiderC|Ub.CQDl/M3r'UaOa_StUCks Tkn"n A,z Th"^ r)"ine (Z,=+ T" Q..,"m | nn,n \x/in' Although the Study now has DEA approval, Sisley cautions that the study could take years to collect and analyze data from veterans enrolled in the program. Results may not be published until 2019. Despite the lengthy process, Sisley still believes the DE/(e approval was the right decision. "The study needs to happen because theme veterans have legitimate questions," Sisley told the Post. http://blvn.nfgnte.omn/smmnmetrutmx01sm4/z5/oea'oppmves'momcal-mmN 2n1 7/3/2016 California cities,counties warming to new marijuana laws-Smell the Truth ° EA 1 BUSINESS California cities, counties warming to new marijuana laws By David Downs on May 4. 2416 at 9:43 AM r� X. ;. �fl'l l A,}Iry I, „ t r A California medical cannabis dispensary. (Photo by David Downs) California's cities and counties are rapidly warming to medical marijuana business — overturning longtime bans to approve dispensaries, deliveries, farms, edibles, kitchens and labs. This week, the East Bay Express reports that Alameda County could license cannabis greenhouses and indoor cultivation on agricultural land by 2017. The County hopes to update its dispensary ordinance to allow edibles and extracts, as well as add one to three new pot shops by the Fall. Supervisor Nate Miley said counties are like sleeping giants on the issue of cannabis, and http://bl og.sfgate.com/sm elIthetruth/2016/05/04/cal iforni a-cities-counties-warm ing-to-new-marijuana-laws/ 1/12 7/312016 California cities,counties warming to new marijuana laws-Smell the Truth Alameda County is among the first to stir. "I think we are stirring — just how much and how quickly, that's to be determined. but I'm going to keep pushing," he said. Miley said attorneys for every county in the state — the county counsels — have met to discuss updating local laws to match the state's new Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. For the first time in 19 years, local officials have clear, black and white lines from state lawmakers on legal medical pot activity. "MMRSA helps," said Miley. "It provides the necessary regulatory cover for jurisdictions that want to move ahead with supporting medical cannabis." Alameda County is not alone. In the past few weeks: — Santa Rosa accepted their first-ever applications for cultivation licenses. — Humboldt County approved a cultivation ordinance allowing massive farms in January. — Emeryville has begun investigating how to become a cannabis biotech hub for California. — last night the City of Oakland moved to add eight new dispensaries per year, as well as license deliveries, labs, kitchens and distribution warehouses. — Marin County is moving to add its first licensed dispensary. — The desert town of Cathedral City has approved medical cannabis cultivation. — Monterey County is creating an ordinance on the sales and cultivation of medical marijuana. — The City of Merced approved its first four dispensaries April 20 — Mendocino County is working on a Mendocino Cannabis Appellations Project, similar to those for wine. ADVERTISING http://biog.sfgate.com/smelIthetruth/2016/05/04/california-cities-counties-warming-to-new-marijuana-laws/ 2112 . . ~ 7mm0116 California cities,counties warming m new marijuana laws Smell the Truth �ae'nmo� California's medical cannabis sector generates several billion doUona in revenue each year. About one in 20 California adults io estimated to have used medical cannabis for o serious condition. Fully legalizing cannabis for adults would generate about 81 billion per year in taxes. State offiC|e|m estimate. The state of California is hiring about 126 people and spending $24.0 million on new state regulations in the coming year. PROMOTED STORIES ' The 8 Things That What are the Chris Darden Says Hurt Older job Disadvantages ofo O1Sinnpuon Seekers Reverse Mortgage? Confessed to (AxnP) (Reverse Mortgage Nicole... Guides) (s| Online) United States Residents Born Between 1936and 1966 Are... (LiveSmarted]aily) FIF AROUND THE WES WE RECOHMV,� Before You join Dollar Shave Club, 'Iranian Hulk' bodybuilder goes viral mtp:mmvo.snatezvm/smonmooumoo1nm5/owca|norn*unoo'ommos'wa,mmo'u,uew'mu,ijvpna-|aws/ onu No Colorado teen marijuana use isn't g legal s ikin in era, 2015 survey shows p Alcohol is top substance among teens' reported past-month use in Healthy Kids Colorado Survey; marijuana use rate stays close to national average PUBLISHED: JUN 20, 2016, 2:55 PM • UPDATED: 3 DAYS AGO By lohn Ingold, The Denver Post One out of every five Colorado teens say they have used marijuana in the last month,but that rate has not increased since pot was legalized in the state and is in line with the national average,according to a new report from the state Health Department. Among the other findings of the 2015 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey,released Monday: • The large majority of Colorado middle and high school students — 62 percent — say they have never used marijuana. • Alcohol is the drug of choice among Colorado teens,with 30 percent of kids surveyed saying they drank within the previous month. • Cigarette use among teens is at an all-time low,with fewer than one in 10 kids saying they smoke them regularly. But more than a quarter of Colorado teens say they have used an e-cigarette or other vapor product in the last month. • Nearly 14 percent of Colorado teens said they have used pharmaceuticals without a prescription,below the national average. But the percent of Colorado teens who have ever used cocaine or ecstasy—both at around 6 percent— is slightly higher than the national average. Teen marijuana use: More info National ranking_Colorado climbed from No 3 to No 1 for monthly youth marijuana use. vet state's usage rate didn't increase significantly. A closer look at the stats Help! My 13-year-old is smoking marijuana What do I do? Real talk and practical advice in out Ask The Cannabist column How kids procure pot:This huh-level politician just made an incredibly credible case for legalization 1 Surprise! Despite legalization teen pot problems— and teen use — are on decline, study says Parenting: Is pot biggest teen health hazard?Try booze, sex, cigs Consequences? No legal weed isn't dumbing down teens i Weed news and interviews: Get podcasts of The Cannabist Show. it 1 Subscribe to our newsletter here. Watch The Cannabist Show. Peruse our Cannabist-themed merchandise (T's, hats, hoodies) at Cannabist Shop. The marijuana finding is the second time the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey—which is conducted every other year— has found flat pot use among Colorado teens despite the post-legalization boom in marijuana commercialization. The 2013 version of the survey found that 19.7 percent of teens had used marijuana in the past month.The 2015 version puts that number at 21.2 percent,but Larry Wolk,the executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,said that increase is not statistically significant—meaning it could be a wiggle in the data and not a meaningful increase.In 2009,at the beginning of the state's boom in medical marijuana stores, the rate was 24.8 percent. Similarly,the rate of teens in Colorado who say they have ever used marijuana,even just once,has also remained stable.In 2009,that rate was 42.6 percent,while it shrank to 36.9 percent in 2013,according to the survey.In 2015,it was 38 percent. "I'm heartened,as I think many folks are,by the results," Wolk said. He added that the survey results,"reassure us at least for the time being that there is no increase in youth use." Marijuana use among Colorado kids has received national attention since voters in 2012 made the state one of the first two to legalize pot possession by adults.Colorado's first recreational marijuana stores—which can sell to anyone over 21-years-old—opened in 2014.The state has had large numbers of medical marijuana dispensaries, which sell to anyone with a state-approved medical marijuana card,since 2009. In the 2015 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, 11 percent of students said they obtained marijuana either from someone with a medical marijuana card or by using their own medical marijuana card.The most common methods of obtaining pot were the less-descriptive"someone gave it to me"and"got it some other way." Combined,those two survey choices accounted for 79 percent of the responses. Marijuana use among teens nationwide has also remained flat,according to a survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released earlier this month.That survey,from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, found that 21.7 percent of high school students nationwide said they had used marijuana in the past month.In 2013, that figure was 23.4 percent. A second national study,the long-running Monitoring the Future survey,found lasts year that marijuana use among teens,"has more or less leveled out since about 2010."In 2015,that survey found nationwide that 12 percent of eighth-graders,25 percent of 10th-graders and 35 percent of 12th-graders had used marijuana in the past month. Colorado does not participate in the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System.That makes the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey perhaps the best source of data on teen substance use in the state.In 2015,the survey was sent to nearly 17,000 teens at 157 high schools and middle schools. This story was first published on DenverPost.com An edition of The Denver Post.All contents Copyright©2016 The Denver Post or other copyright holders I Powered by WordPress. All rights reserved.This material may not be published,broadcast,rewritten or redistributed for any commercial purpose. Marijuana Use Among Youth in Colorado KIDS c10LORA OSURVEY The Healthy Kids Colorado Survey(HKCS)is a tool we use to better understand the health of Colorado's middle and high school students so we can support them in making healthy choices.The following images represent Colorado high school student data from 2015.For more information and complete survey data,visit healthykidscolo.org. YOUT14 MARMIANA,USE E� AiAT"s �j �< 'CAS 1.-r U 'c- R LA'TT1 ELVUNCHAN Er, .a 4 i 4.-.9 a. t. • • 50 43% t 39% Among high school students who have used 40 •�., 3_. � marijuana in the last 30 days 4 out of 5(78%)Colorado high 30 25% 22% 0 :06 schooters,have NOT used 20% z1 a marijuana in the last 30 days. 1° 2009 2011 2013 2015 ■ Have used marijuana of least once in[heir lifetime 0 Have used marijuana at least once In the last 30 days 1.40W YOUTH GET .A T,jT J A °3'-A. Of youth who currently use marijuana 47: 32%, 9°,==r>,^=r.ire .+MMJ card 4%-At an ,1 n 31=Took it from a family member 2% not it at.school 2%.°"With my own MMJ card ) 0 10 20 sa ao so COLORADO I AVERAGE USE RIS Fewer students see regular marijuana y use as risky behavior. 1 q b r a g,-.a,z ,9 .,�s•6��;.: :�.. NATIONAL AVERAGE Go to GondTOKnowCotorado.com/talk to learn more about how to talk with youth. Demographic breakdown of marijuana users among a specific identity s ta=of Asians 2W,of Whites 20',of American Indians 19'5 of Heterosexual Youth 20%of questioning Youth 23%of Blacks ..of Youth who are not sure 24Y_of Hispanics 21%of Females 21%of Cisgender(non-transgender)Youth 27%of Pacific Islanders 29%of Gay or Lesbian Youth 28,of Multiracial Youth 37`of Bisexual Youth 21%of Males 37w of Transgender Youth Health equity is when all people,regardless of who they are or what they believe,have the opportunity to attain their full health potential.Achieving health equity requires valuing all people equally with focused and ongoing efforts to address inequalities. MAR IXUAJbi ADULTS CAN HELP ' EMU,,­'� b'':fx i°.+.T^ �^-� FIRST SE C�.,.,w 7D �y� > ¢ ._.r�-.�q•+s 1%f.,a°T, i v` " ] �k f'E°, ,.,,t� °,.F .fi,�, ��5. USE ..73�s wf.f''@ A,3.f. ,.os..�.� =...�+�,..,.s..�% d'�i.�a a a�.,c� ..d,�"rxA�,r --s.... x UB3—` NJ(,E Supporfive Teachers: Youth who agree that Have never tried Percent of high school students who have used them are 1a7x LESS likely to marijuana. substances at least once in their lifetime use. e Talking with Parents: Of those who said they have tried Youth who can ask a marijuana parent/guardian u .6x LESS likely toou e. are First tried marijuana after age 13. Family Yout antes: Youth who have clear family rules are 1.7x LESS likely to 2% -Heroin use. 2% -Methamphetamines AN 6% •Ecstasy Parents'Opinion: AM 6% -Cocaine If a parent feels like it's 6% -Inhalants wrong,their children are 4x 14%-Prescription Drugs LESS likely to use. 20%-Cigarette 38%-Marijuana 59%-Alcohol � COLORADO 3i7 Department of Public Health b Environment 716M16 Camabinoids remove plaque-farming Alzheimer's proteins from brain cells-Salk Institute for Biological Studies June 27, 2016 Itannabinoids remove plaque-forming Alzheimer's proteins from brain tells Preliminary lab studies at the Salk Institute find THC reduces beta amyloid proteins in human neurons LA JOLLA—Salk Institute scientists have found preliminary evidence that tetra hyd roca n nabinol (THC) and other compounds found in marijuana can promote the cellular removal of amyloid beta, a toxic protein associated with Alzheimer's disease. While these exploratory studies were conducted in neurons grown in the laboratory, they may offer insight into the role of inflammation in Alzheimer's disease and could provide clues to developing novel therapeutics for the disorder. "Although other studies have offered evidence that cannabinoids might be neuroprotective against the symptoms of Alzheimer's, we believe our study is the first to demonstrate that cannabinoids affect both inflammation and amyloid beta accumulation in nerve cells," says Salk Professor David Schubert, the senior author of the paper. Alzheimer's disease is a progressive brain disorder that leads to memory loss and can seriously impair a person's ability to carry out daily tasks. It affects more than five million Americans according to the National Institutes of Health, and is a leading cause of death. It is also the most common cause of dementia and its incidence is expected to triple during the next 50 years. It has long been known that amyloid beta accumulates within the nerve cells of the aging brain well before the appearance of Alzheimer's disease symptoms and plaques. Amyloid beta is a major component of the plaque deposits that are a hallmark of the disease. But the precise role of amyloid beta and the plaques it forms in the disease process remains unclear. In a manuscript published in IJune 2016's Aain4and Mechanisms of Disease, the Salk team studied nerve cells David Schubert, Professor of Salk's Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory Click here for a high resolution image Credit:Salk Institute http://www.calk.edufiews-release/cannabinoids-remove-plaque-forming-alztidmers-proteins-from-train-cells/ 1/3 7/512016 Canabinoids remove plaque-forming Alzheimer's proteins from brain cells-Salk Institute for Biological Sales altered to produce high levels of amyloid beta to mimic aspects of Alzheimer's disease. The researchers found that high levels of amyloid beta were associated with cellular inflammation and higher rates of neuron death. They demonstrated that exposing the cells to THC reduced amyloid beta protein levels and eliminated the inflammatory response from the nerve cells caused by the protein, thereby allowing the nerve cells to survive. "Inflammation within the brain is a major component of the damage associated with Alzheimer's disease, but it has always been assumed that this response was coming from immune-like cells in the brain, not the nerve cells themselves," says Antonio Currais, a postdoctoral researcher in Schubert's laboratory and first author of the paper. "When we were able to identify the molecular basis of the inflammatory response to amyloid beta, it became clear that THC-like compounds that the nerve cells make themselves may be involved in protecting the cells from dying." Brain cells have switches known as receptors that can be activated by endocannabinoids, a class of lipid molecules made by the body that are used for intercellular signaling in the brain. The psychoactive effects of marijuana are caused by THC, a molecule similar in activity to endocannabinoids that can activate the same receptors. Physical activity results in the production of endocannabinoids and some studies have shown that exercise may slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease. Schubert emphasized that his team's findings were conducted in exploratory laboratory models, and that the use of THC-like compounds as a therapy would need to be tested in clinical trials. In separate but related research, his lab found an Alzheimer's drug candidate called J147 that also removes amyloid beta from nerve cells and reduces the inflammatory response in both nerve cells and the brain. It was the study of J147 that led the scientists to discover that endocannabinoids are involved in the removal of amyloid beta and the reduction of inflammation. Other authors on the paper include Oswald Quehenberger and Aaron Armando at the university of California,San Diego; and Pamela Maher and Daniel Daughtery at the Salk Institute. The study was supported by the National institutes of Health, The Burns Foundation and The Bundy Foundation. http://www.salk.ecUnews-relesse/cannabinads-remove-places forming alzheimers-proteins-from-brain-cells/ 2/3 71512016 Camabinoids remove plaque-forming Alzheimer's proteins from brain cells-Salk Institute far Biological Shdes PUBLICATION INFORMATION JOURNAL Aging and Mechanisms of Disease TITLE AUTHORS Antonio Currais,Oswald Quehenberger,Aaron M Armando,Daniel Daugherty,Pam Maher&David Schubert For More Information Office of Communications Tel: (858) 453-4100 press saik.edu THE SALK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES: Every cure has a starting point. The Salk Institute embodies Jonas Salk's mission to dare to make dreams into reality. Its internationally renowned and award-winning scientists explore the very foundations of life, seeking new understandings in neuroscience, genetics, immunology and more. The Institute is an independent nonprofit organization and architectural landmark: small by choice, intimate by nature and fearless in the face of any challenge. Be it cancer or Alzheimer's, aging or diabetes, Salk is where cures begin. http://www.calk.edulnews-release/cannabinoids-remove-plaque-forming alzheimers proteins from-brairrceils/ 313 7/1/2016 Law Enforcement Against Prohibition:Press Release:Research Confirms Legalizing Medical Marijuana Does Not Increase Crime G-1 3 More Next Blog,, Create Blog Sign In ........... ...................................... ............ ......................................................................................................... ...................... ..................................................................................... INA":191 wall 121 MWk Aveme,Medford,Massachusetts 021SS Tele:781393.65115 Fm;7811.393.2964 infoRleap— —Jeap- Wedne.d.y.March 26,2014 57 Press Release: Research Confirms Legalizing Medical Marijuana Does Not Increase Crime ABOUTUS Law Enforcement Against Prohibition(LEAP)is a group of cops,judges,prosecutors and everyday citizens teaming up to end the failed,dangerous RESEARCH CONFIRMS LEGALIZING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DOES NOT and expensive war on drugs. INCREASE CRIME Get Involved! Yet More Proof Fears of Legalization Remain Unfounded in Science Join LEAP's e-mail list so we can keep you updated about What our drug-legalizing cops are up to and Researchers at the University of Texas Dallas published an article in PLOS OATE today alert you when it's time to take action in your that indicates that despite opponents'fears,legalizing medical marijuana does not communityi increase crime and may actually lower some types ofviolent crime.The study e-mail. examined FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics on murder,rape,assault,robbery, Join LEA burglary,larceny and auto theft from all 50 states.including 11 states that legalized P= medical marijuana during the course of the study,over a 17 year period from 1990- If you agree with us that legalized control is better 2006.Controlling for confounding factors,they found no increases in any category of than prohibition,we'll be glad to have you as a offense and even saw a slight decrease in homicides and assaults- member! And make sure to visit our website at The study is reminiscent of University ol'Chicago study that came out last year www.CopsSayLegahzeDr gs.com showing that,despite opponents'warnings about increases in unsafe driving behaviors, legalizing medical marijuana was associated with a drop in traffic fatalities.In addition,preliminary figures in Colorado and%Vashington,the two states to have J(An tats site legalized marijuana for recreational use,show traffic fatalities in those states have with Google Friend connect slightly decreased the first year of fall legalization. Members(250) Mor- must be difficult to be an opponent of marijuana reform.They can't make arguments against legalization based on logic and facts so they must constantly resort to fear-based hypotheticals and anecdotes that keep getting proved wrong by, systematic study.I feel for them,I really do,"said Major Neill Franklin(Ret.),a police officer for 34 years who now heads Law Ent6rcenient Against Prohibition,a group of law enforcement officials opposed to the war on drugs. #4# Already a member'Sign in Contact:Darby Beck:darby.bcck/,qJeap.cc 415.823.5496 There was an error in this gadget You might also like: Blog Archive • ONE DRUG ARREST EVERY 19 SECONDS IN,rHE U.S. • Cops And Judges Ask California Legislator to Withdraw Marijuana DUI Bill ► 2016(4) • Press Release:DEA's Senate Testimony Shows Legalizing Marijuana Would Hurt Cartels ► 2015(27) V 2014(25) ► December(2) nosier:by Darby se�k 10- ( ) Li Novembe 5 G-1 +,, ► October(1) Tzgs:crime.dui.marwMana,press release,uniform onMe report Ili- September(2) ► July(4) 4 comments: ► June(1) 10- May(2) BoblKat March 28 2014at9.10PM ► April(I) And this is a surprize why)As a youth I was bullied.Badly.I was afraid to go to school and my ♦ March(t) grades showed it.Getting slammed in the hallways,pencils jammed into your head during Press Release Research Confirms classes,threats of bodily harm daily graduating HS was being released from prison.In the Legalizing Medica... years that followed those buthes I had known that used pot became good people.Those that didn't or drank alcohol,several ended up committing murders as it actually turned out ► February(3) Does marijuana promote or inspire violent behavior?If it does,that's news to me.If you've got ► January(3) a stash of gold coins that burglars want and they threaten you,is violence not routine for the ► 2013(13) person being threatened?Get real,marijuana is a commodity!it's not a machine gun,it's not http://copssaylegalize.biogspot.com/2014/03/press-release-research-confirms.htm1 1/3 7/'x/2016 PLOS ONE:The Effect of Medical Marijuana Lawson Crime:Evidence from State Panel Data,1990-2006 pa C6'S 1 004E The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data, 1990-2006 Robert G.Moms , Michael TenEyck, J.C.Bames,Tomislav V.Kovandzic Published:March 26,2014• http://dx.doi.org/10.1371fjoumal.pone.0092816 Abstract Background Debate has surrounded the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes for decades.Some have argued medical marijuana legalization(MML)poses a threat to public health and safety,perhaps also affecting crime rates.In recent years,some U.S.states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes,reigniting political and public interest in the impact of marijuana legalization on a range of outcomes. Methods Relying on U.S.state panel data,we analyzed the association between state MML and state crime rates for all Part I offenses collected by the FBI. Findings Results did not indicate a crime exacerbating effect of MML on any of the Part I offenses.Alternatively,state MML may be correlated with a reduction in homicide and assault rates,net of other covariates. Conclusions These findings run counter to arguments suggesting the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes poses a danger to public health in terms of exposure to violent crime and property crimes. Citation: Morris RG,TenEyck M, Barnes JC, Kovandzic TV(2014)The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on Crime:Evidence from State Panel Data, 1990-2006. PLoS ONE 9(3):e92816.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092816 Editor:Joseph A.Keating,Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, United States of America Received:November 22,2013;Accepted: February 25,2014;Published:March 26,2014 Copyright:©2014 Morris et al.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,which permits unrestricted use,distribution,and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Funding:The authors have no funding or support to report. Competing interests:The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Introduction The social ramifications of marijuana legalization have been hotly debated for at least four decades[1].Despite a long history of marijuana use for medical purposes,policymakers and in some instances,the scientific community,have been quick to note the potential problematic social outcomes of marijuana legalization[2].In spite of these political discussions,medical marijuana legalization(MML)has occurred in 20 states and the District of Columbia(between 1996 and the writing of this paper)and its 1 recreational use has now been legalized in Colorado and Washington[3].An interest in the ramifications of these laws has led to an increase in scholarly activity on the topic[4],[5].The issue addressed in this article is whether MML has the effect of increasing crime.While there are many mechanisms by which MML might affect crime rates,the most obvious is by increasing the number of marijuana users,which may lead to a broader social acceptance of drug using behaviors and drug users[6].To the extent that marijuana use serves as a"gateway"to harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin, MML could lead to long-term increases in crime as an ever-growing number of illicit drug users engage in serious predatory crimes to support their habits(but see[7]).But even if MML does not lead to a rise in marijuana use(especially among youth),the laws could still stimulate crime as newly opened medical marijuana dispensaries provide criminals with a highly attractive target with their repository of high quality marijuana and customers carrying large amounts of cash(but see[8]).As a member of the California Chiefs of Police Association stated,"A disturbing and continuing trend is the increasing number of home invasion robberies and associated violence resulting in the victimization of those cultivating and possessing marijuana... [D]ispensaries also continue to be targeted based upon the http:/rjjournals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092816 1/8 7/'1/2016 PLOS ONE:The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on Crime:Evidence from State Panel Data,1990-2006 availability of larger quantities of drugs and cash"(see http://californiapolicechiefs.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/02/July_September 2010_Final.pdf).Though anecdotal evidence abounds to support both theses,and a few single-jurisdiction and cross-sectional studies have examined the MML-crime link(e.g.,[91),no single analysis has assessed the overall consequences of medical marijuana laws on crime rates across the United States.This study seeks to inform the debate by providing a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of state MML on state crime rates. The Positive Correlation between Marijuana Use and Criminal Behavior Though the gateway hypothesis applies to the progression of drug-using behaviors,there remains the possibility that marijuana use leads to delinquent or criminal behavior via a similar mechanism.A number of studies have specifically examined the relationship between marijuana use and crime[10],[11],[12],[13],[14].Early studies compared the amount of crimes committed by juveniles whose urine tested positive for marijuana upon entering a detention center and those committed by individuals who tested negative for marijuana.Dembo and associates[15],[16],for instance,found that youths who tested positive for marijuana had a significantly higher number of referrals to juvenile court for nondrug felonies than those testing negative for marijuana use. Arseneault and colleagues[17]examined the relationship between marijuana dependence and the risk for violence in a sample of New Zealand adolescents.The authors controlled for gender,socioeconomic status,and many other concurrent disorders and concluded that marijuana dependence was related to a 280 percent increase in the odds of violence.This association was stronger than the individual effects of manic disorder,alcohol dependence,and schizophrenia.In a study using data collected from school- age adolescents in the Netherlands,those who reported marijuana use tended to report more delinquent and aggressive behaviors [18].This relationship was significant after controlling for variables such as alcohol and tobacco use and the strength of the relationship increased with higher frequency of marijuana use.This study is noteworthy because marijuana use is decriminalized in the Netherlands,thus the relationship is unlikely to be based on the fact that marijuana users have to participate in the illegal market and are therefore at an increased risk for violence.While these studies were cross-sectional and show a correlation between current marijuana use and criminality or violent behaviors,other scholars have examined the link with longitudinal data. Using multi-wave data,research has shown adolescents who reported marijuana use at age 15 were more likely to report violent involvement at age 19,indicating that marijuana use,particularly during adolescence may impact violent behavior in young adulthood[19].Similarly,research has shown that frequent marijuana use during adolescence was a strong predictor of being involved in intimate partner violence[5].Results revealed that consistent marijuana use during adolescence was related to a 108 percent increase in the likelihood of being involved in intimate partner violence in young adulthood and consistent marijuana use was associated with an 85 percent increase in the odds of being the perpetrator of intimate partner violence,independent of alcohol use. These studies provide evidence to the notion that marijuana use is at a minimum correlated with an increase in violent or aggressive behaviors.What remains unclear is whether these findings imply a causal link between marijuana use and violence or whether the relationship is driven by an uncontrolled variable(s)(i.e.,a spurious correlation).Along these lines,it could be argued that the relationship between violence and marijuana use is primarily due to its illegality and thus would not exist in an environment in which marijuana use,at least medicinally,is legalized. The Negative or Null Correlation between Marijuana Use and Criminal Behavior Most researchers who have examined the relationship between marijuana use and crime report that these laws do not have an effect on violent crime[20],[21].Green and associates[20],for instance,concluded that while marijuana use was related to an increase in drug and property crime,it was not related to an increase in violent crime.Pedersen and Skardhamar[21]also found a relationship between marijuana use and subsequent arrest,although once the authors removed all types of drug charges from the models,the relationship was no longer significant.Results revealed no evidence that marijuana use was related to an increase in later non-drug arrest,such as arrests for violent crimes.The authors argued that the association between marijuana use and crime appears to exist because of its illegality.Thus,if the possession and sale of marijuana was legal the relationship between marijuana and crime might disappear. It has been argued that medicinal marijuana laws may increase crime because the dispensaries and grow houses provide an opportunity for property crime and violent crime to occur,such as burglary and robbery.Kepple and Freisthler[9]examined the relationship between medical marijuana dispensaries and crime and their results suggested that after controlling for a host of ecological variables,no relationship existed between medicinal marijuana dispensaries and property or violent crime.Additional research has shown that medical marijuana dispensaries may actually reduce crime within the immediate vicinity of the dispensaries[8].This may be due to the security measures implemented by dispensary owners(i.e.,having security cameras, having a doorman,and having signs requiring identification).Importantly,medical marijuana dispensaries do not appear to increase crime in their surrounding areas. In sum,research on the relationship between medicinal marijuana and crime is mixed.Studies have shown that states allowing the use of medical marijuana have higher prevalence rates of marijuana use[13],[14],yet other studies have found that legalized medicinal marijuana does not lead to an increase in its overall use[21],[22].Research has also suggested that marijuana use is associated with an increase in illicit drug use[23],[19]and an increase in crime[17],[19],[16].Others,however,have revealed that marijuana is not related to additional illicit drug use[22],[7],[17]or crime[8],[20],[9],[21].Thus,the available evidence is equivocal and in need of a rigorous evaluation of the MML-crime relationship. Methods Data&Measures Dependent Variables, http:/flournals.pl os.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/j our nal.pone.0092816 2/8 ,4. 7/1/2016 PLOS ONE:The Effect of Medical Marijuana Lawson Crime:Evidence from State Panel Data,1990-2006 Data on all seven Part I offenses—homicide,rape,robbery,assault,burglary,larceny,and auto theft—for each state between 1990 and 2006 were obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting(UCR)Program,published as Crime in the United States.The data were obtained using the"data for analysis'tool on the Bureau of Justice Statistics Web site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dtd.htm).All data were gathered for each of the 50 U.S.states across the 17 year time span for a total N=850.Values reflect the rate of each crime per 100,000 residents. Medical Marijuana Legalization(MML). To determine if and when MML occurred within a state,we searched the official legislative website of each US state.Between 1990 and 2006,the following 11 states legalized marijuana for medical use,with the year the law was passed in parentheses:Alaska (1998),California(1996),Colorado(2000),Hawaii(2000),Maine(1999),Montana(2004),Nevada(2000),Oregon(1998),Rhode Island(2006),Vermont(2004),and Washington(1998).We also ran models based on MML"legislation-effective year"rather than "legislation-passed year"and found no substantive differences in the results.The MML effective dates were also gathered from each State's official legislative website.Only 2 states(Connecticut and Colorado)had an MML effective year different than"passed" year,both being only a 1-year difference.While there are many options in modeling the effects of MML adoption on crime,we opted to use a post-law trend variable.The trend variable represents the number of years the law has been in effect with a value of zero for all years before the law was passed,a value of 1 for the year the law was passed,and a value of 1+k,where k= number of years after the initial passage of the law,for all subsequent years.Unlike the traditional"dummy variable"approach(i.e.,0=no MML law, 1 =MML law),which posits a once-and-far-all impact on crime,the post-law trend variable captures any changes in the linear trend of crime that may be observed over time.If opponents of MML are correct that the laws lead to increased marijuana use by teenagers,many of whom are likely to continue illicit hard drug use throughout their adulthood,one might expect a gradual increase in crime over time.Such an effect would be best captured by the post-law trend variable. Soclodernographic Control Variables. Sociodemographic variables were included in the analysis to aid in controlling for a vast array of other time-varying influences that might be potential confounding factors over the study period.These variables,and their sources,have been described previously [24].Specifically,they include each state's percent of the civilian labor force unemployed;the total employment rate;percent of the population living below the poverty line;real per-capita income(divided by the Consumer Price Index);the proportion of residents aged 15-24;the proportion of residents aged 25-34,the proportion of residents aged 35-44 years;the per-capita rate of beer consumption[25];the proportion of residents with at least a bachelor's degree;and the percent of the state's population that lived in a metropolitan area.State-level unemployment data were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website (www.bis.gov/sae/home).Data on poverty were acquired via the Bureau of the Census website (www.census.gov/hhestwww/poverty).Personal income and real welfare payments data were taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis website(www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis).The age variables were obtained directly from the U.S.Bureau of the Census.Data on beer consumption were taken from the Beer Institute website(www.beehnstitute.org).The percent of the population with college degrees or higher and the percent of the population living in a metropolitan area are linear interpolations of decennial census data,as reported in various editions of the Statistical Abstracts of the United States. Additional measures included the number of prison inmates per 100,000 residents and the number of police officers per 100,000 residents.The number of prisoners was measured as the number of prisoners sentenced to more than a year in custody as of December 31 per 100,000 residents and was obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistic's website(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs).Data on the total number of police,including civilians,were taken from the Public Employment series prepared by the Bureau of the Census.Louisiana and Mississippi were missing information on this variable for the year 2006,therefore reducing the usable case count by two units.Substantive results were identical when values for this year were imputed with values from the previous year. Summary statistics for these explanatory variables are presented in Table 1. M­ Rapt Pate 3fi?7d ta.wsz c�a,c ;'zzssz �*s asa .wep+andane Varukb Se<iolnrzegraphie a+M 4 rarFablar Er+ri$.Yt.+iegr,>a`e i�S53%x Sibs-3.-'is ^T„;)pet h[YYixMS�'lJ2S 23 tJ 3L .tSa l.r3 ela i fiXg? FZ,WI3 2 r+t?c.-t unswrs.resxli'r�n n:cetng=«"s?a�a+ea tz�,,u W.ty� PUkrp,Ntirnr;{sh%ell pgce u.: MSYG!s�".,tit tw, Actfu}'17}Jf aemaLn[aM£%Yf3aF(aIX19 Table 1.Summary Statistics. http://dx.doi.org/l 0.1371/journal.pone.0092816.t001 http:/fjournals.plos.org/plosonet article?id=10.1371fjournal.pone.0092816 N 7/1/2016 PLOS ONE:The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on Crime:Evidence from State Panel Data,1990-2006 Analysis Plan To identify the effect of MML on crime,we use a fixed-effects panel design,exploiting the within state variation introduced by the passage of MML in 11 states over the 17 year observation period.The design allows for the assessment of whether states adopting MML experienced changes in the trend of crime by analyzing within state changes in crime rates over time and comparing those changes to the crime rate trends among states that did not pass an MML law.To carry out this analysis,we estimate fixed-effects ordinary least squares regression models,where the natural log of each crime rate variable(i.e.,homicide,rape,robbery,assault, burglary,larceny,and auto theft)is the dependent variable.This model directly accounts for dynamic factors that cause crime to vary from state to state,as well as those stable unmeasured factors that differ between states[26],[27]. In addition,we also include "year fixed-effects,"which capture any national influences on crime that are not captured in any of the time-varying explanatory variables.Robust standard errors are clustered at the state level to avoid biased standard errors due to the non-independence of data points over time[28].Thus,the fixed effects models can be expressed algebraically following the convention set forth by Wooldridge[27]as: log triir7-10[Inn NfijLji -hik,tft °r where: the subscripts i,j,and t are used to identify the crime rate variable being used as the dependent variable,the 50 states,and time(1990-2006), respectively, tog(}* r)=the time-demeaned(see[271)logged crime rate outcome variable, the crime-specific constant term, hil tI;1lLjf=the time-demeaned crime-specific average impact of MML on crime rates, j>fk;lfi=the time-demeaned crime-specific effect of the various control variables,including year dummies,a linear trend variable,and state fixed effects, and,4 ir=the time-demeaned crime-specific error term. It is important to note that fixed-effects models are not without limitations.While they are well suited to address the issue at hand and account for unobserved time-invariant factors,they are always vulnerable to time-varying factors that are not accounted for that differ between states with MML and those without.However,we have accounted for the bulk of factors that have been shown associated with state crime rates and our models explain a considerable amount of variation in each outcome.It is also important to acknowledge that fixed-effects models do not account for temporal ordering for time-varying predictors within a given observation period.For example,it is unknown whether states adopted MML after experiencing lower crime rates in a given year(s),however, this is unlikely to be an issue here since policy response to crime rates tend to take time and we account for this via operationalization of MML as an additive effect. Results Primary Findings Before consulting the results from the fixed effects regression models,a series of unconditioned crime rates for each offense type were generated and are presented in Figure 1. Note that two crime rate trends are presented in each panel. One trend—the solid line—shows the crime rate,by year,for states that had not passed an MML law.Thus,states that eventually did pass an MML law contribute to the solid line up until the year that they passed the MML law.As expected from the overall crime trend during this time period,the solid line reveals that all states experienced a reduction in each of the seven crimes from 1990 to 2006. Important to note is the trend revealed by the dashed line,which shows the crime rate trends for states after passing an MML law.With one exception—forcible rape—states passing MML laws experienced reductions in crime and the rate of reduction appears to be steeper for states passing MML laws as compared to others for several crimes such as homicide,robbery,and aggravated assault. The raw number of homicides, robberies,and aggravated assaults also appear to be lower for states passing MML as compared to other states,especially from 1998-2006.These preliminary results suggest MML may have a crime-reducing effect,but recall that these are unconditional averages,meaning that the impact of the covariates and other factors related to time series trends have not been accounted for in these figures. http:/Ijournals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092816 4/8 7/1/2016 PLOS ONE:The Effect of Medical Marijuana Lawson Crime:Evidence from State Panel Data,1990-2006 ,. gip- ................ Figure 1.Mean State Crime Rates as a Function of Year,by Medical Marijuana Law(MML). NOTE:Crime rates for states mandating MML after 1996 remained in the'Prior to Medical Marijuana"line until transition to MML. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journ al.pone.0092816.g001 The results of the fixed effects analyses are presented in Table 2. It is important to note that a Hausman test was carried out to determine whether the fixed effects model was preferable over the random effects model;the latter model is more parsimonious and,thus,should be preferred when results do not systematically differ across the two approaches.The results of the Hausman tests(with year fixed effects omitted for both equations because they are inestimable in the random effects model)suggested that the fixed effects model was preferred in each of the seven analyses. For reference,the Hausman X2 values were 302.61,23.64, 102.50,414.94,58.87,34.18,and 31.28 for homicide,rape,robbery,assault,burglary,larceny, and auto theft,respectively. Table 2.The Impact of Medical Marijuana Lawson Crime Rates. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092816.t002 The key results gleaned from the fixed effects analyses are presented in row 1 of Table 2,which reveals the impact of the MML trend variable on crime rates,while controlling for the other time-varying explanatory variables.Two findings worth noting emerged from the different fixed effects regression analyses.First,the impact of MML on crime was negative or not statistically significant in all but one of the models,suggesting the passage of MML may have a dampening effect on certain crimes.The second key finding was that the coefficients capturing the impact of MML on homicide and assault were the only two that emerged as statistically significant.Specifically,the results indicate approximately a 2.4 percent reduction in homicide and assault,respectively,for each additional year the law is in effect.Because log-linear models were estimated,the coefficient must be transformed according to the following formula to generate percentage changes in crime for a one-unit increase in MML:e(b-1)` Oo[27].However,it is important to note that the finding for homicide was less variable(i.e.,a lower standard error)as compared to assault.One might argue a Bonferroni correction is necessary given the exploratory nature of the study and the multiple models that were analyzed.Once a Bonferroni correction was carried out(i.e.,a/7),only the effect of MML on homicide remained statistically significant(.05/7=.007). Perhaps the most important finding in Table 2 is the lack of evidence of any increase in robbery or burglary,which are the type of crimes one might expect to gradually increase over time if the MML-crime thesis was correct.Thus,in the end,MML was not found to have a crime enhancing effect for any of the crime types analyzed. http:/Ijournals.plos.org/plosone/artcle?id=10.1371/j ournal.pone.0092816 5/8 7%1/2016 PLOS ONE:The Effect of Medical Marijuana Laws on Crime:Evidence from State Panel Data.1990-2006 Sensitivity Analysis The fixed effects models presented above were subjected to a range of sensitivity tests to determine whether the findings were robust to alternative model specifications.First,and as previously noted,data for the two missing cases were imputed using matched case replacement for Louisiana and Mississippi.Importantly,substantive results were identical when this strategy was carried out.A second sensitivity analysis explored the possibility that the effect of MML on crime rates was non-linear.No evidence emerged to support the hypothesis that MML has a non-linear effect on crime rate trends.Third,a related issue concerns whether the MML effect has both a trend effect(shown above)and a one-time shock effect.We considered this issue by including the MML trend variable(discussed above)along with a dummy variable coded 0 for years when no MML law was present(by state)and coded 1 in years when an MML law had been passed.The findings were practically identical to those shown above:the MML trend variable was negatively related to homicide(b=—.02,p<.10)and assault(b=—.02,p<.10).A fourth sensitivity analysis re-estimated the original models(shown above),by weighting each state proportional to its population size.When these weighted fixed effects models were estimated,the substantive findings were somewhat different than those presented above.Specifically,the effect of MML on homicide rates was no longer statistically significant(b=—.01,p=.30),MML negatively predicted robbery rates(b=—.02, p<.10),MML negatively predicted assault rates(b=—.03,p<.01),and MML positively predicted auto theft rates(b=.03,p<.05). While it is common in the crime policy literature to weight observations by resident population to correct for possible heteroskedasticity,this will be the efficient feasible GLS(generalized least squares)procedure only if the heteroskedasticity takes a particular form,i.e.variance proportional to the square of the population.In the present study,the unweighted results produce findings that are substantively consistent with the weighted results,although they differ slightly quantitatively.The most likely explanation for this discrepancy is that the weighted results are driven by a few large population states.For this reason,we present the unweighted results as the main results and the weighted results as part of our numerous robustness checks. Discussion and Conclusion The effects of legalized medical marijuana have been passionately debated in recent years.Empirical research on the direct relationship between medical marijuana laws and crime,however,is scant and the consequences of marijuana use on crime remain unknown.Studies have shown that marijuana use was associated with higher prevalence of subsequent illicit drug use[19] and an increased risk of violence[17].Yet,other studies have found that once additional factors were controlled for,there was no relationship between marijuana use and later serious drug use[7].Research has also shown that marijuana use is not related to violent crime when measured at the individual-level[20].Once drug charges are controlled for,Pedersen and Skardhamar[21] reported that the relationship between marijuana and crime was not significantly different from zero.Unfortunately,no study has examined the effect of legalized medical marijuana on state crime rates across the United States.The current study sought to fill this gap by assessing the effect of legalized medicinal marijuana on the seven Part I UCR offenses.The analysis was the first to look at multiple offenses across multiple states and time periods to explore whether MML impacts state crime rates. The central finding gleaned from the present study was that MML is not predictive of higher crime rates and may be related to reductions in rates of homicide and assault.Interestingly,robbery and burglary rates were unaffected by medicinal marijuana legislation,which runs counter to the claim that dispensaries and grow houses lead to an increase in victimization due to the opportunity structures linked to the amount of drugs and cash that are present.Although,this is in line with prior research suggesting that medical marijuana dispensaries may actually reduce crime in the immediate vicinity[8]. In sum,these findings run counter to arguments suggesting the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes poses a danger to public health in terms of exposure to violent crime and property crimes.To be sure,medical marijuana laws were not found to have a crime exacerbating effect on any of the seven crime types.On the contrary,our findings indicated that MML precedes a reduction in homicide and assault.While it is important to remain cautious when interpreting these findings as evidence that MML reduces crime,these results do fall in line with recent evidence[29]and they conform to the longstanding notion that marijuana legalization may lead to a reduction in alcohol use due to individuals substituting marijuana for alcohol[see generally 29,30].Given the relationship between alcohol and violent crime[31],it may turn out that substituting marijuana for alcohol leads to minor reductions in violent crimes that can be detected at the state level.That said,it also remains possible that these associations are statistical artifacts(recall that only the homicide effect holds up when a Bonferroni correction is made). Given that the current results failed to uncover a crime exacerbating effect attributable to MML,it is important to examine the findings with a critical eye.While we report no positive association between MML and any crime type,this does not prove MML has no effect on crime(or even that it reduces crime).It may be the case that an omitted variable,or set of variables,has confounded the associations and masked the true positive effect of MML on crime.If this were the case,such a variable would need to be something that was restricted to the states that have passed MML,it would need to have emerged in close temporal proximity to the passage of MML in all of those states(all of which had different dates of passage for the marijuana law),and it would need to be something that decreased crime to such an extent that it"masked"the true positive effect of MML(i.e.,it must be something that has an opposite sign effect between MML[e.g.,a positive correlation]and crime[e.g.,a negative correlation]).Perhaps the more likely explanation of the current findings is that MML laws reflect behaviors and attitudes that have been established in the local communities.If these attitudes and behaviors reflect a more tolerant approach to one another's personal rights,we are unlikely to expect an increase in crime and might even anticipate a slight reduction in personal crimes. Moreover,the present findings should also be taken in context with the nature of the data at hand.They are based on official arrest records(UCR),which do not account for crimes not reported to the police and do not account for all charges that may underlie an arrest.In any case,this longitudinal assessment of medical marijuana laws on state crime rates suggests that these laws do not appear to have any negative(i.e.,crime exacerbating)impact on officially reported criminality during the years in which the laws are in effect,at least when it comes to the types of offending explored here.It is also important to keep in mind that the UCR data used here did not account for juvenile offending,which may or may not be empirically tethered to MML in some form or another;an assessment of which is beyond the scope of this study. Author Contributions http:/fjournals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=l 0.1371/journal.pone.0092816 6/8 7/112016 PLOS ONE:The Effect of Medical Marijuana Lawson Crime:Evidence from State Panel Data,1990-2006 Analyzed the data:RM JCB.Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools:TK.Wrote the paper:RM MT JCB TK. References 1. Levinthal CF(2008)Drugs,society,and criminal justice(2nd Ed.).Boston:Pearson. 2. American Academy of Pediatrics(2004)Legalization of marijuana:Potential impact on youth.Pediatr 113:1825-1826,doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1825 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 3. Johnson K,Chebium R(2013)Justice Department won't challenge state marijuana laws.USA Today,Retrieved from: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/justice-medical-marijuana-laws/2727605/ 4. O'Brien PK(2013)Medical marijuana and social control:Escaping criminalization and embracing medicalization.Deviant Behav 34:423--443.doi: 10.1080/01639625.2012.735608 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 5. Reingle JM,Staras SAS,Jennings WG,Branchini J,Maldonado-Molina MM(2012)The relationship between marijuana use and intimate partner violence in a nationally representative,longitudinal sample.J Interpers Violence 27:1562-1578.doi:10.1177/0886260511425787 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 6. Keyes KM,Schulenberg JE,O'Malley PM,Johnston LD,Bachman JG,at al.(2011)The social norms of birth cohorts and adolescent marijuana use in the United States,1976-2007.Addict 106:1790-1800.doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03485.x View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 7. Cleveland HH,Wiebe RP(2008)Understanding the association between adolescent marijuana use and later serious drug use:Gateway effect of developmental trajectory?Dev Psychopathol 20:615-632.doi:10.1017/s0954579408000308 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 8. Freisthler B,Kepple NJ,Sims R,Martin SE(2013)Evaluating medical marijuana dispensary policies:Spatial methods for the study of environmentally- based interventions.Am J Community Psychol 51:278-288.doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9542-6 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 9. Kepple NJ,Freisthler B(2012)Exploring the ecological association between crime and medical marijuana dispensaries.J Stud Alcohol Drugs 73:523- 530. View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 10. Hams AWF,Large MM,Redoblado-Hodge A,Nielssen 0,Anderson J,et al.(2010)Clinical and cognitive associations with aggression in the first episode of psychosis.Aust N Z J Psychiatry 44:85-93.doi:10.3109100048670903270423 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 11. Moore TM,Stuart GL(2005)A review of the literature on marijuana and interpersonal violence.Agress Violent Behav 10:171-192.doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2003.10.002 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 12. Ostrowsky MK(2011)Does marijuana use lead to aggression and violent behavior?J Drug Educ 41:369-389.doi:10.2190/de.41.4.c View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 13. Niveau G,Dang C(2003)Cannabis and violent crime.Med Sci Law 43:115-121.doi:10.1258/rsmmsl.43.2.115 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 14. Swartout KM,White JW(2010)The relationship between drug use and sexual aggression in men across time.J Interpers Violence 25:1716-1735.doi: 10.1177/0886260509354586 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 15. Dembo R,Washburn M,Wish ED,Schmeidler J,Getreu A,et al.(1987)Further examination of the association between heavy marijuana use and crime among youths entering a juvenile detention center.J Psychoactive Drugs 19:361-373.doi:10.1080/02791072.1987.10472424 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 16. Dembo R,Walshbum M,Wish E,Yeung H,Getreu A,et al.(1987)Heavy marijuana use and crime among youths entering a juvenile detention center.J Psychoactive Drugs 19:47-56.doi:10.1080/02791072.1987.10472379 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 17. Arseneault L,Moffitt TE,Caspi A,Taylor PJ,Silva PA(2000)Mental disorders and violence in a total birth cohort.Arch Gen Psychiatry 57:979-986. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.57.10.979 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar httplfj ournal s.pl os.org/pl osone/arti cle?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092816 7/8 7/1/2016 • PLOS ONE:The Effect of Medical Marijuana Lawson Crime:Evidence from State Panel Data,1990-2006 18. Monshouwer K,Van Dorsselaer S,Verdunnen J,Ter Bogt T,De Graff R,et al.(2006)Cannabis use and mental health in secondary school children.Br J Psychiatry 188:148-153. View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 19. Brady SS,Tschann JM,Pasch LA,Flores E,Ozer EJ(2008)Violence involvement,substance use,and sexual activity among Mexican-American and European-American adolescents.J Adolesc Health 43:285--295.doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.02.007 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 20. Green KM,Doherty EE,Stuart EA,Ensminger ME(2010)Does heavy adolescent marijuana use lead to criminal involvement in adulthood?Evidence from a multiwave longitudinal study of urban African Americans.Drug Alcohol Depend 112:117-125.doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.05.018 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 21. Pedersen W,Skardhamar T(2010)Cannabis and crime:Findings from a longitudinal study.Addict 105:109-118.doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02719.x View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 22. Bureau of Justice Statistics(2008)Deaths in custody reporting program.Retrieved October 29,2008 from ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcrp/prisonindex.htm. 23. DeSimone J(1998)Is marijuana a gateway drug?East Econ J 24:149-164. View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 24. Kovandzic TV,Vieraitis LM,Paquette-Boots D(2009)Does the death penalty save lives?New evidence from state panel data,1977 to 2006.Cnminol Public Policy 8:803-843.doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00596.x View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 25. Scribner R,Cohen D,Kaplan S,Allen SH(1999)Alcohol availability and homicide in New Orleans:Conceptual considerations for small area analysis of the effect of alcohol outlet density.J Stud Alcohol 60:310-316, View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 26. Allison PD(2009)Fixed effects regression models.Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage. 27. Wooldddge JIM(2009)Introductory econometrics:A modem approach.Mason,OH:South-Westem Cengage Leaming 28. Bertrand M,Duflo E,Mullainathan S(2004)How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?Q J Econ 119:249-275.doi: 10.1162/003355304772839588 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 29. Anderson DM,Hansen B,Rees DI(2013).Medical marijuana laws,traffic fatalities,and alcohol consumption.J.of Law Econ:333--69.doi: 10.1086/668812 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 30. DiNardo JE,Lemieux T(2001).Alcohol,marijuana,and American youth:The unintended consequences of government regulation.J.Health Econ:991- 1010,doi:10.1016/s0167-6296(01)00102-3 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar 31. Boden JM,Fergusson DM,Horwood LJ(2012).Alcohol misuse and violent behavior:Findings from a 30-year longitudinal study.Drug Alcohol Depen: 135-41.doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.09.023 View Article • PubMed/NCBI • Google Scholar http:/fjournals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092816 8/8