State Supreme Court to Hear Landmark Long Beach Medpot Case
- Details
- By Greggory Moore Follow @greggory_moore
- | Thursday, 19 January 2012 06:06
11:39pm | A decision wasn't expected for at least another week, but on Wednesday the California Supreme Court indicated its intent to review four medical-marijuana cases, including the Pack decision, which preempted most of the City of Long Beach's medpot ordinance.
The decision came less than 24 hours after the Long Beach City Council voted to postpone action on a proposed ban on medpot collectives until February 14, when the full council is slated to be present.
"These cases were very problematic for patients and their ability to safely and legally access a medication that works for them," said Joe Elford, chief counsel of Americans for Safe Access, a leading medpot advocacy group. "We're very pleased that local governments will now be without the means to deny access to medical marijuana for patients in their communities, at least until or unless the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise."
While the Pack decision was a legal victory for medpot patients Ryan Pack and Anthony Gayle -- who filed their suit in response to Long Beach's permitting process, arguing that the Compassionate Use Act only decriminalizes the medicinal use of marijuana, while the City's ordinance violates federal law by effectively legalizing conduct prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act -- pro-medpot organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Drug Policy Alliance were among the parties who filed the December 12 request that the Court review the case.
In a press release issued Wednesday, Americans for Safe Access says the Supreme Court review means the Pack decision -- along with City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient's Health and Wellness Ctr., a decision holding that while marijuana distribution is not in fact preempted by federal law, "localities could legally ban distribution altogether" -- are, for the moment, "out of play, [meaning that] local governments will now have less cover with which to implement or continue such bans" -- an apparent shot across the bow of the City of Long Beach.
"The Pack decision is a dead letter and can no longer be used to defy the implementation of state law," Elford said.
But as reported by Jonathan Van Dyke on Gazettes.com, City Attorney Robert Shannon says the Court denied a petition filed by Matthew Pappas, attorney for the plaintiffs in the Pack case, for "emergency application for a temporary order prohibiting enactment and/or enforcement of a collective ban."
Noting that "it will likely be at least a couple of years before the Supreme Court rules on the cases," Americans for Safe Access urges "local governments to adopt regulatory ordinances that establish the means by which California's hundreds of thousands of patients can obtain a medicine that is legal under state law."
The emergency request by Pappas was filed previous to the December 13th City Council meeting. The only reason it was denied was a technicality in that the ban was not approved and enacted after the December 13th vote... hence it became irrelevant and a moot point to grant the motion on that.
A new motion to be filed will be considered if and when a ban God forbid is passed.
But not until then.
Of course Shannon makes as much of a splash as he can about tge smallest
* ANTI-TUMOR EFFECTS
One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors. During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo. In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.
Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis and metastasis. Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.
In an in vivo model using severe combined immunodeficient mice, subcutaneous tumors were generated by inoculating the animals with cells from human non-small cell lung carcinoma cell lines. Tumor growth was inhibited by 60% in THC-treated mice compared with vehicle-treated control mice. Tumor specimens revealed that THC had antiangiogenic and antiproliferative effects.
* ANTI-INFLAMMATORY EFFECTS
In addition, both plant-derived and endogenous cannabinoids have been studied for anti- inflammatory effects. A mouse study demonstrated that endogenous cannabinoid system signaling is likely to provide intrinsic protection against colonic inflammation. As a result, a hypothesis that phytocannabinoids and endocannabinoids may be useful in the prevention and treatment of colorectal cancer has been developed.
* ANTIVIRAL PROPERTIES
Another study has shown delta-9-THC is a potent and selective antiviral agent against Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV), also known as human herpesvirus 8. The researchers concluded that additional studies on cannabinoids and herpesviruses are warranted, as they may lead to the development of drugs that inhibit the reactivation of these oncogenic viruses. Subsequently, another group of investigators reported increased efficiency of KSHV infection of human dermal microvascular epithelial cells in the presence of low doses of delta-9-THC.
* APPETITE STIMULATOR
Many animal studies have previously demonstrated that delta-9-THC and other cannabinoids have a stimulatory effect on appetite and increase food intake. It is believed that the endogenous cannabinoid system may serve as a regulator of feeding behavior. The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide potently enhances appetite in mice. Moreover, CB1 receptors in the hypothalamus may be involved in the motivational or reward aspects of eating.
* AS A PAIN KILLER
Understanding the mechanism of cannabinoid-induced analgesia has been increased through the study of cannabinoid receptors, endocannabinoids, and synthetic agonists and antagonists. The CB1 receptor is found in both the central nervous system (CNS) and in peripheral nerve terminals. Similar to opioid receptors, increased levels of the CB1 receptor are found in sections of the brain that regulate nociceptive processing. CB2 receptors, located predominantly in peripheral tissue, exist at very low levels in the CNS. With the development of receptor-specific antagonists, additional information about the roles of the receptors and endogenous cannabinoids in the modulation of pain has been obtained.
Cannabinoids may also contribute to pain modulation through an anti-inflammatory mechanism; a CB2 effect with cannabinoids acting on mast cell receptors to attenuate the release of inflammatory agents, such as histamine and serotonin, and on keratinocytes to enhance the release of analgesic opioids has been described.
Marijuana was originally outlawed for two major reasons. The first was because "All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy." The second was the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana â€' exactly the opposite of the modern "gateway" idea.
Only one medical doctor testified before Congress for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The representative of the American Medical Association testified that marijuana was not a dangerous drug and there was no reason for the law. See the full transcripts of the hearings for the MTA at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm
The only other "expert" was Dr. James Munch, a psychologist. His sole claim to fame was that he had injected marijuana directly into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of them died. When they asked him what he concluded from this, he said he didn't know what to conclude because he wasn't a dog psychologist. He also testified in court, under oath, that marijuana could make your fangs grow six inches long and drip with blood, and that it could turn you into a bat.
Dr. Munch was the only doctor in the US who thought that marijuana should be illegal so he was appointed US Official Expert on marijuana, where he served for 25 years.
The Controlled Substances Act was passed because the Marihuana Tax Act was declared unconstitutional in the case of Timothy Leary v. US. The act required people to get a license to possess marijuana. However, you had to already possess marijuana to get the license so just applying for the license meant you were confessing a crime.
You can read a good short history of the subject at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm
The irony is that this case was filed by a group that did everything to comply with the ordinance and, in fact, won the lottery for a permit.
So why would a group of people that were winners in the whole process file suit to destroy the whole ordinance.
The reason, in a nutshell, is local government corruption, ranging from major city officials apparently on the take, to local street cops using warrantless raids to loot marijuana and money from dispensaries.
Members of the City Council started the whole process by putting forth an ordinance that never was intended to license anything. As one CC member said (in public), the real purpose of the ordinance was to shut the dispensaries down. The purpose was to defraud the dispensaries with unjustified, exorbitant fees and then put them through so many legal hoops that none of them could last.
Note, for example, the fact that they still had not issued any permits even a year after they collected the funds. If the city had ever been honest, this lawsuit would not have happened.
Among the things that happened:
-- Warrantless raids against dispensaries where the cops looted the place and didn't even give a receipt for what they took.
-- Late night threatening phone calls by city officials to the homes of dispensary owners.
-- A lawyer calling the dispensary owners and telling them the only problem was that their paperwork wasn't filled out correctly. For the modest retainer of four thousand per month, he would make sure the papers were filled out correctly. Turns out, the lawyer was an old school chum of one of the City Council members. The people receiving the calls decided not to participate because it sounded way too much like something that would interest the FBI.
-- Rewriting the rules after the lottery was already conducted and people had gone to great expense and trouble to comply with the old rules.
I could go on but the sum of the story is that Pack was filed because the complainants got tired of waiting for the FBI to come clean up city government. If the City Council had ever simply lived up to their own ordinance, none of this would have happened.
If the Post wants to do something really productive, they should send a reporter around to each of the dispensaries to try to total up what the Long Beach cops have stolen in warrantless raids.