Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2011 Americans For Safe Access Maine
by Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive DirectorApril 11, 2012
From the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines
IACM-Bulletin of 8 April 2012
World: Increasing numbers of patients use cannabis for medicinal purposes
An increasing number of patients in the world are using cannabis for therapeutic reasons, with available data from countries, which have installed programs for their citizens. Good data are available for Israel, Canada, the Netherlands and many states of the US with medicinal cannabis laws and registries. In several more countries only a few patients are allowed to use cannabis for medicinal purposes, including Germany, Norway, Finland and Italy. In many other countries such as Spain and some states of the US without a registry such as California the number of medicinal users is estimated to be high, but no detailed data are available.
The numbers in California with hundreds of cannabis dispensaries and clinics that issue medical cannabis recommendations are unclear, since the state does not require residents to register as patients (see below**)
Most of the 16 states that allow the medicinal use of cannabis require a registration. Recently the press agency Associated Press published data on registered patients in different states of the USA based on state agencies responsible for maintaining patient registries:
State: Number of registered patients (per 1,000 of the whole population) –
Colorado: 82,089 (16.3)
Oregon: 57,386 (15.0)
Montana: 14,364 (14.5)
Michigan: 131,483 (13.3)
Hawaii: 11,695 (8.6)
Rhode Island: 4,466 (4.2)
Arizona: 22,037 (3.5)
New Mexico: 4,310 (2.1)
Maine: 2,708 (2.0)
Nevada: 3,388 (1.3)
Vermont: 505 (0.8)
Alaska: 538 (0.8)
Patient registration is mandatory in Delaware, New Jersey and the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.), but their registries are not yet up and running. Washington State has neither voluntary nor mandatory registration.
Data from Israel show that in August 2011 6,000 patients got medicinal cannabis (0.8 patients in 1,000). It is estimated that the number increases to 40,000 in 2016 (5.2 patients in 1,000 citizens).
In Canada 12,116 patients were allowed to use cannabis on 30 September 2011 (0.35 patients in 1,000 citizens).
Numbers of patients using cannabis from the pharmacies in the Netherlands were estimated to be 1,300 in 2010 (0.08 patients in 1,000 citizens). However, many patients in the Netherlands use cannabis from the coffee shops or grow their own.
In Germany about 60 patients are currently allowed to use cannabis for medicinal purposes.
(Sources: Associated Press of 24 March 2012, website of the Israeli Prime Minister of 7 August 2011, UPI of 31 October 2011, Pharmaceutisch Weekblad No. 20, 2011)
**[Editor's note: CA NORML published a white paper last May estimating that California has 750,000 - 1,125,000 citizens who possess a physician's recommendation to use cannabis medicinally.]
By MICHAEL COOPER
Published: February 11, 2012
OAKLAND, Calif. — As the stubborn economic downturn has forced this city to take painful steps to balance its budget in recent years, it has increasingly turned to one of its newer industries to raise much-needed revenues: medical marijuana dispensaries.
The city has raised taxes on marijuana dispensaries several times in the past few years, and last year it collected $1.4 million in taxes from them — nearly 3 percent of all the business taxes it collected. Now Oakland plans to double the number of dispensaries it licenses, to eight from the current four, in the hopes that it can collect even more revenue.
“This is general fund revenue — it all goes into the melting pot,” said David McPherson, the city’s tax and revenue administrator. “When you’re making decisions about what to continue keeping or not, it goes into that decision process. If you don’t have that money, then you’re making other decisions about ‘Are we going to close the libraries on Monday?’ ‘Are you going to end up cutting a cop?’ ‘Are you not giving funds to our arts and things that help our kids?’ ”
Sometimes lost in the discussion of medical marijuana is the extent to which it has become a small but growing source of new tax collections for cities and states that have been struggling to balance their budgets for more than four years now.
Colorado Springs collected more than $700,000 in taxes from the medical marijuana industry in 2011. It is not a lot of money for a big city. But given the harsh steps the city has taken in recent years — in 2010 it shut off a third of its streetlights to save $1.2 million — every bit helps.
Denver collected more than $3.4 million last year from sales tax and application and license fees, according to preliminary figures. The State of Colorado collected $5 million in sales tax from medical marijuana businesses last year, more than twice what it collected the year before.
Taxing marijuana is a relatively new field, and cities and states are taking different approaches to raising revenues.
Maine decided that medical marijuana should be subjected to the state’s 5 percent sales tax — unless the marijuana is baked into brownies. In that case, it is taxed at a higher 7 percent rate that the state levies on prepared foods.
Oregon closed a budget gap last year in part by raising the annual fees it charges people with doctors’ notes to join the state’s medical marijuana program. In October, the state doubled the fee to $200 a year — with reduced fees available to people on food stamps — to raise an estimated $6.7 million a year to pay for other health programs.
Of course, some of the money raised must be used to administer the medical marijuana programs and, in some cases, to increase regulation of the industry.
Budget planners always deal in uncertainties like whether tax revenues will rebound or how much it will really cost to provide services. But projecting medical marijuana revenues adds other layers of complications, including whether the federal government will shut down the dispensaries that state and local governments have decided to allow.
After signaling in 2009 that it would not normally pursue groups providing marijuana to sick patients, the Justice Department has cracked down on dispensaries in a number of states in recent months. The Internal Revenue Service has targeted a number of dispensaries that pay federal taxes as well, arguing that they are not entitled to the regular business deductions they have claimed because they should be considered drug trafficking organizations.
It has made life complicated for cities.
“What we do know is the federal government has made it complicated and the state government has made it complicated and it all flows downhill to us,” said Mayor Chuck Reed of San Jose, Calif., which collects about $2.5 million in taxes from the 100 marijuana dispensaries that have opened in the city.
Here in Oakland, medical marijuana is booming. Just a few blocks from City Hall is Oaksterdam University, which offers training for people in the industry with classes in state and federal law, civics, legal business structures and various “methods of ingestion.”
The biggest dispensary in the city by far, Harborside Health Center, has 104,000 customers and employs 120 people, 90 percent of whom are from Oakland, in well-paying jobs with good benefits.
Its executive director, Stephen DeAngelo, helped lead the movement several years ago to have the city tax the marijuana industry. “At that time, the city was talking about closing down some really beloved institutions,” he said, adding that Oakland’s fiscal plight led the center to think about ways of helping the city. “What better way of doing that than with a tax?”
But when the city tripled the tax rate to 5 percent in 2010, he worried. “I thought 5 percent was a bit excessive,” Mr. DeAngelo said, but he added that the center was able to absorb the costs. Now, he said, the center is among the biggest taxpayers in Oakland.
Oakland will probably not be able to double its tax collections by doubling the number of dispensaries. Mr. McPherson, the city tax administrator, said that in many cases the same pool of medical marijuana users would simply be choosing from more places. But opening a dispensary near the Berkeley border, he said, might capture some of the Oakland residents who currently go to a dispensary in Berkeley.
Mr. McPherson said the city stood to reap more of what he called the “secondary benefits.”
“You’ve got accountants that are working for them, you’ve got all the security companies that are working for them, you have labs that are working for them, you have bakeries that are baking all the edibles, you have union employees that are getting great benefits, you have delivery services, hydroponic stores, doctors get some benefit,” he said. “It’s the secondary market that gains from this, and all of those pay business taxes to us.”
House Resolution 1983 has been stalled in committee since Last June
HR 1983, the State’s Medical Marijuana Protection Act of 2011, introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), explicitly states it will exempt people complying with state medical marijuana laws from federal arrest and prosecution.
Officially titled “To provide for the rescheduling of marijuana and for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various states”, the measure also calls for an immediate rescheduling review by the federal government that would reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the federal Controlled Substances Act, officially recognizing the plant’s accepted medical use and streamlining the federal approval process for medical marijuana research. It is cosponsored by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), Rep. Fortney Stark (D-CA). and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA).
“The time has come for the federal government to stop preempting states’ medical marijuana laws,” Frank said. “For the federal government to come in and supersede state law is a real mistake for those in pain for whom nothing else seems to work. This bill would block the federal prosecution of those patients who reside in those states that allow medical marijuana.”
Sixteen states — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington — and the District of Columbia have enacted laws protecting medical cannabis patients and often their providers from state prosecution. However, in all of these states, patients and providers still face the risk of federal sanction — even when their actions are fully compliant with state law.
Medical cannabis patients should feel safe from federal threats whether they are cultivating their own medicine, picking it up at a dispensary etc. When dispensaries are shut down, or gardens get plowed by the DEA, the real losers are the ill people using medical cannabis in order to treat their conditions. Often times these patients have already paid hundreds of dollars to be registered with the state, only to have the feds squash their efforts. Imagine having your local pharmacy getting shut down, terrorist style, leaving you without safe access to quality medicine. HR 1983 would provide the protection these patients need and deserve.
The time, money, and manpower spent by local, state, and federal authorities, to harass and prosecute medical cannabis patients is staggering, especially considering budget concerns in all parts of the U.S. In many states where medical cannabis laws have been passed, local municipalities have been collecting millions of dollars in taxes. So let’s see, less money out, more money in… HR 1983 absolutely makes sense for community budgets.
In states where dispensaries are allowed to operate, the cost of opening one can be staggering. Regulations in states, such as Colorado, can push the cost into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is nothing new, there is always a cost to do business, but the difference between dispensary owners and most business owners is the constant threat of DEA raids and asset forfeiture. These operators are most often good people who really want to be an accepted part of the community, yet the federal government considers them drug dealers using it’s influence to manipulate local governments to go against the will of the voters. Add the legal costs to fight for your right to operate and I wonder how these people are able to stay open? Passing HR 1983 would allow them to fully integrate into communities without constant federal harassment.
The known benefits of medical cannabis are a proven reality and how many more unknown benefits could be discovered if legitimate research could be done openly. Just look to Israel as an example. Since their government loosened the restrictions on cannabis research, a couple real quality studies are in the works. It’s no secret research and development is expensive. Passing this resolution would help entrepreneurs feel far more comfortable about investing capital in cannabis research once they don’t have to worry about the Feds kicking down the door. Imagine if we could isolate each of the hundreds of psychoactive components contained in the cannabis plant and test each one for potential ways to treat incurable diseases and conditions. Do we really want all this work to be done overseas? What about all the potential high paying research jobs this could create? H. R. 1983 would help make cannabis safer and create jobs here in the United States.
As a cannabis law reform and legalization advocate, I can appreciate what enacting this resolution has to offer. I personally see the biggest hurdle for marijuana law reform as breaking the decades old negative stereotypes created by the government propaganda machine. If people where allowed to use medical cannabis and the public saw crime rates fall and heard miracle cancer stories, maybe it could change their perceptions. Additionally, many people who use medical cannabis recreationally might actually be using it for medical reasons and just don’t know they are. Depression, anxiety, and other conditions often go undiagnosed, often leaving people to “self-medicate” on their own.
Bottom line, this bill doesn’t have many glaring problems and if your state doesn’t have a medical cannabis law, then it doesn’t really effect you anyway. The bill is currently in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by Rep. Frederick Upton; it was assigned to the Subcommittee on Health and hasn’t budged since. Contact your congressman and tell them to co-sponsor the States’ Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act now!
Here’s a great video from friend of the blog, Jay Selthofner talking about HR 1983
And here’s a link to the full text of the bill:
Related Posts:
By Nok-Noi Ricker, BDN Staff
Posted Aug. 10, 2011, at 11:22 p.m.
Last modified Aug. 11, 2011, at 12:02 p.m.
Last modified Aug. 11, 2011, at 12:02 p.m.
BREWER, Maine — A gathering held Wednesday to educate people about amendments to the state’s medical marijuana statute that become law next month brought together a number of people interested in becoming caregivers — those who grow medicinal marijuana for up to five patients.
They asked questions like, “If I’m growing for a family member, do I have to register?”
“Where do I legally buy” marijuana seeds?
“How do I get into contact with patients?”
“We’re a husband and wife team. Can we share 10 patients?”
“Do I have to pay taxes?”
Members of Medical Marijuana Caregivers of Maine, a nonprofit trade association, spoke to about 40 people at the Eastern Maine Labor Council, explaining changes that go into effect under LD 1296, “An Act to Amend the Maine Medical Use of Marijuana Act To Protect Patient Privacy,” which was signed by Gov. Paul LePage on June 24 and becomes state law at the end of September.
The amended law makes a bunch of big changes — doing away with mandatory state registration for medical marijuana users, eliminating requirements that patients disclose their medical condition, allowing outside cultivation for those who grow their own, and adding provisions that protect patients from search, seizure and prosecution.
Panel members Hillary Lister, Jake McLure, and Paul McCarrier, who are all Medical Marijuana Caregivers of Maine members, explained the law’s changes.
Maine voters first approved the use of medical marijuana in 1999, and in November 2009 expanded the law to include more medical conditions and the creation of nonprofit, government-sanctioned clinics and marijuana cultivation centers. The recent amendments modify the 2009 rules.
Marijuana is illegal under federal law, but 16 states, including Maine, and the District of Columbia have laws making it legal for medical use.
Qualifying patients who opt not to register with the state must have a physician provide a written certification on tamper-resistant paper, said McCarrier, adding that it also must have the name and contact information for the doctor.
The amended law also makes registration optional for some primary caregivers — those who grow medical marijuana for members of the same household or family.
A mother and her grown son from Dover-Foxcroft, who asked not to be identified because of the stigma of the drug, said after the meeting ended that they have a sick family member who will soon need a caregiver.
“I don’t consume marijuana at all and never have,” the man said. “I was kind of against it but once I got to know people who are using it for medical reasons — it persuaded me.”
A couple from the midcoast, who also asked not to identify themselves, said they attended the meeting to learn about how to become a provider for patients.
“I drove 110 miles to get here tonight,” the man said. “My farm is in foreclosure and I’m looking for a way out. If we can help patients and our farm, that would be great.”
After reading up on the amended law and gathering more information at the meeting, the man said “we are absolutely doing it.”
The goal of the Medical Marijuana Caregivers of Maine is to educate the people about the law so they can provide locally grown medicine to qualified patients, said McLure.
“We’re taking care of the patients of Maine,” he said. “It’s a cottage industry and is starting to revitalise the small farms here in Maine. It’s definitely stimulating the local economy in ways we are just beginning to see.”
The answers to the questions posed during the meeting and listed at the beginning of this story are listed below:
• “If you’re a caregiver for family members or household members, then you don’t need” to register as a caregiver, McLure said, adding all others must register with the state and all caregivers should have a written contract with their patients. A form letter for those contracts will be provided by the Department of Health and Human Services, he said.
• Marijuana seeds “can be donated to you from a patient,” McCarrier said.
• Connection patients and caregivers is done through patient referrals through the Medical Marijuana Caregivers of Maine, McLure said.
“We don’t guarantee” a connection, but “we get about a patient a day calling in asking to be connected to a caregiver,” he said.
• The husband and wife who plan to be caregivers with 5 qualified patients each should be able to grow their plants together, McLure said, adding that a lot of details still need to be ironed out.
• “There is a mandatory 5 percent sales tax,” that must be collected by caregivers, McLure said.
Those who would like to learn more about the Medical Marijuana Caregivers of Maine can go to their website, mmcmonline.org.
The group will be out educating people at the Green Love Festival, on Harry Brown’s Farm in Starks this weekend, will host a informational meeting 5 p.m. Monday, Aug. 15, at the Washington town office and will participate in the Homegrown Maine trade show Nov. 5-6 at the Augusta Civic Center.
