BILL ANALYSIS
AJR 13
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AJR 13 (Leno)
As Amended April 22, 2003
Majority vote
HEALTH 15 - 9
--------------------------------
|Ayes:|Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn, |
| |Frommer, Goldberg, |
| |Koretz, Hancock, |
| |Montanez, Negrete McLeod, |
| |Nunez, Ridley-Thomas, |
| |Salinas, Wolk, Yee |
| | |
|-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Bates, Dutton, Haynes, |
| |Maze, McCarthy, |
| |Nakanishi, Pacheco, |
| |Plescia, Richman |
| | |
--------------------------------
SUMMARY : Urges the President and Congress of the United States
(U.S.) to take specified actions relating to the use of cannabis
for medicinal purposes. Specifically, this bill urges the
President and Congress to:
1)Enact legislation that secures a state's right to regulate
medical cannabis, allows patients to possess and consume
medical cannabis, and allows individuals deputized by states
and localities to cultivate and distribute medical cannabis.
2)Amend the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act
of 1970 (CDAPCA) to allow for a medical necessity defense as
suggested by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v.
Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483.
3)Review Drug Enforcement Administration policy related to the
prosecution and harassment of Californians who are acting in
compliance with the provisions of Proposition 215.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW classifies, under CDAPCA, cannabis as a
Schedule I Drug with no medical use.
EXISTING LAW permits:
AJR 13
Page 2
1)Seriously ill patients and their caregivers to use cannabis
for medicinal purposes and protects licensed physicians from
prosecution or harassment by state or local officials for
recommending medical cannabis.
2)The California Marijuana Research Program to be conducted by
the University of California to study the efficacy and safety
of medical marijuana.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : Advocates and many health care providers assert that
marijuana use relieves suffering from serious medical conditions
including cancer, HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, and certain neuromuscular
diseases including multiple sclerosis. These diseases and their
treatments can cause constant pain, intractable nausea, severe
anorexia, and anxiety. Symptomatic relief is often found
through the use of prescription drugs, including narcotic pain
medications, anti-nausea medications, anti-anxiety medications
and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) purified from marijuana and
available as a pill (Marinol). Some patients report that after
having tried several different prescription medications, they
receive adequate relief by smoking marijuana only.
Because the medicinal use of cannabis in the U.S. has been
illegal, there is little verifiable evidence of its effects when
used in the management of chronic health conditions. In 1999, a
National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine (IOM) report
concluded, "there are some limited circumstances in which we
recommend smoking marijuana for medical uses." The IOM report
was the result of two years of research funded by the White
House drug policy office to analyze all existing data regarding
the therapeutic use of marijuana. A Pew Research poll conducted
in February found that 73% of American adults supported
permitting doctors to prescribe marijuana for their patients.
California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996 to exempt from
criminal laws, which otherwise prohibit possession or
cultivation of marijuana, patients and caregivers that possess
or cultivate marijuana for medical treatment. In a federal
prosecution challenging Proposition 215 ( U.S. v. Oakland
Cannabis Buyers Cooperative ), the Supreme Court held that
medical necessity is not a defense to CDAPCA.
Interest in the federal government's position on Proposition 215
AJR 13
Page 3
attracted significant attention earlier this year when Ed
Rosenthal, a California advocate for medical marijuana, was
convicted in federal court of three felony charges in connection
with plants he was cultivating for use by patients of a San
Francisco dispensary. Several news articles and editorials
suggest that Mr. Rosenthal had been unfairly treated through the
prosecution. Jurors in the case were prohibited from
considering evidence related to Proposition 215. Subsequent to
the conviction, several jurors reported that they would have
voted differently had they known that Mr. Rosenthal was
cultivating marijuana under provisions of Proposition 215 and an
Oakland medicinal marijuana law.
Proponents contend that the federal government is actively
harassing and intimidating California patients and caregivers
through prosecution, and the California Legislature should
defend the will of the voters.
The Committee on Moral Concerns argues that the harmful effects
of marijuana are better documented than the positive effects,
and further study is needed to legitimatize the claims of
medical marijuana proponents.
Analysis Prepared by : Melanie Moreno / HEALTH / (916)
319-2097
FN: 0000496