BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
Senator Deborah V. Ortiz, Chair
BILL NO: AJR 13
A
AUTHOR: Leno
J
AMENDED: April 22, 2003
R
HEARING DATE: June 11, 2003
FISCAL: NonFiscal
1
3
CONSULTANT:
Dunstan / ak
SUBJECT
Medical cannabis
SUMMARY
This resolution urges the President and the Congress of the
United States to take specified actions to ease
restrictions on the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.
ABSTRACT
Existing state law:
1.Permits seriously ill patients and their caregivers to
possess and cultivate cannabis for medicinal purposes and
protects licensed physicians from prosecution or
harassment by state or local officials for recommending
medical cannabis.
2.Permits the California Marijuana Research Program to be
conducted by the University of California to study the
efficacy and safety of medical marijuana.
Existing federal law:
1.Classifies cannabis as a Schedule I drug with no
currently accepted medical use (Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 13 (Leno) Page
2
Prevention and Control Act of 1970).
This bill:
1.Urges the President and Congress to:
Enact legislation that secures a state's right to
regulate medical cannabis, to allow patients to
possess and consume medical cannabis, and to allow
individuals deputized by states and localities to
cultivate and distribute medical cannabis.
Amend the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970 to allow for a medical necessity
defense.
Review Drug Enforcement Administration policy
related to the prosecution and harassment of
Californians who are acting in compliance with the
provisions of Proposition 215.
2.Resolves that the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit
copies of this resolution to the President and Vice
President of the United States, to the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, to the United
States Senate Majority Leader, and to each Senator and
Representative from California in the Congress of the
United States.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Purpose of this resolution
According to the author, this resolution is needed to
promote the will of the California voters when they passed
Proposition 215 in 1996. The U.S. Department of Justice
and other federal agencies are actively enforcing federal
law with the result that California citizens who are
obeying California law have been arrested or incarcerated.
The author contends that federal elected officials should
remove the conflict by amending federal statutes to allow
for a medical necessity defense and amend federal statute
to recognize states' rights in this area.
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 13 (Leno) Page
3
Background
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. According
to medical practitioners, 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 only
from smoking marijuana.
Although the medicinal use of cannabis has a long history
dating back to the ancient world, there is little
verifiable evidence of its effects when used in the
management of chronic health conditions. Several years ago
the National Institute of Health encouraged additional
research into the medical use of marijuana. In March of
1999, the Federal Institute of Medicine also endorsed
additional research and simultaneously concluded that
marijuana had demonstrated therapeutic benefit. The
California Marijuana Research Program at the University of
California is conducting studies on the medical use of
cannabis.
Published studies at Harvard University and the National
Cancer Institute found that smoked marijuana was more
effective than oral administered THC ("marinol") in
providing widespread relief from nausea caused by cancer
chemotherapy. UCLA and Howard University found reduced
interoccular pressure among glaucoma patients who smoked
marijuana. However, such studies have also found
potentially serious side effects, including an increased
heart rate and an undesirable lowering of blood pressure.
Contradictory evidence exists regarding the treatment of
epilepsy and multiple sclerosis, but marijuana clearly
affected both disease states.
As of 1999, little research had been done on one of the
most common applications of marijuana: the wasting
syndrome of AIDS wherein patients grow gaunt and weak from
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 13 (Leno) Page
4
weight loss. AIDS activists insist that smoking is far
more effective than the research based on marinol (oral
THC) would indicate, and have presented dramatic cases of
weight gain by AIDS patients. However, smoking marijuana
may also make patients more susceptible to a rare form of
fatal pneumonia and further suppression of the immune
system. Additionally, there are indications that long-term
marijuana use may be carcinogenic and have a synergistic
effect on tobacco-related lung injuries.
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970
Marijuana is a "Schedule I" drug under the provisions of
the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of
1970, because of its high potential for abuse and lack of
accepted medical use. Federal law prohibits the
prescription, distribution or possession of marijuana and
other Schedule I drugs, such as heroin and LSD.
Proposition 215
California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996 by a 56 to
44 percent margin. The measure, termed the Compassionate
Use Act of 1996, exempts patients and caregivers who
possess or cultivate marijuana for medical treatment. The
state's criminal laws otherwise prohibit possession or
cultivation of marijuana.
The passage of the measure did not affect federal laws,
specifically the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act which generally prohibits the possession or
cultivation of marijuana. In a federal prosecution brought
against a party who was complying with Proposition 215, the
Supreme Court held that medical necessity is not a defense
against the enforcement of the federal law (U.S. v. Oakland
Cannabis Buyers Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483).
Interest in the federal government's position on
Proposition 215 attracted significant attention earlier
this year when Ed Rosenthal, a California advocate for
medical marijuana, was convicted in federal court on three
felony charges in connection with plants he was cultivating
for use by patients of a San Francisco dispensary. Jurors
in the case were prohibited from considering evidence
related to Proposition 215.
Previous California Legislation
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 13 (Leno) Page
5
After the enactment of Proposition 215, a number of bills
were proposed to facilitate the medicinal use of marijuana.
None of these measures was enacted into law. These
included SB 54 (Vasconcellos) of 1997, SB 1887
(Vasconcellos) of 1998, SB 848 (Vasconcellos) of 1999 and
SB 187 (Vasconcellos) of 2001.
Continued---
Letter from the California State Legislature
In February 2003, 16 California Senators and 34
Assemblymembers signed a letter urging the United States
Senate and House of Representatives to pass legislation and
amend federal law as urged in this resolution. The letter
also asked that the federal budget for enforcement against
medical users of cannabis be reduced.
Laws and programs in other jurisdictions
Since 1996, voters in Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington have passed
ballot initiatives to remove criminal penalties for
seriously ill people who grow or possess medical marijuana.
The Hawaii State legislature enacted a medical marijuana
law in June 2000. The federal "Compassionate Use" program
supplies cannabis for medicinal use to seven patients
nationwide.
Arguments in support
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.
Arguments in opposition
Opponents argue 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.
PRIOR ACTIONS
Assembly Floor: 42 - 32 Pass
Assembly Health: 15 - 9 Be Adopted as Amended
POSITIONS
Support: Americans for Medical Rights
Being Alive
California National Organization for the
Reform of
Marijuana Laws
Drug Policy Alliance Network
Oppose: Committee on Moral Concerns
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 13 (Leno) Page
7
California Narcotic Officer's Association
-- END --