Pubdate: Thu, 29 Sep 2005
Source: Bay Area Reporter (CA)
Copyright: 2005 The Bay Area Reporter
Contact:  http://www.ebar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/41
Author: Bruce Mirken
Note: Bruce Mirken is director of communications for the Marijuana 
Policy Project (www.mpp.org).
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)

MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES DESERVE SUPPORT

On October 6, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is scheduled to
consider legislation to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries. The
LGBT community needs to make clear to our representatives that we
support responsible regulation, but will not tolerate arbitrary,
unnecessary rules that limit patient access to a vitally important
medicine.

Fortunately, a new poll shows that the majority of San Franciscans
agree.

Many of us have watched medical marijuana (cannabis, to use the
scientific term) help friends and loved ones with AIDS cope with the
nausea and loss of appetite often caused by harsh anti-HIV drugs.
That's one of the reasons Prop. 215 passed with 78 percent of the vote
in San Francisco and an astonishing 91 percent in the Castro.

And the evidence of marijuana's benefits keeps mounting: A study
published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes last
January found that people with HIV/AIDS suffering moderate to severe
nausea stayed on their medication regimens more consistently if they
used marijuana. A new study by UCSF researcher Dr. Donald Abrams --
just presented at a recent conference -- found that marijuana relieves
the pain caused by HIV-associated peripheral neuropathy.

Medical cannabis dispensaries are an integral part of the system
created by California to allow people with HIV and other serious
illnesses to use medical marijuana. The sick and disabled should not
have to get their medicine on the street.

No one opposes sensible regulation of medical cannabis dispensaries:
These establishments must obey the law and be good neighbors. But the
supervisors' first responsibility must be to protect seriously ill
patients. While there is room for discussion on details, two points
are absolutely crucial:

1) Patients must be allowed to consume their medicine at the
dispensary -- whether they smoke, vaporize or take it orally -- if
they wish to do so.

This is particularly critical for those who live in federally funded
housing, who face eviction if they use or possess federally banned
drugs such as marijuana. Others may have issues with family members,
roommates, or landlords that make consumption at home impossible. This
can be especially important for those who need to time their use of
medical marijuana to relieve the nausea caused by AIDS or hepatitis C
medications.

Equally important, medical marijuana dispensaries that allow on-site
consumption serve as formal or informal support groups for people who
may be socially isolated due to illness or disability. A study of
members of one such dispensary, published in the Journal of
Psychoactive Drugs , concluded that it "helped many individuals who
had been living in isolation reestablish a friendship network. ...
Members who probably would have been content to find only a legitimate
source of medical marijuana were even more pleased to discover that
the setting itself served therapeutic purposes ..."

2) There must be no arbitrary limits that restrict patient access
without good reason. Some of the proposals floating around City Hall
include a number of capricious and unnecessary restrictions: Caps on
the number of dispensaries, severe limits on where they can be located
(such as requiring dispensaries to be 1,000 feet away from schools or
community centers if smoking is allowed on the premises), and even a
ban on operation after 8 p.m.

Such restrictions make little sense, and would impose serious
hardships on patients. A 1,000-foot limit, for example, would make
large swaths of the city off-limits, forcing sick and disabled
patients to travel long distances to get their medicine. Excessive
restrictions on evening hours would be problematic for many who work
during the day.

Remember, we're not talking about facilities that are open to the
general public, but medical distribution centers that provide medicine
to lawful patients. Walgreens and Rite Aid sell drugs that are far
more dangerous than marijuana (and that are frequently abused), but
does anyone really think they should be banned from operating within
1,000 feet of a school? Well-run, properly regulated medical cannabis
dispensaries pose no threat to neighborhoods.

Fortunately, despite the hysteria in some corners of the local press,
San Franciscans take a sensible attitude, as seen in a poll conducted
in August by Evans-McDonough Opinion Research. Asked if medical
marijuana dispensaries are "out of control" or "a major neighborhood
nuisance," San Franciscans said "no" by a margin of 52 percent to 30
percent. Asked if it should be made more difficult to get medical
marijuana in San Francisco, 60 percent said "no." And a whopping 75
percent agreed that "patients should be allowed to smoke medical
marijuana at the medical marijuana dispensaries if the facility has a
proper ventilation system."

Indeed, rather than favoring a crackdown on medical marijuana, 63
percent felt that the city should "legalize, tax, and regulate
marijuana for adult use." Unfortunately, most of the local press
ignored the mid-September release of this survey.

If our supervisors understand that the first goal of dispensary
regulation must be to protect the interests of patients, San Francisco
can create a model that shows America how to handle medical marijuana.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake