State-By-State Medical Marijuana Laws

State-By-State Medical Marijuana

Laws:

How to Remove the Threat of Arrest

" " The federal government is not prosecuting marijuana users. --Former DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson in the Oakland Tribune, 2/13/02

The one issue on which all the candidates agreed was the state's

"medical marijuana law, which all said they would fight to uphold. " --"Candidates Make Their Case in California Debate," The Washington Post, 9/4/03, following the first

debate among the five major gubernatorial candidates seeking to succeed Gray Davis in the 2003 recall election (Schwarzenegger did not attend, but had previously expressed his support for medical marijuana.)

Updated: July 2004

Marijuana Policy Project

State Policies Department P.O. Box 77492 Capitol Hill

Washington, DC 20013 Phone: (202) 462-5747 ext. 2

Fax: (202) 232-0442 sbs.report@

Contents

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Marijuana's Medical Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Criminalizing Patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Changing Federal Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Changing State Laws: From 1978 to 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Changing State Laws Since 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 What the New State Laws Do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Is There a Conflict Between New State Laws and Federal Law? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Federal Court Rulings Have Clarified the Scope of State Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Overview of Kinds of State Laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Where Things Are Going From Here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

TABLES

Table 1: Effective Medical Marijuana Laws in Nine States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 2: Tally of State Medical Marijuana Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

MAPS

States with effective medical marijuana laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 States with other medical marijuana laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 States that considered medical marijuana legislation during the 2003?2004 legislative sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

APPENDICES

Appendix A: State Medical Marijuana Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a-1 States with effective medical marijuana laws (removal of criminal penalties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a-1 States with workable medical marijuana laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a-7 States with medical marijuana research laws (therapeutic research programs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a-7 States with symbolic medical marijuana laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .a-11 States in which medical marijuana laws have expired or been repealed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a-15 States that have never had medical marijuana laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a-19 States that have passed non-binding resolutions urging the federal government to make marijuana medically available. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a-19

Appendix B: Medical Marijuana Briefing Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b-1

Appendix C: Excerpts from the Institute of Medicine 1999 Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c-1

Appendix D: Surveys of Public Support for Medical Marijuana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d-1 Nationwide medical marijuana public opinion polling results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d-1 State-specific medical marijuana public opinion polling results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d-2

CONTENTS i

State-By-State Report 2004

State-By-State Report 2004

CONTENTS ii

Appendix E: The Controlled Substances Act (and Drug Schedules) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e-1

Appendix F: How the Nine Effective State Laws Are Working . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f-1 Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f-1 California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f-1 Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f-4 Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f-6 Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f-7 Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f-9 Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f-11 Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .f-12 Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .f-13

Appendix G: Types of Legal Defenses Afforded by Effective State Medical Marijuana Laws. . . . . . . . . . . . g-1

Appendix H: Types of Physician Documentation Required to Cultivate, Possess, or Use Medical Marijuana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h-1

Appendix I: Federal Litigation and Other Federal Attempts to Thwart Effective State Medical Marijuana Laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i-1 Dr. Marcus Conant v. John L. Walters (Case No. 00-17222)-- previously Dr. Marcus Conant v. McCaffrey (No. C97-00139 WHA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i-2 United States of America v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (No. 00-151) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i-3 County of Santa Cruz, et al. v. Ashcroft, et al.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i-5 Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana,Valerie Corral, and Michael Corral v. United States of America. . . . . . . . . . . . i-6 Angel Raich and Diane Monson v. Ashcroft, et al.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i-6

Appendix J: Therapeutic Research Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .j-1

Appendix K: Medical Necessity Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k-1

Appendix L: State Medical Marijuana Legislation Considered (2003?2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-1

Appendix M: Resolution of Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .m-1

Appendix N: States That Have the Initiative Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n-1

Appendix O: Effective Arguments for Medical Marijuana Advocates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o-1

Appendix P: Partial List of Organizations with Favorable Positions on Medical Marijuana. . . . . . . . . . . . p-1

Appendix Q: Model Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . q-1

Appendix R: Overview and Explanation of Model Bill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r-1

Appendix S: What Do Federal Raids in California Mean for State Medical Marijuana Laws? . . . . . . . . . . s-1

Appendix T: Medical Conditions Approved for Treatment with Marijuana in the Nine States with Medical Marijuana Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t-1

State-By-State Report 2004

Executive Summary

? Favorable medical marijuana laws have been enacted in 36 states since 1978. However, most of these laws are ineffectual, due to their reliance on the federal government's directly providing or authorizing a legal supply of medical marijuana. (Six of these laws have since expired or been repealed.)

? Currently, 30 states and the District of Columbia have laws on the books that recognize marijuana's medical value: - Eleven states that solely have "Therapeutic Research Program" laws are unable to give patients legal access to medical marijuana because of federal obstructionism. - Nine states and the District of Columbia solely have symbolic laws that recognize marijuana's medical value but fail to provide patients with protection from arrest. - And, since 1996, nine states have enacted laws that effectively allow patients to use medical marijuana despite federal law. A tenth state, Maryland, has established an affirmative defense law that will protect medical marijuana patients from jail, but not arrest.

? The effective medical marijuana laws were enacted through ballot initiatives in Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. In Hawaii, an effective law was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in June 2000. In Vermont, an effective law was passed by the legislature and allowed to become law without the governor's signature in May 2004.

? To be effective, a state law must remove criminal penalties for patients who use, possess, and grow medical marijuana with their doctors' approval or certification. - The federal government cannot force states to have laws that are identical to federal law, nor can the federal government force state and local police to enforce federal laws. - Because 99% of all marijuana arrests in the nation are made by state and local (not federal) officials, properly worded state laws can effectively protect 99 out of every 100 medical marijuana users who otherwise would have been prosecuted.

? Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in May 2001 that the medical necessity defense cannot be used to avoid a federal conviction for marijuana, a state government may still allow its residents to possess, grow, or distribute medical marijuana. The ruling does not nullify the nine effective state medical marijuana laws, nor does it prevent other states from enacting similar laws.

? Ultimately, federal law should be changed to treat marijuana like any other legal medication, available through pharmacies upon a doctor's prescription. However, the federal government currently refuses to budge. In the meantime, the only way to protect marijuana-using patients from arrest is through legislation in the states.

? This report describes all favorable medical marijuana laws ever enacted in the United States, details the differences between effective and ineffective state laws, and explains what must be done to give patients immediate legal access to medical marijuana. Accordingly, a model bill and a compilation of resources for effective advocacy are provided.

1

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download