Global Ganja Report

A British study discounts a link between occasional cannabis smoking or other light illicit drug use and the decline in mental functions that comes with middle age. The study, carried in the American Journal of Epidemiology, tested the mental function and memory of nearly 9,000 Britons at age 50 and found that those who had used illegal drugs as recently as in their 40s did just as well on the tests as peers who had never used drugs—or slightly better.

We recently reported claims that the DEA has granted unnamed private pharmaceutical companies license to grow cannabis for experimental purposes. Now, the Sacramento News & Review on Dec. 19 cites a report from the Union of Medical Marijuana Patients to the effect that the United States government holds a patent on the use of cannabinoids as "antioxidants and neuroprotectants"—specifically, the Department of Health & Human Services holds Patent #6630507, as documented at the US Patent & Trademark Office.

The Colorado Independent reported Dec. 8 that Colorado is joining Rhode Island and Washington state in petitioning the federal government to "change the schedule of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act." Colorado is required by state law to file its own such request before the end of the year. The Centennial State legalized medical marijuana in 2000 through voter approval of Amendment 20, which was itself later amended by three enabling laws. One such law passed last year, HB 10-1284, requires:

Governors Christine Gregoire (D-WA) and Lincoln Chafee (I-RI) announced at a press conference in Olympia Nov. 30 that they are jointly filing a federal petition to reclassify cannabis for medical use. Under the Controlled Substances Act, the federal government considers cannabis a Schedule I substance, a dangerous drug with no medical value. The rescheduling petition filed by governors Gregoire and Chafee comes after their administrations were sent letters threatening medical marijuana producers and distributors and the implementation of state laws.

Advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) issued a letter Nov. 17 urging that Los Angeles' prestigious Cedars-Sinai Medical Center promptly re-list 63-year-old patient Norman B. Smith for a liver transplant. Smith was diagnosed with inoperable liver cancer in 2009 and became eligible for a transplant at Cedars-Sinai the following year. Smith's oncologist at Cedars-Sinai, Dr. Steven Miles, approved of his cannabis use to deal with the effects of chemotherapy and pain from an unrelated back surgery. But in February he was removed from the transplant list after testing positive for cannabis use.

Survey data collected from members of the Berkeley Patients Group, one of California's most prominent medical marijuana collectives, indicates that most patients reduce their use of prescription medications following their initiation of cannabis therapy. The anonymous survey found that 66% of respondents said that they consumed cannabis as a prescription drug substitute. Many said they preferred cannabis because it caused fewer side effects than conventional medications.

Nine Congress members on Oct. 31 issued an open letter to President Obama urging him to put a halt to new aggressive Justice Department tactics aimed at dismantling California's medical marijuana industry. "It's unconscionable...to endanger the lives of patients," the reps state in the strongly worded letter, which calls for rescheduling cannabis. It especially urges support for HR 1983, the States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act, which was introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) earlier this year.

Trustees of the California Medical Association, representing more than 35,000 physicians statewide, on Oct. 14 adopted a position calling for legalization of cannabis at their annual meeting in Anaheim—becoming the first major medical association in the nation to do so. Dr. Donald Lyman, the Sacramento physician who wrote the group's new policy, attributed the move to growing frustration over California's medical marijuana law, which puts practitioners in the situation of having to decide whether to recommend a substance that is illegal under federal law.