Cannabinoids Delay Disease Progression In Animal Model Of Huntington's Disease
Share This Article           

Madrid, Spain: The combined administration of the plant cannabinoids THC and CBD (cannabidiol) provide neuroprotection in rat models of Huntington's Disease (HD), according to experimental data to be published in The Journal of Neuroscience Research. Huntington's Disease is an inherited degenerative brain disorder characterized by motor abnormalities and dementia produced by selective lesions in the cerebral cortex and, in particular, the striatum. There are pre! sently no known conventional therapies available to alleviate HD symptoms or delay HD-associated striatal degeneration.

An international team of investigators from Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom assessed whether THC and CBD-rich botanical extracts could delay the progress of the disease in laboratory animals. Authors reported, "[O]ur data demonstrate that a [one to one] combination of THC and CBD-enriched botanical extracts protected striatal neurons against ... toxicity." By contrast, the administration of individual, selective synthetic cannabinoid agonists did not produce similarly favorable outcomes.

Investigators concluded, "In our opinion, these data provide sufficient preclinical evidence to justify a clinical evaluation of [one to one THC to CBD] cannabis-based medicine ... as a neuroprotective agent capable of delaying disease progression in patients affected by HD, a disorder that is currently poorly managed in the clinic, prompting an urgent need for clinical trials with agents showing positive results in preclinical studies."

For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Full text of the study, "Neuroprotective effects of Phytocannabinoid-based medicines in experimental models of Huntington's Disease," will appear in The Journal of Neuroscience Research. Additional studies documenting the disease modifying potential of marijuana is available in the NORML handbook, Emerging Clinical Applications For Cannabis & Cannabinoids: Fourth Edition, available online at: http://www.norml.org//index.cfm?Group_ID=7002.

Washington: Supreme Court Says State's Medical Marijuana Law Provides No Protection For Employees' Off-The-Job Use Of Cannabis
Share This Article           

Olympia, WA: An employer may terminate an employee for his or her off-the-job marijuana use, even if the employee is authorized under state law to use cannabis medicinally, the Washington Supreme Court ruled last week in an 8 to 1 decision.

The majority determined: "Washington courts have recognized that [the] purpose [of the Washington State Medical Use of Marijuana Act] is to protect the rights of qualifying patients to use medical marijuana in accordance with the advice and supervision of their physicians. ... Washington court decisions do not recognize a broad public policy that would remove any impediment to medical marijuana use or impose an employer accommodation obligation."

The Court further determined: "Finally, Washington patients have no legal right to use marijuana under federal law. Though [the petitioner] claims the divergence between Washington's [medical marijuana law] and federal drug law is of no consequence to a state tort claim, the two cannot be completely separated."

Writing for the dissent, Justice Tom Chambers determined: "The law is intended to treat marijuana like any other medication. ... Even the limitations in the act support finding a policy in favor of allowing medical marijuana in situations like this one."

In 2010, the Oregon Supreme Court made a similar ruling in Emerald Steel Fabricators Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, finding that an employee who uses marijuana in accordance with state law is nonetheless "engaged in the illegal use of drugs" and may be fired for his or her off-the-job conduct.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court also similarly ruled in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecom that: "California's voters merely exempted medical users and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under two specifically designated state statutes. Nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use Act suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and obligations of employers and employees."

Full text of the decision, Roe v. Teletech Customer Care Management LLC, is available here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2011/06/09/2015278482.pdf.

Medical Marijuana laws must yield to Employer drug use policy.

Author: Kristina Russell
Published: June 11, 2011 at 7:38 am





Marijuana for medical purposes can legally be prescribed in several states according to state laws however your employer drug policy will determine if you may have your job or not regardless of your prescription. A Washington state supreme court upheld the decision of a Colorado based company to dismiss an employee for failing her drug test, even though she had a valid prescription for marijuana usage. The employee worked for Tele Tech Customer Care, a customer service company subcontracted by Sprint at the time. The vote was 8 to 1, not even a close call.

The Court declared that the state medical marijuana law does not require employers to allow for medical marijuana usage outside of work. It further clarified that it by no means requires an allowance for usage at work. The court affirmed that the state’s Human Rights Commission, which is responsible for employee discrimination cases, is not allowed to handle Medical Marijuana based cases, due to it still being illegal at a Federal level.

The single supporting vote was placed by Justice Tom Chambers, who argued that citizens had intended for protections for prescription bearing patients when the medical marijuana law was voted into place in 1998. He is quoted by the Seattle Times as having stated the majority vote “jeopardized the clear policy” of the law. This is not the first employee who has taken this matter to court. In February of 2008 an employee of Walmart took the decision of termination to court in Michigan as well. That employee also lost and is intending to appeal.

The ruling by Washington State further confuses citizens as to what is legal and what is not. DOJ memorandums, attorney general letters, governor statements, police policy changes, and department of health involvement are spelling out a large problem in Washington and across the nation. It would seem a lot of finances are being wrapped up in arresting and prosecuting people who are attempting to follow the law. Clarification seems necessary on all levels.

ASA Sues Federal Government over Rescheduling Delay

Petition to classify cannabis as having medical use pending for nine years

After nearly a decade of waiting for action by the federal government on a formal petition to re-classify cannabis as having medical use, the coalition of patients and advocacy groups that filed it have gone to court for an answer.

The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC), ASA, Patients Out of Time, and individually named patients filed papers in the federal DC Circuit Court to compel the Obama Administration to answer the 2002 petition to reclassify medical cannabis.

"The federal government's strategy has been delay, delay, delay," said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who is the lead attorney for the action. "It is far past time for the government to answer our rescheduling petition. Since they are being unreasonable, we’re asking the court for resolution."

In 2006 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) passed on its recommendation to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the final arbiter in the rescheduling process, but the DEA has refused to respond. The writ of mandamus filed last month argues that the five-year delay violates the Administrative Procedures Act.

On average, it takes six months from HHS review to final action. The five-year delay on the CRC petition is more than twice as long as any other rescheduling petition reviewed since 2002.

"The Obama Administration's refusal to act on this petition is an irresponsible stalling tactic," said Jon Gettman, who filed the rescheduling petition on behalf of the CRC.

A formal rejection of the petition would enable the coalition to challenge in court the government's claim that marijuana has no medical value.

“We have more than just the hundreds of scientific studies demonstrating how effective and safe a medicine cannabis is,” said ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer, who is a named plaintiff in the case. “The government’s own reviews come to the same conclusion, and their National Cancer Institute describes it as a Complementary Alternative Medicine.”

Currently, cannabis is classified under federal law as a Schedule I substance with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.

The two largest physician groups in the country -- the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians -- have each called on the federal government to review that classification.

THC, the chemical in cannabis that produces psychoactive effects, is a Schedule III drug marketed in synthetic form as Marinol®. Pharmaceutical companies vying to create less-expensive generic versions are petitioning the government to be allowed to extract natural THC from the plant.

Further information:
The CRC legal action on rescheduling
ASA backgrounder on rescheduling
CRC rescheduling petition
2006 HHS recommendation
2011 DEA Position on Marijuana