A number of published studies have found that using marijuana (and other psychoactive substances) is associated with an earlier onset of psychotic illness (notice I said “is associated with” rather than “causes”). National mental health surveys have repeatedly found more substance use, especially cannabis use, among people with a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder.
A new study published today on-line in the Archives of General Psychiatry found “a relationship between cannabis use and earlier onset of psychotic illness… supporting the hypothesis that cannabis use plays a causal role in the development of psychosis in some patients.” The authors go on to say that reducing marijuana use could delay or even prevent some cases of psychosis.
The earlier the onset of schizophrenia, the more challenging it is to manage. So reducing the use of marijuana could be one of the few strategies that could help delay the onset of symptoms. The article suggests that “… an extra 2 or 3 years of psychosis-free functioning could allow many patients to achieve the important developmental milestones of late adolescence and early adulthood that could lower the long-term disability arising from psychotic disorders.” The results of this study confirm the need for a renewed public health warning about the potential for cannabis use to bring on psychotic illness.
Anyway- there have been some public comments on our medical marijuana rules that have questioned the wisdom of requiring dispensaries to have access to a Medical Director. Hopefully this study and others that link marijuana use to bad outcomes will convince some folks that it makes sense to have some professional medical oversight at dispensaries to help protect the health status of the patients with debilitating medical conditions that will be using the dispensaries.
Before the hysterics start, keep in mind:
“It is distinctly possible, in fact likely, that folks who experience initial symptoms turn to cannabis in an effort to control them, then end up having a psychotic break of some sort earlier simply because they had their first symptoms earlier,” said Mitch Earleywine, an associate professor of psychology at the State University of New York at Albany, who is also a marijuana policy expert. “This predicament makes it look as if cannabis preceded the psychotic symptoms when, in fact…folks with worse symptoms who are more likely to have an early break might simply be more likely to turn to cannabis.”
Good point! This sounds like it deserves a closer look!
Will Humble, please stop finding new ways to make it so much more difficult to just simplly “purchase” this new classification for “Medical Marijuana” which is meant as “compassionate” measure. I do not understand just whom it is you seem to want to “protect” from ill, injured and dying human beings. All of this is now legal to HELP patients.
WHY are you being so difficult? Please answer me back please. Bob L Liles
I hope that your desire to serve our community is greater than your desire to point out minimal negative impacts this MAY have with no mention of the POSITIVE impacts this WILL have.
This blog entry does not mention the legions that benefit from this change in law, nor give the point that those using marijuana on way to a psychosis have done so in an illegal way, and will likely continue to do so.
“… an extra 2 or 3 years of psychosis-free functioning could allow many patients to achieve the important developmental milestones of late adolescence and early adulthood that could lower the long-term disability arising from psychotic disorders.”
Clearly the “answer” is to make the legal age 21, as this works well for alcohol availability to this same demographic.
Medical Marijuana is to give sick people a choice in treatment. People who use drugs will continue to use drugs. Period.
Frankly sir, I believe your personal views on this matter are bleeding through into your blog. Arizonans voted, it is your DUTY to serve the interest of the winning vote.
Please take some time and blog space to point out the wonderful benefits to Arizonans quality of life as well as the tremendous boost to our economy these changes will allow.
We will continue to develop a responsible rule package that implements the law approval for the voters.
Interesting, but not definitive. It is merely a hypothesis, not scientific fact, nor has the scientific community come to an overwhelming consensus on this issue. It has been a topic of study in the medical and psychological arena for decades, and surely will be under scrutiny for decades to come.
To points of conjecture that I would present regarding the way in which this article was written would be:
1) What professional medical background does the author possess that dictates sound use of their opinion regarding the article’s findings as grounds for further dictating development of this policy? Basically, what is the Director’s initiative and aim with this? Why only present one side of the professional medical community discussion? It would seem to be in order to support the findings of this one study as definitive backing for a biased side of the agenda (anti Medical Marijuana) with regards to how we ought to develop Medical Marijuana policy in Az…
2) What of the numerous clinical studies resulting in findings contrary to this study? Are they too not to be presented to the public in this matter and those subscribing to the blog as well? It seems only fair to present ALL clinical findings, not merely those studies which suits the supposedly unbiased agenda of the AZDHS in this matter.
*AZDHS officials are elected to fairly develop policy and enforce the will of the voters on this matter – not to subversively interject propaganda to the contrary of the vote and initiative under the guise of “looking out for the best interests of the people.”
I’m all for freedom of information, for being informed, and for professionals in the medical community presenting their opinions on the matter. I want to hear ALL of those opinions, however, and decide for myself.
I am simply pointing to peer reviewed literature sources to highlight the latest research.
I understand the seriousness of medical cannabis use in regards to psychotic disorders, but if a patient already has orders from a physician to use the medicine, what is the good of having a medical director that won’t even be at the dispensary?
The idea is to help the dispensary agents have a resource to help them better serve patients at the dispensaries.
with the millions that DHS stands to collect with app fees etc. why don’t you hire a medical director that can handle all of the dispensaries- thus the dispensaries will not incur additional costs that will have to be passed along to the patients?
I would like to thank Will Humble for being open to input given about these studies. “A mind is like a parachute, it only functions when open.”
Mr. Humble is it too much to ask that you also post a few articles to the contrary of this one?
There have been numerous studies on Cannabis and we would like to provide them here for your readers as well.
As bloggers for the Arizona Medical Marijuana movement we speak only for the patients who give voice through our websites and blogs.
Thank you for allowing a forum for voices to be heard. We hope you allow this post to stay.
10) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY:
A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.
9) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON’T RUIN YOUR LIFE:
Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept.
8) THE “GATEWAY EFFECT” MAY BE A MIRAGE:
Marijuana is often called a “gateway drug” by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical “associations” indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana – implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained “without requiring a gateway effect.” More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what’s most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.
7) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART I):
The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, “the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement.” And what data exist show “little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use.” In other words, there is no proof that prohibition – the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century – reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.
6) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART II):
DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE “GATEWAY EFFECT”?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its “tolerant” marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.
5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I):
Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice’s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.
4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II):
In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, “in a dose-dependent manner” (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, “Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,” AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.
3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III):
Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.
2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV):
Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.
1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE:
In response to passage of California’s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana’s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, “Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana.” While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, “we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting.” The government’s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government “loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened.” Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006
Thank you for posting these data resources.
This is what troubles me about you having blogged about this today:
“I am simply pointing to peer reviewed literature sources to highlight the latest research.”
Why not make a special effort to point to peer reviewed literature sources that highlight the latest research findings that suggest a myriad of therapeutic uses of medical marijuana, not to mention the immense amount of research that debunks Reagan-era myths about it being a “gateway drug” that kills brain cells and causes lung cancer?
I have been of the opinion that your heart is in the right place, but you making a point of blogging about this study to the exclusion of dozens of other studies that suggest marijuana use has very few risks and/or is helpful for certain medical conditions seems a bit out of line.
As I reported above, the IOM report has good data-however it’s not available online or I could link to the report.
Seems the National mental health studies, run countradictory to the ones scientifically studied in Europe and in Scandanavia. Who paid for these studies here in the U.S.? Was any government money involved? If the all voluntary military is ok with 18 year old male and female going into combat, I think were safe at 18 with medical marijuana.
I don’t know the funding sources for these authors, perhaps the journal knows.
Is alcohol included in the statement ‘(and other psychoactive substances)’? if so will we be requiring a medical director at all establishments that currently have liquor licenses?
Why in the world would you compare “medical” marijuana to alcohol? I thought this was supposed to be about medicine.
The comparison of marijuana’s side effects to those of prescription medicine would be even more telling than the comparison to alcohol. Have you ever read the fine print on your pharmacy receipt, or at the bottom of the TV screen?
Do these studies also point out that cannabis has NON-PSYCHOACTIVE cannabinoids, most notably cannabidiol (CBD), that can be extracted to treat patients?
Mr. Humble have you also looked into the following positive sides of cannabis?:
1) Alzheimers Disease – The Scripps Research Institute in California in 2006 reported that THC inhibits the enzyme responsible for the aggregation of amyloid plaque (the primary marker for Alzheimer’s disease) in a manner “considerably superior” to approved Alzheimer’s drugs such as donepezil and tacrine.
2) ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease) – Investigators at the California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco reported that the administration of THC both before and after the onset of ALS symptoms staved disease progression and prolonged survival in animals compared to untreated controls.
3) Cancer/Gliomas – In 2003 Italian investigators at the University of Milan, Department of Pharmacology, Chemotherapy and Toxicology, reported that the non-psychoactive cannabinoid, cannabidiol (CBD), inhibited the growth of various human glioma cell lines in vivo and in vitro in a dose dependent manner. Researchers at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute also noted that THC selectively targeted malignant cells while ignoring healthy ones in a more profound manner than the synthetic alternative.
4) Multiple Sclerosis (MS) – The Netherland’s Vrije University Medical Center, Department of Neurology, reported in 2003 that the administration of oral THC can boost immune function in patients with MS. Clinical data reported in 2006 from an extended open-label study of 167 MS patients found that the use of whole plant cannabinoid extracts relieved symptoms of pain, spasticity, and bladder incontinence for an extended period of treatment (mean duration was 434 days) without requiring subjects to increase their dose. Results from a separate 2 year open label extension trial in 2007 reported that on average, patients in the study required fewer daily doses of the drug and reported lower median pain scores the longer they took it.
These are just some of the many, many positive studies conducted using marijuana. There are far more positives than negatives when it comes to medical marijuana, it just depends which studies you choose to look at.
I’d also like to point out that drugs that are widely available over the counter and reside in just about every household, like alcohol and aspirin, have FDA LD-50 ratings of 20 and below. Which basically means they can kill you if you take too much of them. In over 5,000 years of human marijuana use in this world, nobody has ever died as a direct result of taking too much marijuana.
Mr. Humble I don’t write all this to get into an argument or “bash” on your blog. I appreciate your efforts in setting up the medical marijuana system in Arizona, I know it can’t be an easy task. All I ask is that you look into, and educate the people of Arizona about the positive sides of medical marijuana just as much as you do with the negative sides.
These are good points-many of which are included in the IOM report on the subject. I only wish the IOM report were free to the public. Here is a link report; Marijuana as Medicine?: The Science Beyond the Controversy.
Thank you for all of your hard work over this last 6 months regarding this issue. I respect your efforts and applauded you general attitude towards making this process as above board as possible and fair. In regard to your recent post regarding the connection of psychosis and cannabis I find it interesting that you can feel like this possible connection confirms your recommendation of the medical director position in each dispensary. As I am sure you know many DEA prescription medications have a “connection” to psychosis, including common prescriptions such as Amphetamines, anabolic steroids, ACE inhibitors, antidepressants, antiepileptics, barbiturates, beta-blockers, estrogens, antihistamines, MAO inhibitors, NSAIDs, opioids, statins, and SSRIs to name a few. All which are prescribed by a physician and pick up at a pharmacy where a doctor is not present. To me this “medical director” position in theory seem logical but in reality it only increases the cost to the patient.
The only other concern I have regarding your last draft rules is in regards to the lottery. My concern is that many people can come up with the $5000 to put their name in the hat. But not many people can come up with the additional $400,000 – $600,000 they will need to actually implement the dispensary correctly after they get the permit. It seems like there should be some type of a financial stability established before you can even apply for a permit. If we have multiple underfunded dispensaries began and fail because of money problem it seem like a disservice to the patient and the state’s reputation.
This is also something we are concerned about. If you have an idea of how to screen applicants, let us know..please visit our prop 203 comments section on our website. We want to make sure that we have solvent dispensaries without opening ourselves to endless litigation once licenses are awarded.
1. This was a meta study which means that the researchers just looked over the results of a bunch of other studies that had been done previously, pulled out the numbers and stated their conclusions based on those numbers. They didn’t actually do a new study themselves, so this is not new information.
2. That casual “other addictive substances” line is indeed a red flag on the whole meta study and indicates a probable bias on the part of the researchers. If they have a preferred result, it destroys all credibility in their ‘findings’.
3. There are some seriously flawed politically/racially motivated studies that were done (poorly) in Australia and New Zealand a few years ago that keep getting included in these ‘meta studies’ – especially in Great Britan where the conservatives are trying very hard to get cannabis reclassified.
4. Most of the folks who were included in those original studies consumed cannabis by smoking it. The toxins contained in the smoke from burning vegetable material have been proven to be seriously harmful poisons. This includes the smoke from cannabis. Carbon monoxide, anthracine, benzene, styrene and many other Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s) are serious poisons that do lasting harm to anyone who ingests them for an extended period of time. For example, a heavy smoker (of anything, including cannabis) will suffer from a chronic lack of oxygen in their blood due to the carbon monoxide (CO). That interferes with stuff like your brain functioning correctly.
5. Those previous studies did not exclude folks who also smoked tobacco or who didn’t exercise regularly or who had a family history of mental illness. Many of them were based on “self-reported facts” which are notoriously inaccurate.
6. Many persons who suffer from the onset of mental illness quickly resort to what is termed “self medication” to deal with it. I have a client who suffers from bipolar disorder, diagnosed maybe 8 – 10 years ago after a breakdown. Previous to that he was a serious pothead. Now he takes Lithium and some other scripts instead, but readily admits that he was attempting to control his condition with pot before that.
I hope some of this is enlightening for you, Mr. Humble. I appreciate all of your efforts to get this program off on the right foot, by the way.
I am reading all of your comments. In the end all I want is a responsible program that stays true to the moniker “medical marijuana.” This is hard work and there are very strong opinions in every direction. We will do our best to build a program that the state can be proud of. The only way we can do that is learn from others states, avoid making the same mistakes and use solid input from the public.
I occasionally have to fight back my own cynicism, but as a whole I do believe you and your staff are striving for that and earnestly trying to do an excellent job, in spite of having very few resources at your disposal. Again… it is appreciated by many of us.
The IOM publication you are leaning on is a solid one. Here is an interview with IOM neuroscientist Janet Joy about their study.
Wow, biased half truths and rhetoric from the front lines of the war on cannabis. We know what circles you’re slumming in! Nobody ever said Cannabis was perfect or flawless, when was the last time ANYTHING medicinal could claim that? Oh wait, never! Aspirin in fact kills people every year while Cannabis has never killed anyone in all recorded history! So all that this really proves is people choose to self medicate with a plant instead of overpriced monopolized pharmaceuticals that make them more suicidal and in many cases worse!
Cannabis is a natural ally with all around powerful attributes and as with everything else in this world has pros and cons associated with bringing it into our lives. There is an inherent responsibility with the use of anything that can seem like a crutch. Alcohol and drugs (especially pharmaceuticals as they are specifically designed to fit this bill) are crutches to many people. Education, awareness, and honest scientifically validated facts presented would instantly outperform prohibition, criminalization, villainization and flat out untruthful indignation. Within a few years legalization for responsible adult use with regulations and taxes would in fact find less recreational users and a much safer and more homogeneous society.
Greetings. I appreciate your effort to create a program that is thorough and has covered all possible issues preemptively. Unfortunately your best intentions could collapse the system before it begins. I am a consultant for medical cannabis businesses across America and have seen all of these systems work and fail first hand over the past decade in the industry. Looking for justification to over-regulate should be of concern. If you do not believe me, check with New Jersey.
This “study” is a fringe study that does not seem to take into effects the positive effects that medical cannabis has on people’s mental health every day. I, for one, suffer from severe ADHS. I was hospitalized at the age of 12 and pumped full of dangerous Ritalin. I have been able to medicate safely with marijuana for years and could not tell you how much greater my life is as a result. My wife, 2 kids and friends all will tell you firsthand what a blessing it has been. I enjoy being able to focus on my work and being able to better control my emotional states as a result. The benefits are immeasurable.That is a real life tale of how marijuana DOES help- not an outliers study that claims marijuana MIGHT cause an issue with people who already have existing conditions. So might TV, video games, or even Twinkies, but we do not base our rules in this society on what could happen to a select few who have pre-existing mental disorders.
To assert that a dispensary waste valuable resources to hire a Doctor on staff for a safe and effective herbal medicine like cannabis is way overboard. For one, doctors have better things to do. I do not think that any Doctor is willing to risk Federal interference to take on a staff position for a business that distributes marijuana. It is a labor of love for people to invest themselves in this industry considering that there is still the threat of prosecution at the Federal level. Also, your requirements on the doctor patient relationship (which may be unconstitutional) already guarantee that a doctor regularly oversee patients who may be suffering from these conditions and advise them. How does stationing a doctor at a dispensary make patients safer? What it makes is their medicine more expensive.
Have you considered that physicians that specialize in cannabis therapies may be better trained to see the signs of people with thee disorders, therefore your attempt to limit having doctors that just see patients for medical cannabis related issues may be counterproductive to much needed medical specialization in this area? Food for thought. What are you trying to avoid? Where is the problem?
The bottom line is that there is no real evidence of harm being done in any other state where medical marijuana is dispensed as a result of not having a doctor on staff or from having doctors that specialize in helping patients access marijuana. Show me the bodies. The need to overly burden patients and providers with unnecessary red tape is not what the people of AZ voted for. The voted for safe access.
Why not address this IF there is a problem instead of anticipating there WILL be a problem and trying to avoid it? Marijuana is safe. The rest of your program ensures safety and responsibility. Scrap the medical director requirement and tone down the requirements on Doctors to implement this program.
It is unbelievable that you would consider a lottery to choose providers instead of taking the time, energy and work it takes to choose good people for these important positions, but you are somehow concerned that they need a doctor on staff in case there is a patient with possible mental health issues? Really? Your attempt to regulate the patient and doctor experience and your inability to put a meaningful decision making process in place to choose dispensary operators is short sighted IMO.
If you want to ensure quality and safe, responsible care increase application fees, hire a staff to oversee the selection process and ensure Arizona has the best operators with the best plans in place. This will ensure ethical and moral operation. Overburdening doctors and making them a liable part of the medical cannabis distribution system while Federal laws still prohibits it is nuts. If you ensure good providers you ensure a program that operates smoothly and safely.
I appreciate your interaction on this matter and look forward to following your blog more closely. Be well.
There are many thousands of peer reviewed studies clearly showing the positive medical attributes of cannabis, interesting that you choose to dig up this cart before the horse example. Which is an obvious attempt at coerced disinformation! There was a study that the Federal Government used to justify placing Marijuana on schedule one and they even used it for years to “prove” that cannabis causes brain damage. You know the one where they asphyxiated chimpanzees and blamed the effects on the cannabis!
The truth will set cannabis free, but first it will make all of us rational and intelligent people very, very angry!
$400k+, what has jeff been smoking? Last year my Aunt and Uncle opened a nice little restaurant here for only $85k, they serve dozens if not more than a hundred different types of items that need to be served at different temperatures. They have to deal with dishes, placing customers for dining, etc. We are talking about businesses that simply provides variations of just 1 product. People take it and leave, no refrigeration, no cooking! With the extra security concerns and production requirements, I still can’t fathom how it would take anyone more than $100k to open a wonderful dispensary that meets the needs of the public. With 125 of these spread across the state I don’t think we need any super weedmarts that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars!They would then have to pass that over indulgent and wasteful spending on to the patients!
I believe an IQ test ought to be part of the license requirements!
Who will be notifying children (and their parents) of these potential risks with respect to psychosis? While we’re at it, the dispensaries will be leasing property to grow marijuana, I assume. Who will be notifying landlords that, because marijuana still will be illegal under federal law, their property could be seized by the DEA and DOJ?
These sound like legal questions that I can’t answer.
Don’t you have a responsibility to raise those issues with the Attorney General?
Dear Mr. Humble,
I’ve written plenty of spins for corporate America. I went to the website you quote, and it reads like a spin. Perhaps you could be open to some alternative sources of information for determining the necessary structures of your medical laws.
Mr. Humble, you are 100% right! The science is finally in on the link between cannabis use and early onset psychosis. New Australian research has provided the first conclusive evidence that smoking cannabis hastens the onset of psychosis. http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3132596.htm
The link you share is to a transcript of news report on an Australian ABC news station. This is not a link to a quantifiable, scientific study. Just because something is announced on the news (somewhere in the world), means nothing in determining the quality or accuracy of the information. A direct link to the actual study would be more helpful because we could scrutinize how the study was conducted, number of participants, etc., in order to ascertain why this study differs in their findings from the vast number of studies done elsewhere.
A huge issue that we have not only seen ourselves but are being told about frequently is the squatting that is currently going on in cities.
For example in Gilbert I know a gentleman that has secured 3 different lease spaces a mile apart to ensure that the city will not issue any further licenses after he gets in and secures his. This gentleman has no financial backing to open a Dispensary but hopes the fact that he will be the only one allowed to pull a permit will allow him to find investors quite easily.
To us, this is quite shady but it seems to be happening regularly.
The idea of “pre-registering” with cities seems to be a bit of putting the cart before the horse. If a person who is qualified and has the finance and experience to open and run a Dispensary, cannot find space because it has been acquired by individuals who were quicker on the trigger to secure space, they are going to not be able to submit an application due to the fact there is no physical address for the Dispensary.
Can you address this?
Some ideas here that could possibly help, we will also post them on the 203 site and our blog as well.
Perhaps it would make much more sense to do the following on the application process to ensure fair treatment.
1. Do not require a physical address for the Dispensary but require one be submitted within 60 days of application approval or risk the license being revoked.
2. Require patients to bring verification of a primary care physician rather than requiring each Dispensary to maintain a “medical director”. You’re setting Dispensaries up for failure and litigation requiring them to malign themselves with licensed physicians.
3. Encourage cities to zone Dispensaries into areas where they can be opened rather than giant open fields that are unusable. (removed by admin)
4. Do away with the CHAA format as it will backfire in the end. Especially considering the fact that all of the reservations must abide by Federal Law and many of the small cities in the CHAA map will never actually open a Dispensary because it would not be financially feasable and/or the city has zoned it out completely. (removed by admin)
5. Decrease the cost to patients for a Card.
Albeit many people are involved in this industry because they have green dollar signs dancing in their eyes some of us are in it for a bit more humanitarian reason, the patients.
Having volunteered in the Hospice field for years and having had a brother die from a horrible bout with Cancer I have first hand seen the effects and pain easing that Cannabis has provided.
These patients in their final days are often alone, homeless many or being supported by family. Regardless, we believe the cost of a license for patients should be in the $50-60 range
6. $5000 application fee for Dispensaries seems fair. It being mostly non-refundable poses a question to many people considering that there will be close to possibly 1000 applications. WHY?
Luke, our team and myself thank you for your time and consideration on this Will. I assure you since the campaign began, we have encouraged the US vs THEM mentality to subside and still do. I hope we can all work together to bring a harmless medicine, that grows naturally, to the people of Arizona, in a responsible and professional way. While at the same time making it feasable for it to be distributed by the right people, with the right motives, TO the right people.
I am an administrator for the Director’s Blog..just a short note to let everyone know that we are receiving a number of comments that seem to be personal attacks. We will not post these, that is not what this blog is for/about.
Have a wonderful day!
Our post says we have already posted it but it’s not coming through. Ideas as to why?
There are no personal attacks.
I am not sure, I will have to check with admin.
Will….now don’t try scaring us all. You seem to forget all of the benefits, like it is way better than most prescription drugs.
I dont think anyone is trying to scare anyone.
Have the so called benefits been proved scientifically like prescription drugs have?
I have seen for myself the adverse effects of drugs like canabis even when used socially.
Will, I’m sorry about all the comments that you must endure on a daily basis. Please continue the good work that the department has done “so far” regarding developing a solid rules base to be followed in order to help those patients with real medicine for real issues.
Other than the vagueness of the dispensary rules and some silly ideas like
Why have a medical director on call for a dispensary that can only dispense medicine to patients who already have gone through the medical qualification process and supposedly already had their “doctor” tell them the risks associated with the use of cannabis?
I’m sure the ideas will be better defined in the next release of the draft rules, you guys are developing a strict version of the draft that will , hopefully, keep the medicine available to real qualified patients and available for a long time.
You cannot jump to the conclusion regarding these types of clinical studies. The underlying disease of Schizophrenia has more manifestable pathways available through the brain per the ‘Paul Allen Mind Map’ than the number of subjects studied in the underlying trial that led to such bogus hypothetical leaps and claims of cannabis causation. RE: “All consenting patients (aged 15 to 65 years) with a first psychotic episode needing inpatient psychiatric treatment during a 2-year period between February 1997 and January 1999 were considered, confirming a total of 131 patients.” Know your sources, people! Robert Hempaz, PhD. Trichometry
Mr. Will Humble every single study performed has had an object goal from its beginning. The point of the whole matter is not enlightenment, rather a point of view supported by perfunctory information. This is obvious to say the least. This has had some degree of understanding about how you stand on medical marijuana. I understand your concerns.
You my friend will never be able to stop the leak in the dam with your finger in the hole. Its bigger than the both of us. However, heres a consideration you haven’t weighed in to your formula. What if ..Someone found a cure using marijuana as an integral supplement ? But the very worst thing to consider..
What if you were the one blocking a medical break through because of your political or worse yet moral structure ?