After a 12-hour hearing in which hundreds of medical marijuana advocates testified, the Colorado Board of Health Monday rejected a proposal limiting the number of medical marijuana patients a caregiver can serve to five.

The proposal, which attorneys testified violated the 2000 constitutional amendment passed by voter initiative protecting valid medical marijuana patients from arrest, was designed to hinder legally operating medical marijuana dispensing centers.

Opponents of medical marijuana tried a similar tactic before, and it was ruled unconstitutional by a Colorado court in 2007. Is it too much to hope they might have learned their lesson this time?

The New York Times weighed in on the marijuana debate July 17 with an article that tilted distinctly in the direction of unwarranted hysteria.

Built around a series of anecdotes involving individuals who got into difficulty with marijuana -- which is entirely possible -- the story fell apart when it got to the science.

For example, it referred to a 2004 Journal of the American Medical Association study that "suggested that the stronger cannabis is contributing to higher addiction rates." But the Times failed to note that this study did not provide any actual evidence that higher-potency marijuana is leading to higher rates of abuse or dependence. While such a suggestion was offered by the authors, it was pure speculation, as the study was not designed to determine the effects of potency. And it was arrived at by ignoring relevant data.

According to the official diagnostic criteria, a person can be  diagnosed  as a "substance abuser" because of "recurrent substance-related legal problems" -- without any other symptoms. During the period of the JAMA study, marijuana arrests skyrocketed, from 300,000 in 1991 to well over 700,000 in 2001. Given the complete lack of scientific evidence that high-potency marijuana is more addictive, the massive increase in arrests represent a more plausible explanation for the increase in purported "marijuana abuse."

The story also failed to note that there is no scientific consensus that increases in potency represent any risk at all. For example, an examination of the issue published last year in the journal Addiction noted that claims about increased potency date back to at least 1975, but that "more research is needed to determine whether increased potency ... translates to harm for users."

And the Times, which gave little space to scientists not hysterical about marijuana, let all sorts of utter nonsense go unrefuted, including National Institute on Drug Abuse director Nora Volkow's bizarre claim that "it's going to take some real fatalities for people to pay attention" to marijuana. Given that the number of proven fatalities caused by marijuana's direct effects remains zero, basic journalism should have required the Times to get a contrasting view from one of the many scientists with at least some grip on reality.

Tonight, MPP’s allies in the U.S. House of Representatives took a big step toward protecting medical marijuana patients in the District of Columbia.

For ten years, the D.C. spending bill has included an amendment that prevents the city from implementing a voter-approved medical marijuana initiative. Tonight, the House passed the 2010 version of the bill, wiping out the provision blocking medical marijuana.

This is a major step and likely signals ultimate victory for advocates in D.C. The spending bill will need to move through the remainder of the legislative process and be signed into law by President Obama before any changes will take effect.

MPP spokesperson Bruce Mirken is questioned by the hosts of CNBC Power Lunch about the compelling rationale behind regulating and taxing marijuana like alcohol in California. Experts agree that such a plan could generate over a billion dollars in revenue for the state, as well as bolster the economy and relieve the fear of arrest from the otherwise law-abiding population of marijuana consumers. 07/16/2009

Today, the California Board of Equalization (BOE) released its analysis of state Assembly Bill 390 - legislation that would tax and regulate marijuana.

According to the report, the BOE would collect $1.38 billion annually in new revenue from the sales of legal marijuana, if the legislation is approved. The analysis is based on research that indicates that Californians annually consume about 1 million pounds of marijuana.

$990 million would be generated from a $50/ounce excise tax and would be earmarked for state drug education and treatment programs. An additional $392 million collected in sales tax would go into the state general fund. This report does not address the potential hundreds of millions in criminal justice savings that would be realized if California stopped arresting nonviolent adults for marijuana.

These figures should be raising some eyebrows under California's capitol dome today as the governor and state legislators are attempting to hammer out  a solution to the state's record $26 billion budget deficit.

MPP spokesperson Dan Bernath talks about the efforts to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol in California. 07/09/2009

MPP's Rob Kampia refutes prohibitionist Calvina Fay's arguments against the taxation and regulation of marijuana in California and her criticisms of the TV ad promoting that policy. 07/13/2009

MPP's Bruce Mirken and California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano discuss how taxation and regulation of California's marijuana industry could help alleviate the state's budget problems. Ammiano's bill, AB390, would treat marijuana like alcohol. 07/12/2009

A quick item from our Aggressive Stupidity files. Whom would you trust more on medical issues?

The California Narcotics Officers Association, from its official training materials: "Marijuana is not a medicine. ... There is no justification for using marijuana as a medicine." [emphasis in original]

Or...

The American College of Physicians, from its position statement on medical marijuana: "Preclinical and clinical research and anecdotal reports suggest numerous potential medical uses for marijuana. ... Given marijuana's proven efficacy at treating certain symptoms and its relatively low toxicity, reclassification [out of Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act] would reduce barriers to research and increase availability of cannabinoid drugs to patients who have failed to respond to other treatments."