Subscribe to our mailing list
Time to rark up the government, tired of waiting, been long enough now…
CC: [email protected], [email protected]
BCC: Nick Wright, Jeremy Bioletti, Pure Analytics.net, John Wilson, Jan, Bomber, Mitch Busdriver Native, Seala, Geeksunited, Andy Tonegreen, Rust In Space, Ben Brixton, Ben The@Symbol, SWF, BlKMN, Emmeline, Jerome ‘Trumpet’, Kara on gat, Kat Styling, Kiri Anahera, ‘Monza’, Nick Supergroove, Paaka, Penny, Richard Republic, Seala, AtkinsonAAA, Kp26, Alicia Burrow, Fiona Connor
To The Supreme Court of New Zealand I primarily direct this email in the To: field.
To those in the CC: field should take note of my application and duly consider it, especially the Hamilton and Auckland district courts, the EACD, and the minister of Health.
A substantial portion of the recipients are hidden in the BCC: field of this email to maintain their privacy.
Notice is given. An email shall be sent after this revealing the hidden name CRI and date of birth numbers.
I, Txxxxxs Bxxxxx Axxxxxxx, of Pxxxxxxx, Auckland, 39 years of age (xx/xx/1977) hereby wish to make this formal application for an emergency interlocutory with a crown representative and a member of the EACD before 1 September 2016, the date of another person’s trial, also in relation to, but not limited to the following past and future court actions:
The matter of procedure relates to ambiguity in the text of the law, the inheritance of laws from England, the interpretation of the meaning / purpose of a jury, inaccuracies in the text of laws, some constitutional issues, the rights of the indigenous etc:
 In the context of the Misuse of drugs act, what exactly is a drug?
It would seem obvious however I thought it a good place to set the context for the interrogatory please. The answer we’d assume is that a “drug” is considered for the purposes of the misuse of drugs act 1975 to be:
If this basic definition is true, then the plant genus cannabis needs to be struck out of the act in this case or by amendment, and we suggest the same or intended effect could be discovered by studying the following compounds:
THC – Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol, THCA – Tetrahydrocannabinolic Acid, THCV – Tetrahydrocannabivarin, CBD – Cannabidiol, CBN – Cannabinol, CBG – Cannabigerol, CBC – Cannabichromene, Terpenes – diverse group of organic HydroCarbons (C5H8).
 Do the citizens of New Zealand have the right to freedom of thought or not?
 Does the state recognise or deny our right to the freedom to develop our own unique human personality, our cultural behaviors, lifestyles, religions, traits and customs, so long as it does not harm ourselves physically or mentally, nor anyone else or nor anyone or other nation states property in any measureable way that’s reasonable?
Recently the Mexican supreme court ruled in favour of the right to develop a personality and stuck down the ban on the cannabis plant for contravening this, so I felt this was relevant to my interlocutory application at the Supreme Court.
 What justification exists or why should New Zealand citizens have a right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers and is this right enshrined in any legislation currently?
 Does the court agree that one good purpose of a jury is to protect citizens from overzealous governments and courts by forming a safety valve or sorts for aberrant or obsolete laws?
Our nation and many others are based on the universal and historic text of the Magna Carta of 1215 AD which establishes this.
 Should the criminal defence be allowed to instruct juries of their conceptual civic responsibility to deliver justice to their fellow citizens perhaps over and above the duty to law and to the crown?
The relevance is that we wish to mount a defence that depends on our ability to educate on history or law and instruct the jury in this case to strike out the relevant laws, Misuse of drugs act in this case, but regardless any obstruction to our natural defence this would seem to counter to the entire reason for having jury trials at all?
 Is New Zealand subject to relevant UK court precedents sovereign and UK where acquittal was provided to the accused despite considerable evidence of their “thought crimes”?
The cases are:
 Does the jury have the responsibility to deliver moral justice to the accused by acquittal from law but not guilt?
 Does the jury have the option to find any defendant not guilty even if doing so may require accepting the evidence of the crime as factually committed by the accused and yet also simultaneously determine the law itself to be invalid, irrelevant, obsolete, or not in the public interest in this particular case?
For example, the accused made a confession to guilt, ed his crime of thinking about it, could
if it is in direct contravention of the fact the accused was in wording of the thought crime law? (Which is the job of the police is it not?)
 Is it sensible or responsible for crown prosecution to proceed with CRI-2015-019-005519 if the defendant is indicating support from myself to mount a defence of a claim of right under the Crimes Act 1961 or should parliament intervene to clarify its position on the matter?
Considering the mountain of evidence against my friend (CRI-2015), and guilty admission in statements to police, an entire jury trial seems an expesive waste of tax payers money.
The fact that an accused person acted without “claim of right” is an element of certain offences with must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It enables a defendant to advance at their trial that they genuinely believe that what they were doing was lawful, regardless of the reasonableness of that belief.
In summing up the case to jurors, Judge Stephen Harrop said if the Waihopai Three* believed they were acting lawfully, even if they were mistaken in that belief, they must be acquitted. The right of defence was that they acted urgently to save another life.
 Should parliament be instructed by the supreme court to act positively and decisively on the advice of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in it’s 4th and 5th periodic reports?
These are about right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence relating to possession with intent to supply. The UNHRC says that the burden of proof must fall with the prosecution, not with to the defence to prove innocence, so can we please have a direction from the supreme court on the matter?
 Do we have no other option but to forever incarcerate recidivist cannabis growers, dealers and users who refuse to cease growing, selling, and using the plant?
Most recidivist criminals receive extremely long preventative detention sentences for good reason.
Along with the United Kingdom and Israel, New Zealand is alone in not having a written, codified constitution, but at any rate laws are actually an extremely weak guarantee of outcome. We outlaw murder, theft, they still happen. This is not to say those behaviors are not bad; and it is not to say we don’t want to have any rules or laws; but that there are better guarantees of outcomes should we choose to look at the evidence.
The evidence shows that ethics, morality, and a humanity are a better guarantee of desirable outcomes for a country than strict laws to enshrine a victimless crime law initially designed to target political opponents of Richard Nixon.
 Should the jury and judiciary consider complex variables such as compassion, ethics, morality, and humanity or rather be instructed to instead behave more reliably like a computer, emotionless, robotic, but yet 100% fair and even entities?
Possibly a combination of the two is my guess so I seek clarification.
I would like the double positive scenario (both fair and humane) affirmed by a supreme court judge, to ensure the possibility of a fair trial for my friend and myself in future. The negative-positive combination (not human but only fair) appears to be the de facto method in NZ, hence the interlocution here.
 Should the judiciary and juries be instructed to overturn laws based on humanity?
It is not outside the boundaries of imagination to say that sometimes a humane approach is the right approach; thus the law in error.
And we should be allowed to consider when they are appropriate.
And when humanity can in fact provide greater enforcement for individual human rights than the actual laws – the laws and policies themselves are left forlorn and obsolete.
Law is no substitute for consciousness.
The legality of a thing is no guarantee of the morality of it.
Yours sincerely, Tom.
PS Thank you and thanks in advance for your eagerly awaited reply! Some further information about the drugs found in the plant cannabis sativa are in my appendix. As you can see I have actually purposefully held back on the questions for my interlocution, as their is a lot more material I have not covered in Appendix B.
THC, CBD, CBN, CBC, CBG, CBC and about 80 other chemicals are all in a class of compounds known as cannabinoids, found in abundance in the cannabis plant. Cannabinoids are responsible for many of the effects of cannabis consumption and have important therapeutic benefits.
Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol or (THC) is a psychoactive cannabinoid responsible for many of the effects experienced by the cannabis user.
Mild to moderate pain relief, relaxation, insomnia and appetite stimulation.
THC has been demonstrated to have anti-depressant effects.
The majority of strains range from 12-21% THC with very potent and carefully prepared strains reaching even higher.
Average THC potency is about 16-17% in Northern CA.
Recent research that suggests patients with a pre-disposition to schizophrenia and anxiety disorders should avoid high-THC cannabis.
Cannabidiol or (CBD) occurs in many strains, at low levels, <1%. In rare cases, CBD can be the dominant cannabinoid, as high as 15% by weight. Popular CBD-rich strains (>4% CBD) include Sour Tsunami, Harlequin and Cannatonic.
It can provide relief for chronic pain due to muscle spasticity, convulsions and
inflammation. Offering relief for patients with MS, Fibromyalgia and Epilepsy.
Some researchers feel it provides effective relief from anxiety-related disorders.
CBD has also been shown to inhibit cancer cell growth when injected into breast and brain tumors in combination with THC.
Cannabinol or (CBN) is an oxidative degradation product of THC. It may result from improper storage or curing and extensive processing, such as when making concentrates. It is usually formed when THC is exposed to UV light and oxygen over time.
CBN has some psychoactive properties, about 10% of the strength of THC.
CBN is thought by researchers to enhance the dizziness and disorientation users of cannabis may experience.
It may cause feelings of grogginess and has been shown to reduce heart rate.
Cannabichromene or (CBC) is a rare, non-psychoactive cannabinoid, usually found at low levels (<1%) when present.
Research conducted has shown CBC has antidepressant effects, 10x those of CBD.
CBC has also been shown to improve the pain-relieving effects of THC.
Studies have demonstrated that CBC has sedative effects, promoting relaxation.
Cannabigerol or (CBG) is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid. It is commonly found in cannabis. CBG-acid is the precursor to both THC-acid and CBD-acid in the plant usually found at low levels (<1%) when present.
Researchers have demonstrated both pain relieving and inflammation reducing effects.
CBG reduces intraocular pressure, associated with glaucoma.
CBG has been shown to have antibiotic properties and to inhibit platelet aggregation, which slows the rate of blood clotting.
CBC has been shown to increase the viability of progenitor (stem) cells in the brains of mammals, and is therefore likely to be a form of brain growth stimulant.
Pouring through the law books trying to find out why and how MODA 1975 got passed, and discovered we can blame Nixon. Ironically, like the TPPA, the US based changes pushed by Nixon were never actually implemented by the USA but were implemented by our 37th Parliament without any public consultation or approval.
Supposed to be in control of the schedules of the Misuse of drugs act, but appear to be failing in their duties:
I hereby request to them to remove the cannabis plant and natural extracts and concentrates from the schedules, perhaps with a 1 or 2 year delay on the execution so give time to draft other regulations.
As their website says, the drug classification process is based on risk of harm to individuals or society, therefore The EACD is required to advise the Minister of Health on a range of specific criteria for each drug.
More information on the criteria for classifying drugs, the role of the EACD and the Minister of Health, and the classification process is contained in sections 3A to 5AA of the Act. Go to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 on the New Zealand Legislation website to learn more.
So far this body has only appears to have commented on the following drugs / compounds:
So far the body has produced reports about the following drugs of abuse:
Why is it I don’t see cannabis or extracts anywhere in this list? Well perhaps I shall give them all a ring and double check they have recommended cannabis to be removed from the schedules: at least so we can do scientific studies on it and to remove the contradiction!
Vickie appears a bit flaky (4:50 in) I think she should grow some balls and stand up us oppressed tokers by saying how sweet the mary-jane is:
She is good but I’d correct her on the “gateway drug” thing. The Prohibition is the gateway, not cannabis. If you can’t buy crack at your local bar or pharmacist, then you won’t be able to either at your cannabis dispensary.
So here is my open letter to them…
Dear [EACD members name],
my name is Tom Atkinson aka Tomachi. I’m an international musician and computer artist.
I’m writing to you urgently on a matter of life and death.
Mine. But also others.
I was almost killed while spending 4 nights in Mount Eden Remand Prison over the New Years public holiday, all thanks to what I can only assume is your apparent status-quo stance on the violence-promoting prohibition of cannabis. The charges were later dropped.
I also want to apply for approval to study and begin building high powered better-than-graphene hemp batteries, and the effects of it on the mind using an OpenBCI brain scanner, but I can’t with the current appearance of cannabis in the schedules of the misuse of drugs, thanks to your lack of action in a way. I request that you remove it entirely from the schedules, thereby forcing further regulation, and showing your personal strength and the power of your science committee.
Our bill of rights was originally designed as supreme legislation back in the 1980’s. But due to the perceived threat of “judicial activism”, it was passed into law in 1990 just as a regular statute. The UN has criticised our lack of constitutional human rights twice, in the fourth and fifth periodic world report on human rights! The difference, as I understand it, meant that judges in the High Court could not decide on their own volition – called judicial activism – to override any strange obsolete law based on it’s incompatibility with the bill of human rights for example. You know such petty issues such as not to be subjected to undue search and seizure, to have some kind of privacy in your own home so long as you harm no one, not to be tortured for no good reason, and to be able to practise your religion unhindered. Oh and to be provided with justice. Those types of things**.
I was tortured for a crime that involves nobody else and a dried plant.
I was tortured purely based on my religion and thoughts: Cantheism.
I wasn’t even home when the police visited, smelt my neighbour smoking cannabis, then proceeded to kick down every door in the house of 6 people living in it doing massive damage that I am still to this day repairing, all to find 1 gram of cannabis in my bedroom? Another 2 nights in MERC on charges that were later dropped during an open court plea bargain, that only would have happened because I plead Not Guilty and asked for a full jury trial.
It’s actually becoming clear to me, that there is some pretty gross abuses of human rights perpetrated by the police around this subject. Two high end studies* I found showed systemic abuse of Maori around the issue of cannabis and it’s lax interpretation by the police. This forms part of a high court injunction I am preparing to serve against you and your committee presently to attempt to force an action.
The NIH just published a study*** showing 45% reduction in bladder cancer from the people who only consumed cannabis and not tobacco. If you can’t see this obvious promise staring you in the face, then you are failing in your duty.
Shortly I intend to apply for an injunction that forces your body – the EACD – to either a) promise to provide scientific recommendations not just on cannabis sativa, but on all medicinal natural extracts including water or b) remove cannabis sativa from the schedules due to it’s medicinal qualities and it’s natural whole-plant nature.
I also plan to, based on your response to this email and phone campaign, to potentially bring a private prosecution against you if I feel you are not cognisant of aforementioned points, for failure to perform your statutory duty. Sorry. It is your job to be cognisant, as you are the expert committee!
Perhaps you’ll need to put out three studies on the pure forms of:
If you think about it, The Health Act 1956 binds the crown to do good, or as they say in that funky legal speak “the Ministry shall have the function of improving, promoting, and protecting public health.”
Kawa Kawa (Macropiper excelsum) is an indigenous whole plant based herb. The Maori shamans were banned I assume from using it in the Tohunga Suppression Act 1908, an act that was designed to screw over a man who goes by the name Rua Kenana. They never used it against him, only one brother got hit by that oppression in the end, but it had a chilling effect, and was repealed in the 1950’s or thereabouts, through an amendment.
I mention Kawakawa because it’s a whole plant medicine.
You can’t ban Oranges just because they contain vitamin C, and you haven’t yet put out an advisory on vitamin C yet. You never will, the industry seems to hate vitamin C. It’s a natural medicine so it’s difficult for us to figure out. The Swiss seem to have a good medical system that can do it.
When our 37th parliament passed the Misuse of Drugs Act it was done with no public consultation and very little debate in the house. It’s bit like the TPPA is currently being done… with John Key instead of Nixon at the helm this time acting like a foolish puppy dog for America; The evil man called Nixon at the helms after the assassination of Kennedy.
In a secretly taped recording of Nixon he can be heard saying the following on May 26, 1971 at 10:03am:
“Now this is one thing I want. I want a goddam strong statement on marijuana – can I get that out of this sonnofabitching domestic council?
“I mean one on marijuana that just tears the ass out of them. I see another thing in the news about it.
“You know it’s a funny thing, every one of the bastards out there for legalising marjiuana are jewish. what the christ is the matter with the jews bob? what is the matter with them? I spose it’s because most of them are psychiatrists you know there’s so many because all the psychiatrists are jewish . By god we are gonna hit the marijuana thing. and i want to hit it right square in the puss. want to hit it [blah blah insane ramblings].”
Our cannabis law is based on hatred for Jews.
By the way I am one quarter Austrian Jew.
And you guys are fairly much directly responsible for that, after our pathetic politicians down in Wellington. I feel John is laughing at punishing us for the poor voter turn out. I voted always by the way.
I put it to you, that you have failed in your statutory duty and will try to find any way that I can bring a private prosecution against you and your organisation if it’s at all possible, and believe me I’ve been looking pretty hard lately.
Yours truly, a truly frustrated and tired of waiting person.
PS Also if you see Vicki remind her on this point about the “gateway drug” myth she botched in the interview above. The Prohibition is the gateway, not cannabis. I can somehow tell you know this but you didn’t show this in the interview. If you can’t buy crack cocaine at your local bar or pharmacist, then you certainly won’t be able to buy it at your cannabis dispensary either – it would be stupid of them to stock anything illegal if they had a house full the brim with heavily regulated weed!
PSS Prohibition causes violence and crime. Prohibition is not the ultimate form of regulation, it is actually the abdication of responsibility. Regulation will stop the gangs and prevent people from getting hooked on harder drugs like meth, and YOU should be ashamed of yourselves for not pushing much much harder for a taxed and regulated market for this wonderful herb simply to stop meth and gangs. You have caused un-knowable violence and pain for many people since 2000 AD. Do the right thing. NOW! Hurry! Or else you mite have an accident – karma is a pain.
* the two studies are shown below
** the types of rights I’m referring are shown below
*** NIH Study on cannabis use and bladder cancer 11 years 84,000 men longitudinal study shows 45% reduction with a 95% confidence interval! These results are off the chart obvious that you have missed something crucial in your science. Grab some ganja today because it’s obviously going to save your life, and hurry to quickly and strongly remove it from MODA1975.
The Criminal Procedure Act 2011 excludes scientific evidence:
Section 205 (Court may suppress evidence and submissions)
Section 223 (Right of appeal against determination of first appeal court in regards public interest)
The High Court or the Court of Appeal must not give leave for a second appeal under this subpart unless satisfied that (a) the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance. I believe that there is a great public interest in the reform of our cannabis laws and that only a jury nullification or member of parliament can do it or a member of the EACD can do it.
5 Abuses of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
I seek an urgent High Court interim injunction appeal due to the life threatening yet unusual and unintended severe negative effects of the prohibition law on my ability to work, think, live, love and die based on my in-ability to access adequate protections of my human rights:
Near the end of the US Liquor Prohibition juries ceased convicting based on law and decided instead to deliver justice. It is the juries responsibility to deliver justice not uphold the law, established in 1670 Tower of London case of William Penn who was charged with speaking in the street but was not permitted to show evidence in trial (to bias the jury against the bad anti-quaker law) and when the jury found him not guilty the entire jury were sent to prison and fined a years wages.
After 1670 juries would be unable to be punished for their thoughts – this has not happened in New Zealand yet, except perhaps with the Waihopai Three Nullification.
Evidence Supporting a Jury Nullification for any Cannabis Related Offence
Proceeds of Crime Data – Past 10 years – Shows prohibition to produce inconsistent rates of return
Based on the data from my official information act request of 15 June 2013
(45693_Atkinson official information proceeds crime.pdf)
When plotted by city and against time one can see that the proceeds of crime act is not a very consistent method of extracting tax revenue from the illegal drugs market in NZ.
The following table suggests that Forfeiture order amounts could potentially be unfairly implemented across the country, with no proceeds whatsoever over a 10 year period from Napier, New Plymouth, Hamilton, Invercargill; but with extremely high amounts from Whangarei equivalent to $67 per person!
Source: 45693_Atkinson official information proceeds crime.pdf
as signed off by Graeme Astle – bless him and give thanks and praise for Jahs work!
A jury would have been asked to consider the benefits of tax revenue to our economy
A jury would be asked to consider our high rates of incarceration and the downsides of this
The chart below is sourced from corrections own data and shows a ballooning Community Detention block, for XLS data see: http://www.legalise.org.nz/home-detention/
Illustration shows that Marijuana is associated with creativity
In 2012 only 8 people were convicted of consuming cannabis according to
Portugal has managed to cut it’s drug addiction rates in half through public health policies
Pot Friendly Countries
Cost of administering sentences by sentence type
No prosecution for cannabis should proceed because it is no longer in the public interest
The UN comments on NZ lack of rights in the Fourth Periodic Report under the convenant on civil and political rights.
This is fucked to put it bluntly I’m sorry.
An excerpt from 15 YEARS OF THE NZ BILL OF RIGHTS: TIME TO CELEBRATE, TIME TO REFLECT, TIME TO WORK HARDER? By Petra Butler:
Thomas Jefferson said “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.”
The results of a very long running US GALLUP poll on whether the use of marijuana should be made legal or not shows a steady increase from 12% right up to 58%
The world’s first ever marijuana conviction shown. 4 years prison for 2 joints. Prisoner number 18,699. Numbers would get to the point where America has more people in prison than Chinese prisons!
We can thank Nixon for this terribly brutal regime we are still subjected to.
Maybe I was stoned and missed it, but a momentus event occurred in April!
You are receiving this newsletter because Re-Legalise NZ decided to “carry” a transmission from Damien O’Connor. This was a decision SecretStoner made and is a one off – for more you would need to subscribe to Damien O’Connor’s news list personally on his website. We respect your privacy and will not share your details with any 3rd party.
Copyright © 2016 Re-Legalise NZ
In 1533, King Henry VIII decreed that all landholders set aside one-quarter acre for the cultivation of hemp for every sixty acres of land that they tilled, in order to provide the necessary fibre required by the nation. This was to satisfy the increased demand for rope and sailcloth for King Henry’s VIII new navy.
In 1563 Queen Elizabeth I reintroduced the law to expand her navy and she added a £5 fine for any eligible landlord who failed to comply. From then on the demand increased and the hemp industry became a very important industry to the British economy. They had to improve the supply of this strategic raw material when in the 1630s the British sped up their colonisation of the new world.
1. Deitch, Robert (2003) Hemp: American history revisited: the plant with a divided history. page 12. Algora Publishing. Accessed 2010-01-16.
Research and text © Hempshopper Amsterdam.
This Bill enables the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police to require community-based offenders and bailees, if they are subject to conditions prohibiting the use of drugs and alcohol, to undergo drug and alcohol testing to ensure compliance with these conditions.
(Formerly Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill)
(Formerly part of Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill)
|Member in charge:||Hon Amy Adams|
|Type of bill:||Government|
|Act:||Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2015 (15/106)|
It’s a nice idea but has some issues, mostly the maximum (or is it minimum? That I could understand!) THC content limit which is shocking and arbitrary and non-scientific, and the fact we’d still have a black market for un-licensed bud, and no way to purchase whole-product medical buds (except pre-ground and pre-rolled or by growing it yourself). On the positive side it would be fantastic to have absolutely any movement at all on the subject, and by the sounds of it would create a centralised place to buy and sell government approved cannabis products. In effect, a government registry would be fantastic since you would have literally thousands of products to choose from eventually – if I understand it properly.
This from Chris Fowlie at hempstore:
“Under Wilkin’s proposed model the government does not grow the cannabis, it licenses production just like with hemp to a variety of producers – some may be indoor, some may be outdoor, or organic, the idea is there would be a variety of cannabis producers making a variety of products. And by “cannabis products” he means cannabis with some form of processing – so it can be distinguished from black market cannabis – e.g. ready rolled joints with logos, balms, tinctures, pre-ground buds for vaping, basically anything except unprocessed bud. Most tobacco smokers do not insist on unprocessed tobacco leaves, they are happy to purchase “tobacco products”, so other than “fuck the government” purists who think anything except “no rules” will be a disaster, I think most cannabis users would be very well served by this model – and if they want more, or insist on smoking bud, they can grow their own, or register as medical users. There is no model that will make 100% of the people 100% happy, but this goes a long way to keeping most people mostly happy (including traditional opponents like police, etc), which is what we will need to bring about law reform.“
This from Wilkins’ page at Massey
“Approved cannabis products would have a limit to the amount of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol – the principal psychoactive ingredient in cannabis) allowed, and a required minimum level of CBD (cannabidiol – the non-psychoactive ingredient, known for its medicinal benefits).
They would only be produced and sold by the government, ensuring a high price to restrict demand and generating tax revenue to support treatment counselling, health services and enforcement. “The Government will be the only producer and the only seller, and that’s a means to keep the price high and also collect tax.”“
Excerpts from a fantastic thesis by Randy E. Barnett that shares the same title as this post.
Some drugs make people feel good. That is why some people use them. Some of these drugs are alleged to have side effects so destructive that many advise against their use. The same may be said about statutes that attempt to prohibit the manufacture, sale, and use of drugs. Advocating drug prohibition makes some people feel good because they think they are “doing something” about what they believe to be a serious social problem. Others who support these laws are not so altruistically motivated. Employees of law enforcement bureaus and academics who receive government grants to study drug use, for example, may gain financially from drug prohibition. But as with using drugs, using drug laws can have moral and practical side effects so destructive that they argue against ever using legal institutions in this manner.
One might even say—and not altogether metaphorically—that some people become psychologically or economically addicted to drug laws.1 That is, some people continue to support these statutes despite the massive and unavoidable ill effects that result. The psychologically addicted ignore these harms so that they can attain the “good”—their “high”—they perceive that drug laws produce. Other drug-law users ignore the costs of prohibition because of their “economic” dependence on drug laws; these people profit financially from drug laws and are unwilling to undergo the economic “withdrawal” that would be caused by their repeal.
Both kinds of drug-law addicts may deny their addiction by asserting that the side effects are not really so terrible or that they can be kept “under control.” The economically dependent drug-law users may also deny their addiction by asserting that (1) noble motivations, rather than economic gain, lead them to support these statutes; (2) they are not unwilling to withstand the painful financial readjustment that ending prohibition would force them to undergo; and (3) they can “quit” their support any time they want to—provided, of course, that they are rationally convinced of its wrongness.
Their denials notwithstanding, both kinds of addicts are detectable by their adamant resistance to rational persuasion. While they eagerly await and devour any new evidence of the destructiveness of drug use, they are almost completely uninterested in any practical or theoretical knowledge of the ill effects of criminalising such conduct.4 Yet in a free society governed by democratic principles, these addicts cannot be compelled to give up their desire to control the consumption patterns of others. Nor can they be forced to support legalisation in spite of their desires. In a democratic system, they may voice and vote their opinions about such matters no matter how destructive the consequences of their desires are to themselves or, more importantly, to others. Only rational persuasion may be employed to wean them from this habit. As part of this process of persuasion, drug-law addicts must be exposed to the destruction their addiction wreaks on drug users, law enforcement, and on the general public. They must be made to understand the inherent limits of using law to accomplish social objectives.
Later we get this nice summary:
We can conclude then that the end or purpose of drug laws is to discourage people from engaging in risky activity in which they wish to engage either because they desire the intoxicating effects they associate with the consumption of a drug or because they desire the profit that can be realised by supplying intoxicating drugs to others.15 The means that drug laws employ to accomplish this end is using force against those who would engage in such activities, either to prevent them from doing so or to punish those who nonetheless succeed in doing so.
But what about those who are not discouraged and who engage in such conduct anyway? Does the practice of punishing these persons make life better or worse for them? The answer is clear. As harmful as using drugs may be to someone, being imprisoned often makes matters much worse.
Normally when considering matters of legality, we are not concerned about whether a law punishes a lawbreaker and makes him worse off. Indeed, normally such punishment is deliberately imposed on the lawbreaker to protect someone else who we consider to be completely innocent—like the victim, or potential victim, of a rape, robbery, or murder.21 We are therefore quite willing to harm the lawbreaker to protect the innocent. In other words, the objects of these laws are the victims; the subjects of these laws are the criminal.
Drug laws are different in this respect from many other criminal laws. With drug prohibition we are supposed to be concerned with the well-being of prospective drug users. So the object of drug laws—the persons whom drug laws are supposed to “protect”—are often the same persons who are the subject of drug laws. Whenever the object of a law is also its subject, however, a problem arises. The means chosen for benefiting prospective drug users seriously harms those who still use drugs and does so in ways that drugs alone cannot: by punishing drug users over and above the harmful effects of drug use. But the harm done by drug prohibition to drug users goes beyond the direct effects of punishment.
Higher prices can also make drug use more hazardous for users. Intravenous injection, for example, is more popular in countries where high drug prices caused by prohibition drive users to the most “efficient” means of ingesting the drug. In countries where opiates are legal, the principal methods of consumption are inhaling the fumes of heated drugs or snorting. Before the Harrison Act of 1914, “when opiates were cheap and plentiful, they were very rarely injected. Moreover, injection is rare in those Asian countries where opiates are inexpensive and easily available.” While physical dependence may result from either inhalation or snorting, neither is as likely as intravenous injections to result in an overdose. And consumption by injection can cause other health problems as well. For example: “Heroin use causes hepatitis only if injected, and causes collapsed veins and embolisms only if injected intravenously.” Finally, the scourge of HIV-AIDS has been caused, in part, by the sharing of unsterilised needles by drug users.
The following basically embodies the concept of “The prohibition is the gateway not cannabis”.
People who still wish to use drugs are forced to do business with the kind of people who are willing to make and sell drugs in spite of the risk of punishment. Such transactions must deliberately be conducted away from the police. This puts drug users in great danger of physical harm in two ways.
Second, users are likely to be the victims of crime. I would estimate that approximately half the murder cases I prosecuted as an Assistant States Attorney in Cook County, Illinois were “drug related” in the sense that the victim was killed because it was thought he had either drugs or money from the sale of drugs. Crimes are also committed against persons who seek out criminals from whom to purchase prohibited drugs. Because drug users and dealers want to avoid the police, crimes against these groups are unlikely to be reported. As a result, these crimes are likely brought to the attention of the authorities only when a victim’s body is found.
In 1979, I obtained the confessions that were ultimately used in a prosecution involving the savage murder of three young men. 34 One of the three had approached four members of the Latin Kings to purchase marijuana. When his initial attempt to do business with the gang members was rebuffed, he mistakenly believed that this was due to a lack of trust—rather than a lack of marijuana, which was the case. To ingratiate himself with the gang members, he boasted (falsely) about his gang-affiliated friends and his gang membership. Unfortunately the persons he named were members of a rival street gang, the Latin Eagles. The gang members then told him that they could supply marijuana after all and asked the three to accompany them to an alley. There they were held at gun point and eventually stabbed to death. These young men were not members of any street gang. These are drug-law-related deaths. Three young men are dead because drug laws prevented them from buying marijuana cigarettes as safely as they could buy tobacco cigarettes. While smoking either kind of cigarette may have been hazardous to their health, that issue is now moot. Where and how are their deaths registered in the cost-benefit calculation of drug-law advocates?
Using data mining techniques, I’ve produced this handy guide to medical cannabis for professionals curious about it’s application. 419 studies were, 199 of which were fully controlled studies.
XLSX: source data for cheat sheet 419 studies data mining pivot table.xlsx
419 clinical studies of cannabis have taken place. Burn in hell Peter Dunne you are scum of the earth.
On this site you will find clinical studies with cannabis or single cannabinoids in different diseases and case reports on the use of cannabis by patients.
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Safety of oral dronabinol during opioid withdrawal in humans||Jicha CJ, Lofwall MR, Nuzzo PA, Babalonis S, Elayi SC, Walsh SL.||2015||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||40 mg of THC caused increased heart rate and anxiety, which made dose-reduction necessary|
|Show||Epilepsy||Parental reporting of response to oral cannabis extracts for treatment of refractory epilepsy||Press CA, Knupp KG, Chapman KE||2015||Cannabis||Open study||About one third of children suffering from different forms of epilepsy experienced a more than 50 % reduction in seizures by the use of oral cannabis extracts.|
|Show||Pain||Efficacy of Inhaled Cannabis on Painful Diabetic Neuropathy||Wallace MS, Marcotte TD, Umlauf A, Gouaux B, Atkinson JH||2015||Cannabis||Controlled study||Inhaled cannabis demonstrated a dose dependent reduction in peripheral treatment-refractory neuropathic pain.|
|Show||Profiles of medicinal cannabis patients attending compassion centers in rhode island.||Zaller N, Topletz A, Frater S, Yates G, Lally M.||2015||Cannabis||Survey||Most participants report that medicinal cannabis improves their pain symptomology.|
|Show||Neural Effects of Cannabinoid CB1 Neutral Antagonist Tetrahydrocannabivarin on Food Reward and Aversion in Healthy Volunteers.||Tudge L, Williams C, Cowen PJ, McCabe C||2015||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||The natural cannabinoid tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) altered the nerve response to pleasant and unpleasant stimuli in a way that it “suggests therapeutic activity in obesity.|
|Show||Posttraumatic stress disorder||The efficacy of nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, in the treatment of PTSD-associated nightmares: A preliminary randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over design study.||Jetly R, Heber A, Fraser G, Boisvert D.||2015||Nabilone||Controlled study||Nabilone reduced nightmares.|
|Show||Smoking and Diabetes Mellitus: Results from Meta-analysis with Eight Independent Replication Samples||Alshaarawy O, Anthony JC.||2015||Cannabis||Survey||Cannabis use was associated with a 30% reduction of diabetes risk|
|Show||Pain||Experience of adjunctive cannabis use for chronic non-cancer pain: Findings from the Pain and Opioids IN Treatment (POINT) study.||Degenhardt L, Lintzeris N, Campbell G, Bruno R, Cohen M, Farrell M, Hall WD.||2015||Cannabis||Survey||Pain patients, who receive opioids, experience better pain relief if they also take cannabis.|
|Show||HIV/AIDS||High-intensity cannabis use associated with lower plasma human immunodeficiency virus-1 RNA viral load among recently infected people who use injection drugs.||Milloy MJ, Marshall B, Kerr T, Richardson L, Hogg R, Guillemi S, Montaner JS, Wood E.||2015||Cannabis||Open study||At least daily cannabis use was associated with significant lower plasma HIV viral loads.|
|Show||Cancer||Patterns of Use of Medical Cannabis Among Israeli Cancer Patients: A Single Institution Experience.||Waissengrin B, Urban D, Leshem Y, Garty M, Wolf I.||2015||Cannabis||Open study||Cannabis use “is perceived as highly effective” by some patients with advanced cancer.|
|Show||Cancer;Nausea/vomiting||Dronabinol Treatment of Refractory Nausea and Vomiting Related to Peritoneal Carcinomatosis.||Hernandez SL, Sheyner I, Stover KT, Stewart JT.||2015||Delta-9-THC||Open study||THC may be very effective in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in end-stage cancer.|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;Cancer;Nausea/vomiting;Pain||Improving Quality of Life With Nabilone During Radiotherapy Treatments for Head and Neck Cancers: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial||Côté M, Trudel M, Wang C, Fortin A.||2015||Nabilone||Controlled study||Nabilone did not reduce pain and nausea in patients treated for head and neck cancer.|
|Show||Pain||Single dose delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in chronic pancreatitis patients: analgesic efficacy, pharmacokinetics and tolerability||de Vries M, van Rijckevorsel DC, Vissers KC, Wilder-Smith OH, van Goor H(; Pain and Nociception Neuroscience Research Group||2015||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||No effect of a single low dose of THC on abdominal pain resulting from chronic pancreatitis in clinical study.|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal;Pain||The prescription of medical cannabis by a transitional pain service to wean a patient with complex pain from opioid use following liver transplantation: a case report.||Meng H, Hanlon JG, Katznelson R, Ghanekar A, McGilvray I, Clarke H.||2015||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||The use of cannabis reduced opioid consumption|
|Show||Alzheimer’s disease||Tetrahydrocannabinol for neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia: A randomized controlled trial.||van den Elsen GA, Ahmed AI, Verkes RJ, Kramers C, Feuth T, Rosenberg PB, van der Marck MA, Olde Rikkert MG.||2015||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||No reduction in NPS by low-dose THC (3×1.5mg), though it is well-tolerated|
|Show||Acute effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol and their combination on facial emotion recognition: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in cannabis users.||Hindocha C, Freeman TP, Schafer G, Gardener C, Das RK, Morgan CJ, Curran HV.||2015||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC;Cannabidiol||Controlled study||Improvement of recognition of emotional facial affect by CBD and attenuation of the impairment induced by THC|
|Show||The effect of five day dosing with THCV on THC-induced cognitive, psychological and physiological effects in healthy male human volunteers: A placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover pilot trial.||Englund A, Atakan Z, Kralj A, Tunstall N, Murray R, Morrison P.||2015||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Inhibition of some of the well-known effects of THC by THCV and potentiation of other effects|
|Show||Pain||The Pharmacokinetics, Efficacy, Safety, and Ease of Use of a Novel Portable Metered-Dose Cannabis Inhaler in Patients With Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Phase 1a Study||Eisenberg E, Ogintz M, Almog S||2014||Cannabis||Open study||A significant reduction in pain intensity was achieved after cannabis inhalation with a vaporizer.|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Nabiximols as an agonist replacement therapy during cannabis withdrawal: a randomized clinical trial||Allsop DJ, Copeland J, Lintzeris N, Dunlop AJ, Montebello M, Sadler C, Rivas GR, Holland RM, Muhleisen P, Norberg MM, Booth J, McGregor IS||2014||Cannabis||Controlled study||Sativex had no relevant long-term effect on cannabis dependence|
|Show||Pain||A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group study of THC/CBD spray in peripheral neuropathic pain treatment||Serpell M, Ratcliffe S, Hovorka J, Schofield M, Taylor L, Lauder H, Ehler E||2014||Cannabis||Controlled study||Significant improvements in pain, sleep quality and subjective evaluations of patients.|
|Show||Parkinson’s disease||Effects of cannabidiol in the treatment of patients with Parkinson’s disease: an exploratory double-blind trial||Chagas MH, Zuardi AW, Tumas V, Pena-Pereira MA, Sobreira ET, Bergamaschi MM, dos Santos AC, Teixeira AL, Hallak JE, Crippa JA||2014||Cannabidiol||Controlled study||Significant improvement in well-being. No effects on motor functioning or neuroprotection.|
|Show||Endocannabinoids control platelet activation and limit aggregate formation under flow.||De Angelis V, Koekman AC, Weeterings C, Roest M, de Groot PG, Herczenik E, Maas C.||2014||Other cannabinoids||Open study||Activation of cannabinoid receptors by cannabis use reduces platelet activation and blood clotting.|
|Show||Traumatic brain injury||Effect of marijuana use on outcomes in traumatic brain injury.||Nguyen BM, Kim D, Bricker S, Bongard F, Neville A, Putnam B, Smith J, Plurad D.||2014||Cannabis||Open study||A positive THC screen is associated with decreased mortality in adult patients sustaining TBI [traumatic brain injury].|
|Show||Safety and pharmacokinetics of oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in healthy older subjects: A randomized controlled trial.||Ahmed AI, van den Elsen GA, Colbers A, van der Marck MA, Burger DM, Feuth TB, Rikkert MG, Kramers C.||2014||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC appeared to be safe and well tolerated by healthy older individuals.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting||Cannabis for intractable nausea after bilateral cerebellar stroke.||Adhiyaman V, Arshad S.||2014||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||A woman with intractable nausea after cerebellar stroke responded well to a treatment with THC.|
|Show||Pain;Posttraumatic stress disorder;Sleep disorder||Use of a Synthetic Cannabinoid in a Correctional Population for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder-Related Insomnia and Nightmares, Chronic Pain, Harm Reduction, and Other Indications: A Retrospective Evaluation.||Cameron C, Watson D, Robinson J.||2014||Nabilone||Open study||Nabilone caused significant improvements in insomnia, nightmares, chronic pain and other symptoms in patients suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis||Long-term effectiveness and safety of nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol oromucosal spray) in clinical practice.||Flachenecker P, Henze T, Zettl UK.||2014||Cannabis||Open study||Researchers found that “real-life data confirm the long-term effectiveness and tolerability of nabiximols [Sativex] for the treatment of resistant MSS [multiple sclerosis spasticity].|
|Show||Posttraumatic stress disorder||Preliminary, open-label, pilot study of add-on oral Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol in chronic post-traumatic stress disorder.||Roitman P, Mechoulam R, Cooper-Kazaz R, Shalev A.||2014||Delta-9-THC||Open study||THC caused significant improvements in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).|
|Show||Parkinson’s disease||Cannabis (medical marijuana) treatment for motor and non-motor symptoms of Parkinson disease: an open-label observational study.||Lotan I, Treves TA, Roditi Y, Djaldetti R.||2014||Cannabis||Open study||Analysis of specific motor symptoms revealed significant, also sleep and pain improvement after treatment with cannabis.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis||Nabiximols (THC/CBD oromucosal spray, Sativex®) in clinical practice–results of a multicenter, non-interventional study (MOVE 2) in patients with multiple sclerosis spasticity.||Flachenecker P, Henze T, Zettl UK.||2014||Cannabis||Open study||The cannabis extract Sativex provided relief in 74.6% of participants.|
|Show||Posttraumatic stress disorder||Using cannabis to help you sleep: heightened frequency of medical cannabis use among those with PTSD.||Bonn-Miller MO, Babson KA, Vandrey R.||2014||Cannabis||Survey||Patients with high PTSD scores were more likely to use cannabis to improve sleep, and for coping reasons more generally.|
|Show||Sleep disorder||Impact of Dronabinol on Quantitative Electroencephalogram (qEEG) Measures of Sleep in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome.||Farabi SS, Prasad B, Quinn L, Carley DW.||2014||Delta-9-THC||Open study||THC treatment yielded a shift in EEG (electroencephalogram) power toward delta and theta frequencies and a strengthening of normal rhythms in the sleep.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Spasticity||Clinical experience with THC:CBD oromucosal spray in patients with multiple sclerosis-related spasticity.||Koehler J, Feneberg W, Meier M, Pöllmann W.||2014||Cannabis||Open study||The mean spasticity decreased by 57%.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Spasticity||Clinical experiences with cannabinoids in spasticity management in multiple sclerosis.||Lorente Fernández L, Monte Boquet E, Pérez-Miralles F, Gil Gómez I, Escutia Roig M, Boscá Blasco I, Poveda Andrés JL, Casanova-Estruch B.||2014||Cannabis||Open study||The cannabis extract was effective in 80% of patients.|
|Show||Alzheimer’s disease||Dronabinol for the treatment of agitation and aggressive behavior in acutely hospitalized severely demented patients with noncognitive behavioral symptoms.||Woodward MR, Harper DG, Stolyar A, Forester BP, Ellison JM.||2014||Delta-9-THC||Open study||A treatment with oral THC was associated with significant decreases in agitation, as well as improvements in sleep duration and appetite.|
|Show||Epilepsy||Cannabis and other illicit drug use in epilepsy patients.||Hamerle M, Ghaeni L, Kowski A, Weissinger F, Holtkamp M.||2014||Cannabis||Survey||The use of cannabis did not affect disease severity in epilepsy.|
|Show||Pain||A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover pilot trial with extension using an oral mucosal cannabinoid extract for treatment of chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain.||Lynch ME, Cesar-Rittenberg P, Hohmann AG.||2014||Cannabis||Controlled study||Reduction in pain intensity|
|Show||Pain||The subjective psychoactive effects of oral dronabinol studied in a randomized, controlled crossover clinical trial for pain.||Issa MA, Narang S, Jamison RN, Michna E, Edwards RR, Penetar DM, Wasan AD.||2014||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Oral THC had similar psychoactive effects to smoked marijuana|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Spasticity||Effect of dronabinol on progression in progressive multiple sclerosis (CUPID): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.||Zajicek J, Ball S, Wright D, Vickery J, Nunn A, Miller D, Cano MG, McManus D, Mallik S, Hobart J; on behalf of the CUPID investigator group.||2013||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC, which was given for 36 months, had no effect on progression compared to placebo|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Impact of Cannabis Use during Stabilization on Methadone Maintenance Treatment.||Scavone JL, Sterling RC, Weinstein SP, Van Bockstaele EJ.||2013||Cannabis||Open study||Objective ratings of opiate withdrawal decreased in patients using cannabis during stabilization|
|Show||Cancer chemotherapy;Pain||A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Pilot Trial With Extension Using an Oral Mucosal Cannabinoid Extract for Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathic Pain.||Lynch ME, Cesar-Rittenberg P, Hohmann AG.||2013||Cannabis||Controlled study||Five patients tended to respond to a treatment with cannabis|
|Show||Anxiety;Posttraumatic stress disorder||Cannabidiol enhances consolidation of explicit fear extinction in humans.||Das RK, Kamboj SK, Ramadas M, Yogan K, Gupta V, Redman E, Curran HV, Morgan CJ||2013||Cannabidiol||Controlled study||Cannabidiol enhances consolidation of fear extinction in humans.|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Cannabidiol for the treatment of cannabis withdrawal syndrome: a case report.||Crippa JA, Hallak JE, Machado-de-Sousa JP, Queiroz RH, Bergamaschi M, Chagas MH, Zuardi AW.||2013||Cannabidiol||Uncontrolled case report||They were no major withdrawal symptoms.|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Cannabis as a substitute for alcohol and other drugs: A dispensary-based survey of substitution effect in Canadian medical cannabis patients.||Lucas P, Reiman A, Earleywine M, McGowan S, Oleson M, Coward M, Thomas B.||2013||Cannabis||Survey||Many patients substitute cannabis for alcohol, illegal and medicinal drugs|
|Show||Psychosis/schizophrenia||A controlled family study of cannabis users with and without psychosis.||Proal AC, Fleming J, Galvez-Buccollini JA, Delisi LE.||2013||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis does not cause psychosis by itself|
|Show||Pain||The Subjective Psychoactive Effects of Oral Dronabinol Studied in a Randomized, Controlled Crossover Clinical Trial For Pain.||Issa MA, Narang S, Jamison RN, Michna E, Edwards RR, Penetar DM, Wasan AD.||2013||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||In pain patients, oral dronabinol has similar psychoactive effects to smoking cannabis.|
|Show||Cancer;Pain||An open-label extension study to investigate the long-term safety and tolerability of THC/CBD oromucosal spray and oromucosal THC spray in patients with terminal cancer-related pain refractory to strong opioid analgesics||Johnson JR, Lossignol D, Burnell-Nugent M, Fallon MT||2013||Cannabis||Open study||The cannabis extract Sativex was generally well tolerated, with no evidence of a loss of effect for pain relief.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Pain||A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of THC/CBD oromucosal spray in combination with the existing treatment regimen, in the relief of central neuropathic pain in patients with multiple sclerosis.||Langford RM, Mares J, Novotna A, Vachova M, Novakova I, Notcutt W, Ratcliffe S||2013||Cannabis||Controlled study||No significant difference between placebo and Sativex in Phase A; Phase B demonstrated an analgesic effect.|
|Show||Gastrointestinal disorder;Inflammation;Pain||Konikoff FM. Cannabis induces a clinical response in patients with Crohn’s disease: a prospective placebo-controlled study||Naftali T, Bar-Lev Schleider L, Dotan I, Lansky EP, Sklerovsky Benjaminov F, Konikoff FM||2013||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis produced significant clinical benefits in 10 of 11 patients with active Crohn’s disease.|
|Show||Pain||Low-dose vaporized cannabis significantly improves neuropathic pain||Wilsey B, Marcotte T, Deutsch R, Gouaux B, Sakai S, Donaghe H||2013||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis reduced pain. No difference in efficacy between the two doses.|
|Show||Gastrointestinal disorder;Inflammation||Marijuana Use Patterns Among Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.||Ravikoff Allegretti J, Courtwright A, Lucci M, Korzenik JR, Levine J.||2013||Cannabis||Survey||Patients find cannabis very helpful for symptom control.|
|Show||Sleep disorder||Around-the-clock oral THC effects on sleep in male chronic daily cannabis smokers.||Gorelick DA, Goodwin RS, Schwilke E, Schroeder JR, Schwope DM, Kelly DL, Ortemann-Renon C, Bonnet D, Huestis MA.||2013||Delta-9-THC||Open study||Higher THC concentrations were significantly associated with less difficulty falling asleep and more daytime sleep the following day.|
|Show||Cancer||The medical necessity for medicinal cannabis: prospective, observational study evaluating the treatment in cancer patients on supportive or palliative care.||Bar-Sela G, Vorobeichik M, Drawsheh S, Omer A, Goldberg V, Muller E.||2013||Cannabis||Open study||In an open clinical study with cancer patients all symptoms improved significantly.|
|Show||HIV/AIDS||Marijuana smoking does not accelerate progression of liver disease in HIV-hepatitis C coinfection: a longitudinal cohort analysis.||Brunet L, Moodie EE, Rollet K, Cooper C, Walmsley S, Potter M, Klein MB; Canadian Co-infection Cohort Investigators.||2013||Cannabis||Open study||The use of cannabis did not accelerate progression to significant liver fibrosis.|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Impact of cannabis use during stabilization on methadone maintenance treatment.||Scavone JL, Sterling RC, Weinstein SP, Van Bockstaele EJ.||2013||Cannabis||Open study||Symptoms of opiate withdrawal decrease in patients undergoing methadone maintenance treatment, who use cannabis.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis||Treatment failure of intrathecal baclofen and supra-additive effect of nabiximols in multiple sclerosis-related spasticity: a case report.||Stroet A, Trampe N, Chan A.||2013||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||A combination of baclofen injections into the cerebrospinal fluid and very low doses of the cannabis extract Sativex was highly effective.|
|Show||Pain||Comparison of the analgesic effects of dronabinol and smoked marijuana in daily marijuana smokers.||Cooper ZD, Comer SD, Haney M.||2013||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC (dronabinol) and smoked cannabis (marijuana) caused similar effects on pain sensitivity and pain tolerance.|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Nabilone decreases marijuana withdrawal and a laboratory measure of marijuana relapse.||Haney M, Cooper ZD, Bedi G, Vosburg SK, Comer SD, Foltin RW.||2013||Nabilone||Open study||The use of nabilone reduced withdrawal symptoms.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Spasticity||A new multiple sclerosis spasticity treatment option: effect in everyday clinical practice and cost-effectiveness in Germany.||Flachenecker P.||2013||Cannabis||Open study||The cannabis extract sativex is effective in a large number of patients and well-tolerated in the long-term.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Spasticity||Endocannabinoid system modulator use in everyday clinical practice in the UK and Spain.||García-Merino A.||2013||Cannabis||Open study||Sativex appears to be a well-tolerated and useful add-on therapy in patients with spasticity due to multiple sclerosis.|
|Show||Spasticity||Proof of concept trial of dronabinol in obstructive sleep apnea.||Prasad B, Radulovacki MG, Carley DW.||2013||Delta-9-THC||Open study||THC significantly improved this condition.|
|Show||Headache/migraine||Use of cannabis among 139 cluster headache sufferers.||Leroux E, Taifas I, Valade D, Donnet A, Chagnon M, Ducros A.||2013||Cannabis||Survey||Less than one third of self-reported users mention a relief of their attacks following inhalation.|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||The dose effects of short-term dronabinol (oral THC) maintenance in daily cannabis users.||Vandrey R, Stitzer ML, Mintzer MZ, Huestis MA, Murray JA, Lee D.||2013||Delta-9-THC||Open study||THC dose-dependently attenuated cannabis withdrawal.|
|Show||Psychosis/schizophrenia||Cannabidiol enhances anandamide signaling and alleviates psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia||Leweke FM, Piomelli D, Pahlisch F, Muhl D, Gerth CW, Hoyer C, Klosterkötter J, Hellmich M, Koethe D.||2012||Cannabidiol||Controlled study||CBD was as effective as amisulpride, a standard antipsychotic|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Pain;Spasticity||Smoked cannabis for spasticity in multiple sclerosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.||Corey-Bloom J, Wolfson T, Gamst A, Jin S, Marcotte TD, Bentley H, Gouaux B.||2012||Cannabis||Controlled study||Smoked cannabis was superior to placebo in reducing spasticity and pain.|
|Show||Acute effects of a single, oral dose of d9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) administration in healthy volunteers.||Martín-Santos R, Crippa JA, Batalla A, Bhattacharyya S, Atakan Z, Borgwardt S, Allen P, Seal M, Langohr K, Farré M, Zuardi AW, McGuire P.||2012||Delta-9-THC;Cannabidiol||Controlled study||CBD does not cause significant side effects|
|Show||Pain||Palmitoylethanolamide in the Treatment of Chronic Pain Caused by Different Etiopathogenesis.||Gatti A, Lazzari M, Gianfelice V, Di Paolo A, Sabato E, Sabato AF.||2012||Other cannabinoids||Open study||Significant pain relief with palmitoylethanolamide (PEA)|
|Show||Posttraumatic stress disorder||Mitigation of post-traumatic stress symptoms by Cannabis resin: A review of the clinical and neurobiological evidence.||Passie T, Emrich HM, Karst M, Brandt SD, Halpern JH.||2012||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Significant improvement in one patient with PSD with cannabis|
|Show||Pain||An efficient randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial with the irreversible fatty acid amide hydrolase-1 inhibitor PF-04457845, which modulates endocannabinoids but fails to induce effective analgesia in patients with pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee.||Huggins JP, Smart TS, Langman S, Taylor L, Young T.||2012||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||A FAAH inhibitor was not more effective than a placebo.|
|Show||Pain||Herbal cannabis use in patients labeled as fibromyalgia is associated with negative psychosocial parameters.||Ste-Marie PA, Fitzcharles MA, Gamsa A, Ware MA, Shir Y.||2012||Cannabis||Survey||Many patients with fibromyalgia use cannabis products.|
|Show||Pain;Spasticity||Cannabis derivatives therapy for a seronegative stiff-person syndrome: a case report.||Vicente-Valor MI, Garcia-Llopis P, Mejia Andujar L, Antonino de la Camara G, García Del Busto N, Lopez Tinoco M, Quintana Vergara B, Peiro Vilaplana C, Dominguez Moran JA, Sánchez Alcaraz A.||2012||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||The cannabis extract was effective in a patient with stiff person syndrome.|
|Show||Traumatic brain injury||Early Survival of Comatose Patients after Severe Traumatic Brain Injury with the Dual Cannabinoid CB1/CB2 Receptor Agonist KN38-7271: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Trial.||Firsching R, Piek J, Skalej M, Rohde V, Schmidt U, Striggow F; the KN38-7271 Study Group.||2012||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||Survival rates within 1 month of the injury were significantly better.|
|Show||Anxiety||Effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on evaluation of emotional images.||Ballard ME, Bedi G, de Wit H.||2012||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC renders fearful faces less fearful|
|Show||Cancer;Pain||Nabiximols for opioid-treated cancer patients with poorly-controlled chronic pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled, graded-dose trial.||Portenoy RK, Ganae-Motan ED, Allende S, Yanagihara R, Shaiova L, Weinstein S, McQuade R, Wright S, Fallon MT.||2012||Cannabis||Controlled study||Additional pain reduction following the two lower doses.|
|Show||Posttraumatic stress disorder||Mitigation of post-traumatic stress symptoms by Cannabis resin: A review of the clinical and neurobiological evidence.||Passie T, Emrich HM, Karst M, Brandt SD, Halpern JH.||2012||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Cannabis reduced course and intensity of symptoms.|
|Show||Anxiety;Posttraumatic stress disorder||Cannabinoid facilitation of fear extinction memory recall in humans.||Rabinak CA, Angstadt M, Sripada CS, Abelson JL, Liberzon I, Milad MR, Phan KL.||2012||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC prevented the recovery of fear in this experiment of extinction learning.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Pain;Spasticity||A questionnaire survey of patients and carers of patients prescribed Sativex as an unlicensed medicine.||Notcutt WG.||2012||Cannabis||Survey||Most respondents experienced improvements across a range of symptoms.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Pain;Spasticity||Multiple Sclerosis and Extract of Cannabis: results of the MUSEC trial.||Zajicek JP, Hobart JC, Slade A, Barnes D, Mattison PG; on behalf of the MUSEC Research Group.||2012||Cannabis||Controlled study||Significant improvement by the cannabis extract Cannador of spasticity and pain.|
|Show||Pain||Intractable neuropathic pain due to ulnar nerve entrapment treated with cannabis and ketamine 10%.||Hesselink JM, Kopsky DJ.||2012||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Significant pain improvement with cannabis and ketamine.|
|Show||Pain||Lack of effect of central nervous system-active doses of nabilone on capsaicin-induced pain and hyperalgesia.||Kalliomäki J, Philipp A, Baxendale J, Annas P, Karlsten R, Segerdahl M.||2012||Nabilone||Controlled study||The cannabinoid had no significant effect on acute experimental pain.|
|Show||Gastrointestinal disorder;Inflammation||Impact of cannabis treatment on the quality of life, weight and clinical disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease patients: a pilot prospective study||Lahat A, Lang A, Ben-Horin S||2012||Cannabis||Open study||Improvement in general health perception, social functioning, ability to work, physical pain and depression; weight gain; average rise in BMI; average Harvey-Bradshaw index was reduced|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;HIV/AIDS||A pilot study of the effects of cannabis on appetite hormones in HIV-infected adult men||Riggs PK, Vaida F, Rossi SS, Sorkin LS, Gouaux B, Grant I, Ellis RJ||2012||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis administration was associated with significant increases in plasma levels of ghrelin and leptin, and decreases in PYY, but did not significantly influence insulin levels|
|Show||Diarrhoea;Gastrointestinal disorder||Randomized pharmacodynamic and pharmacogenetic trial of dronabinol effects on colon transit in irritable bowel syndrome-diarrhea||Wong BS, Camilleri M, Eckert D, Carlson P, Ryks M, Burton D, Zinsmeister AR||2012||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC had no significant effects on gut transit.|
|Show||Epilepsy||Seizure exacerbation in two patients with focal epilepsy following marijuana cessation.||Hegde M, Santos-Sanchez C, Hess CP, Kabir AA, Garcia PA.||2012||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Patients with epilepsy were able to control their seizures by the use of cannabis.|
|Show||Pain||A Randomized, Controlled Study to Investigate the Analgesic Efficacy of Single Doses of the Cannabinoid Receptor-2 Agonist GW842166, Ibuprofen or Placebo in Patients With Acute Pain Following Third Molar Tooth Extraction.||Ostenfeld T, Price J, Albanese M, Bullman J, Guillard F, Meyer I, Leeson R, Costantin C, Ziviani L, Nocini PF, Milleri S.||2011||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||No superior analgetic effect of the synthetic cannabinoid GW842166 over placebo.|
|Show||Obsessive compulsive disorder||Dronabinol, a cannabinoid agonist, reduces hair pulling in trichotillomania: a pilot study.||Grant JE, Odlaug BL, Chamberlain SR, Kim SW.||2011||Delta-9-THC||Open study||Statistically significant reduction in symptom severity.|
|Show||Increased Blood Pressure Following Abrupt Cessation of Daily Cannabis Use.||Vandrey R, Umbricht A, Strain EC.||2011||Cannabis;Nabilone||Survey||In 6 of 13 subjects blood pressure increased significantly after cessation of cannabis use.|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;Cancer;Nausea/vomiting;Pain;Spasticity||[Cannabinoids in children] [Article in German] Cannabinoide bei Kindern.||Gottschling S.||2011||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||Reduced pain, spasticity and improved appetite and nausea|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;Cancer||Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol may palliate altered chemosensory perception in cancer patients: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial.||Brisbois TD, de Kock IH, Watanabe SM, Mirhosseini M, Lamoureux DC, Chasen M, Macdonald N, Baracos VE, Wismer WV.||2011||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC improved taste and appetite|
|Show||Subjective and Physiological Effects After Controlled Sativex and Oral THC Administration.||Karschner EL, Darwin WD, McMahon RP, Liu F, Wright S, Goodwin RS, Huestis MA.||2011||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC;Cannabidiol||Controlled study||Oral THC and the cannabis extract Sativex produced similar effects|
|Show||Anxiety||Cannabidiol Reduces the Anxiety Induced by Simulated Public Speaking in Treatment-Naïve Social Phobia Patients.||Bergamaschi MM, Queiroz RH, Chagas MH, de Oliveira DC, De Martinis BS, Kapczinski F, Quevedo J, Roesler R, Schröder N, Nardi AE, Martín-Santos R, Hallak JE, Zuardi AW, Crippa JA.||2011||Cannabidiol||Controlled study||Cannabidiol significamtly reduced anxiety.|
|Show||Separate and combined effects of the cannabinoid agonists nabilone and Δ(9)-THC in humans discriminating Δ(9)-THC.||Lile JA, Kelly TH, Hays LR.||2011||Delta-9-THC;Nabilone||Controlled study||THC caused similar effects as nabilone|
|Show||Anxiety||Neural basis of anxiolytic effects of cannabidiol (CBD) in generalized social anxiety disorder: a preliminary report.||Crippa JA, Derenusson GN, Ferrari TB, Wichert-Ana L, Duran FL, Martin-Santos R, Simões MV, Bhattacharyya S, Fusar-Poli P, Atakan Z, Santos Filho A, Freitas-Ferrari MC, McGuire PK, Zuardi AW, Busatto GF, Hallak JE.||2011||Cannabidiol||Controlled study||CBD reduces anxiety in patients with generalized social anxiety disorder.|
|Show||The cannabinoid receptor agonist delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol does not affect visceral sensitivity to rectal distension in healthy volunteers and IBS patients.||Klooker TK, Leliefeld KE, Van Den Wijngaard RM, Boeckxstaens GE.||2011||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC did not modify visceral perception to rectal distension.|
|Show||Pain||Cannabis use in patients with fibromyalgia: effect on symptoms relief and health-related quality of life.||Fiz J, Durán M, Capellà D, Carbonell J, Farré M.||2011||Cannabis||Open study||The use of cannabis was associated with reduction of some fibromyalgia symptoms.|
|Show||Cannabinoid effects on ventilation and breathlessness: A pilot study of efficacy and safety.||Pickering EE, Semple SJ, Nazir MS, Murphy K, Snow TM, Cummin AR, Moosavi S, Guz A, Holdcroft A.||2011||Cannabis||Controlled study||With cannabis participants felt less breathless|
|Show||Cancer||Spontaneous regression of septum pellucidum/forniceal pilocytic astrocytomas-possible role of Cannabis inhalation.||Foroughi M, Hendson G, Sargent MA, Steinbok P.||2011||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Spontaneous regression of benign brain tumour may have been associated with cannabis use.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Spasticity||A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, enriched-design study of nabiximols* (Sativex(®) ), as add-on therapy, in subjects with refractory spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis.||Novotna A, Mares J, Ratcliffe S, Novakova I, Vachova M, Zapletalova O, Gasperini C, Pozzilli C, Cefaro L, Comi G, Rossi P, Ambler Z, Stelmasiak Z, Erdmann A, Montalban X, Klimek A, Davies P; the Sativex Spasticity Study Group.||2011||Cannabis||Controlled study||The cannabis extract significantly reduced spasticity.|
|Show||Tourette’s syndrome||Cannabinoids improve driving ability in a Tourette’s patient.||Brunnauer A, Segmiller FM, Volkamer T, Laux G, Müller N, Dehning S||2011||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||THC improved driving ability|
|Show||Gastrointestinal disorder;Inflammation||Cannabis use amongst patients with inflammatory bowel disease.||Lal S, Prasad N, Ryan M, Tangri S, Silverberg MS, Gordon A, Steinhart H.||2011||Cannabis||Survey||Cannabis use is frequent in patients with chronic intestinal inflammation|
|Show||Posttraumatic stress disorder||Medical cannabis use in post-traumatic stress disorder: a naturalistic observational study.||Reznik I.||2011||Cannabis||Open study||In most cases a significant improvement in quality of life and pain, with some positive changes in severity of posttraumatic stress disorder was observed.|
|Show||The medicinal use of cannabis and cannabinoids: an international survey on methods of intake.||Hazekamp A, Grotenhermen F, Abrams D, Russo E, Ware M, Navarrete-Varo R, Brenneisen R, Müller-Vahl K.||2011||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC;Nabilone||Survey||Preferred modes of use were smoking of cannabis (62.9 per cent), inhalation of cannabis with a vaporizer (23.6 per cent), oral use of cannabis in baked goods (7.9 per cent), oral use of cannabis as a tea (2.4 per cent), and oral use of dronabinol/Marinol (1.8 per cent).|
|Show||Diarrhoea;Gastrointestinal disorder;Inflammation||Treatment of Crohn’s disease with cannabis: an observational study.||Naftali T, Lev LB, Yablekovitz D, Half E, Konikoff FM.||2011||Cannabis||Open study||Of the 30 patients 21 improved significantly|
|Show||Diarrhoea;Gastrointestinal disorder||Pharmacogenetic Trial of a Cannabinoid Agonist Shows Reduced Fasting Colonic Motility in Patients with Non-Constipated Irritable Bowel Syndrome.||Wong BS, Camilleri M, Busciglio I, Carlson P, Szarka LA, Burton D, Zinsmeister AR.||2011||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Dronabinol reduces fasting motility of the colon in IBS patients with diarrhoea|
|Show||HIV/AIDS||A pilot study of the effects of cannabis on appetite hormones in HIV-infected adult men.||Riggs PK, Vaida F, Rossi SS, Sorkin LS, Gouaux B, Grant I, Ellis RJ.||2011||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis modulates the concentration of appetite hormones|
|Show||Inflammation||Impact of cannabis treatment on the quality of life, weight and clinical disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease patients: a pilot prospective study.||Lahat A, Lang A, Ben-Horin S.||2011||Cannabis||Open study||Significant improvement of several symptoms.|
|Show||Pain||Cannabinoid-opioid interaction in chronic pain||Abrams DI, Couey P, Shade SB, Kelly ME, Benowitz NL||2011||Cannabis||Open study||Pain was significantly decreased|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Dronabinol for the treatment of cannabis dependence: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.||Levin FR, Mariani JJ, Brooks DJ, Pavlicova M, Cheng W, Nunes EV||2011||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC caused significant improvement in treatment retention and withdrawal symptoms.|
|Show||Cancer||Marijuana use is not associated with cervical human papillomavirus natural history or cervical neoplasia in HIV-seropositive or HIV-seronegative women.||D’Souza G, Palefsky JM, Zhong Y, Minkoff H, Massad LS, Anastos K, Levine AM, Moxley M, Xue XN, Burk RD, Strickler HD.||2010||Cannabis||Open study||Cannabis use is not associated with cervical human papillomavirus natural history or cervical neoplasia in HIV-seropositive or HIV-seronegative women.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting||Motion sickness, stress and the endocannabinoid system.||Choukèr A, Kaufmann I, Kreth S, Hauer D, Feuerecker M, Thieme D, Vogeser M, Thiel M, Schelling G.||2010||Open study||Volunteers who developed acute motion sickness (n = 7) showed lower endocannabinoid levels during parabolic flights.|
|Show||Spasticity||Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) for cramps in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a randomised, double-blind crossover trial.||Weber M, Goldman B, Truniger S.||2010||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||There were no effects on cramp intensity, number of cramps and fasciculation intensity.|
|Show||Tourette’s syndrome||Oral Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol improved refractory Gilles de la Tourette syndrome in an adolescent by increasing intracortical inhibition: a case report.||Hasan A, Rothenberger A, Münchau A, Wobrock T, Falkai P, Roessner V.||2010||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||THC improved tics allowing parallel stimulant treatment of comorbid ADHD.|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss||Cannabidiol attenuates the appetitive effects of Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol in humans smoking their chosen cannabis.||Morgan CJ, Freeman TP, Schafer GL, Curran HV.||2010||Cannabis||Open study||Effects depended on the ratio of CBD and THC with high CBD reducing appetite enhancing effects of THC.|
|Show||Spasticity;Spinal cord injury||A randomized, double-blinded, crossover pilot study assessing the effect of nabilone on spasticity in persons with spinal cord injury.||Pooyania S, Ethans K, Szturm T, Casey A, Perry D.||2010||Nabilone||Controlled study||There was a significant decrease in spasticity by nabilone.|
|Show||Dystonia||Tardive Dystonia and the Use of Cannabis.||Beckmann Y, Seçil Y, Güngör B, Yiğit T.||2010||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||Significant improvement by cannabis and dronabinol.|
|Show||Dramatic improvement of refractory Isaacs’ syndrome after treatment with dronabinol.||Meyniel C, Ollivier Y, Hamidou M, Péréon Y, Derkinderen P.||2010||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||Dramathic improvement of symptoms (profuse sweating, muscular twitching, weight loss)|
|Show||The relationship between substance use and posttraumatic stress disorder in a methadone maintenance treatment program.||Villagonzalo KA, Dodd S, Ng F, Mihaly S, Langbein A, Berk M.||2010||Cannabis||Survey||Cannabis may be used to self-treat posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)|
|Show||Improvement in refractory psychosis with dronabinol: four case reports.||Schwarcz G, Karajgi B.||2010||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||Significant improvement in four patients|
|Show||Pain||An Open-Label Comparison of Nabilone and Gabapentin as Adjuvant Therapy or Monotherapy in the Management of Neuropathic Pain in Patients with Peripheral Neuropathy.||Bestard JA, Toth CC.||2010||Nabilone||Open study||The benefits of nabilone are similar as gabapentin|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Preliminary efficacy and safety of an oromucosal standardized cannabis extract in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.||Duran M, Pérez E, Abanades S, Vidal X, Saura C, Majem M, Arriola E, Rabanal M, Pastor A, Farré M, Rams N, Laporte JR, Capellà D.||2010||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis was superior to placebo in reducing nausea and vomiting in patients refractory to other medications|
|Show||Pain||Effect of dronabinol on central neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: a pilot study.||Rintala DH, Fiess RN, Tan G, Holmes SA, Bruel BM.||2010||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||No significant difference between THC and diphenhydramine.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis||Randomized controlled trial of Sativex to treat detrusor overactivity in multiple sclerosis.||Kavia RB, De Ridder D, Constantinescu CS, Stott CG, Fowler CJ.||2010||Cannabis||Controlled study||The cannabis extract had some effect on overactive bladder symptoms.|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;HIV/AIDS||Efficacy and tolerability of high-dose dronabinol maintenance in HIV-positive marijuana smokers: a controlled laboratory study.||Bedi G, Foltin RW, Gunderson EW, Rabkin J, Hart CL, Comer SD, Vosburg SK, Haney M.||2010||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Tolerance developed to the appetite-increasing effects of THC.|
|Show||Pain||Smoked cannabis for chronic neuropathic pain: a randomized controlled trial.||Ware MA, Wang T, Shapiro S, Robinson A, Ducruet T, Huynh T, Gamsa A, Bennett GJ, Collet JP.||2010||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis improved pain and sleep quality.|
|Show||Cancer;Pain||Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study of the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of THC:CBD Extract and THC Extract in Patients With Intractable Cancer-Related Pain.||Johnson JR, Burnell-Nugent M, Lossignol D, Ganae-Motan ED, Potts R, Fallon MT.||2010||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||A cannabis extract containing THC and CBD was superior in reducing pain than placebo.|
|Show||Bipolar disorders||Opposite relationships between cannabis use and neurocognitive functioning in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.||Ringen PA, Vaskinn A, Sundet K, Engh JA, Jónsdóttir H, Simonsen C, Friis S, Opjordsmoen S, Melle I, Andreassen OA.||2010||Cannabis||Survey||In bipolar disorder subjects, cannabis use was associated with better neurocognitive function, but the opposite was the case for the schizophrenia subjects.|
|Show||Pain||Randomised Placebo Controlled Double Blind Clinical Trial of Cannabis Based Medicinal Product (Sativex) in Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: Depression is a Major Confounding Factor.||Selvarajah D, Gandhi R, Emery CJ, Tesfaye S.||2010||Cannabis||Controlled study||No difference between cannabis extract and placebo.|
|Show||Pain||The effects of nabilone on sleep in fibromyalgia: results of a randomized controlled trial.||Ware MA, Fitzcharles MA, Joseph L, Shir Y.||2010||Nabilone||Controlled study||Improvement of sleep by nabilone.|
|Show||PTSD contributes to teen and young adult cannabis use disorders.||Cornelius JR, Kirisci L, Reynolds M, Clark DB, Hayes J, Tarter R.||2010||Cannabis||Survey||People with PTSD have a higher risk for cannabis use|
|Show||Pain||Adjuvant topical therapy with a cannabinoid receptor agonist in facial postherpetic neuralgia.||Phan NQ, Siepmann D, Gralow I, Ständer S.||2010||Other cannabinoids||Open study||Five of eight patients experienced a good pain relief|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Spasticity||A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of Sativex, in subjects with symptoms of spasticity due to multiple sclerosis||Collin C, Ehler E, Waberzinek G, Alsindi Z, Davies P, Powell K, Notcutt W, O’Leary C, Ratcliffe S, Nováková I, Zapletalova O, Piková J, Ambler Z||2010||Cannabis||Controlled study||Significant reduction in treatment-resistant spasticity.|
|Show||HIV/AIDS;Pain||Smoked medicinal cannabis for neuropathic pain in HIV: a randomized, crossover clinical trial.||Ellis RJ, Toperoff W, Vaida F, van den Brande G, Gonzales J, Gouaux B, Bentley H, Atkinson JH.||2009||Cannabis||Controlled study||Significant pain relief with cannabis.|
|Show||Treatment of a hyperkinetic movement disorder during pregnancy with dronabinol.||Farooq MU, Ducommun E, Goudreau J.||2009||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||Improvement of her hyperkinetic movement disorder with no signs of tolerance|
|Show||Effect of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol, a cannabinoid receptor agonist, on the triggering of transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxations in dogs and humans.||Beaumont H, Jensen J, Carlsson A, Ruth M, Lehmann A, Boeckxstaens GE.||2009||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC reduced acid reflux episodes in the first hour after a meal.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis||Psychopathological and cognitive effects of therapeutic cannabinoids in multiple sclerosis: a double-blind, placebo controlled, crossover study.||Aragona M, Onesti E, Tomassini V, Conte A, Gupta S, Gilio F, Pantano P, Pozzilli C, Inghilleri M.||2009||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis did not impair cognition|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;HIV/AIDS;Pain;Depression;Anxiety||Marijuana Effectiveness as an HIV Self-Care Strategy.||Corless IB, Lindgren T, Holzemer W, Robinson L, Moezzi S, Kirksey K, Coleman C, Tsai YF, Sanzero Eller L, Hamilton MJ, Sefcik EF, Canaval GE, Rivero Mendez M, Kemppainen JK, Bunch EH, Nicholas PK, Nokes KM, Dole P, Reynolds N.||2009||Cannabis||Survey||Participants rated cannabis as similar effective as other medications for the treatment of their symptoms.|
|Show||Relief oriented use of marijuana by teens.||Bottorff JL, Johnson JL, Moffat BM, Mulvogue T.||2009||Cannabis||Survey||20 participants said that they used cannabis to treat health problems.|
|Show||Intestinal Lymphatic Transport Enhances the Post-Prandial Oral Bioavailability of a Novel Cannabinoid Receptor Agonist Via Avoidance of First-Pass Metabolism.||Trevaskis NL, Shackleford DM, Charman WN, Edwards GA, Gardin A, Appel-Dingemanse S, Kretz O, Galli B, Porter CJ.||2009||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||Systemic bioavailability of the cannabinoid CRA13 increased by more than 4-fold if taken together with a fat-rich meal.|
|Show||Headache/migraine||Cluster attacks responsive to recreational cannabis and dronabinol.||Robbins MS, Tarshish S, Solomon S, Grosberg BM.||2009||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||Cannabis and THC aborted attacks of headaches.|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Intermittent marijuana use is associated with improved retention in naltrexone treatment for opiate-dependence.||Raby WN, Carpenter KM, Rothenberg J, Brooks AC, Jiang H, Sullivan M, Bisaga A, Comer S, Nunes EV||2009||Cannabis||Open study||Better adherence to natrexone therapy with intermittend cannabis use|
|Show||Synthetic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (dronabinol) can improve the symptoms of schizophrenia.||Schwarcz G, Karajgi B, McCarthy R.||2009||Cannabis||Open study||Improvement in 4 of 6 participants, of whom 3 showed a significant improvement.|
|Show||Spasticity;Multiple sclerosis||Lack of effect of cannabis-based treatment on clinical and laboratory measures in multiple sclerosis.||Centonze D, Mori F, Koch G, Buttari F, Codecà C, Rossi S, Cencioni MT, Bari M, Fiore S, Bernardi G, Battistini L, Maccarrone M.||2009||Cannabis||Controlled study||There was no effect of the cannabis extract on spasticity|
|Show||Spasticity;Pain||Reposition of a dislocated shoulder under use of cannabis.||Schweizer A, Bircher HP.||2009||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Pain and muscular tone decreased and the shoulder was relocated easily.|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||White matter integrity in adolescents with histories of marijuana use and binge drinking.||Jacobus J, McQueeny T, Bava S, Schweinsburg BC, Frank LR, Yang TT, Tapert SF.||2009||Cannabis||Open study||Brain damage was less in alcohol users who used also cannabis than in alcohol only users.|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Cannabis as a substitute for alcohol and other drugs||Reiman A.||2009||Cannabis||Survey||40 % use cannabis to substitute for alcohol, 26 % to substitute for illegal drugs|
|Show||Pain||Characteristics of patients with chronic pain accessing treatment with medical cannabis in Washington State.||Aggarwal SK, Carter GT, Sullivan MD, ZumBrunnen C, Morrill R, Mayer JD.||2009||Cannabis||Open study||88 % suffer from more than one pain syndrome|
|Show||Cancer||A population-based case-control study of marijuana use and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.||Liang C, McClean MD, Marsit C, Christensen B, Peters E, Nelson HH, Kelsey KT.||2009||Cannabis||Survey||Subjects who used cannabis had a reduced cancer risk.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Pain||Cannabinoid-induced effects on the nociceptive system: a neurophysiological study in patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis.||Conte A, Bettolo CM, Onesti E, Frasca V, Iacovelli E, Gilio F, Giacomelli E, Gabriele M, Aragona M, Tomassini V, Pantano P, Pozzilli C, Inghilleri M.||2009||Cannabis||Controlled study||The study provides objective neurophysiological evidence that cannabinoids modulate the nociceptive system.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting||Use of medical marijuana for treatment of severe intractable nausea after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery: case report.||Merriman AR, Oliak DA.||2008||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||THC relieved nausea refractory to other medications|
|Show||Pain||Comparison of analgesic effects and patient tolerability of nabilone and dihydrocodeine for chronic neuropathic pain: randomised, crossover, double blind study.||Frank B, Serpell MG, Hughes J, Matthews JN, Kapur D.||2008||Nabilone||Controlled study||Nabilone as effective as hydrocodeine in treating neuropatic pain|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Appetite loss/weight loss||Evaluation of oral cannabinoid-containing medications for the management of interferon and ribavirin-induced anorexia, nausea and weight loss in patients treated for chronic hepatitis C virus.||Costiniuk CT, Mills E, Cooper CL||2008||Delta-9-THC;Nabilone||Open study||Improvement of appetite and reduction of nausea and vomiting by nabilone and dronabinol (THC)|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;Cancer;Pain||Adjunctive nabilone in cancer pain and symptom management: a prospective observational study using propensity scoring.||Maida V, Ennis M, Irani S, Corbo M, Dolzhykov M.||2008||Nabilone||Open study||Significant improvement of pain|
|Show||Pain||A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Trial of Cannabis Cigarettes in Neuropathic Pain.||Wilsey B, Marcotte T, Tsodikov A, Millman J, Bentley H, Gouaux B, Fishman S.||2008||Cannabis||Controlled study||Significant improvement of pain|
|Show||Improvement in refractory obsessive compulsive disorder with dronabinol.||Schindler F, Anghelescu I, Regen F, Jockers-Scherubl M.||2008||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||Significant symptom improvement|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Dystonia||Current status of cannabis treatment of multiple sclerosis with an illustrative case presentation of a patient with MS, complex vocal tics, paroxysmal dystonia, and marijuana dependence treated with dronabinol.||Deutsch SI, Rosse RB, Connor JM, Burket JA, Murphy ME, Fox FJ.||2008||Delta-9-THC||Open study||Significant improvement of symptoms|
|Show||Pain||Lack of analgesia by oral standardized cannabis extract on acute inflammatory pain and hyperalgesia in volunteers.||Kraft B, Frickey NA, Kaufmann RM, Reif M, Frey R, Gustorff B, Kress HG.||2008||Cannabis||Controlled study||The cannabis extract showed no analgesic effect in acute experimental pain|
|Show||Pain||Analgesic and antihyperalgesic effects of nabilone on experimental heat pain.||Redmond WJ, Goffaux P, Potvin S, Marchand S.||2008||Nabilone||Controlled study||Nabilone did not reduce experimental heat pain|
|Show||Alzheimer’s disease||The cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone for the treatment of dementia-related agitation.||Passmore MJ.||2008||Nabilone||Uncontrolled case report||Dramatic reduction in the severity of agitation and other behavioural symptoms|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Use of dronabinol for cannabis dependence: two case reports and review.||Levin FR, Kleber HD.||2008||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||THC reduced withdrawal symptoms in cannabis dependence|
|Show||Pain||Nabilone for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia.||Skrabek RQ, Galimova L, Ethans K, Perry D.||2008||Nabilone||Controlled study||Nabilone improved symptoms and was well-tolerated|
|Show||Pain||Efficacy of dronabinol as an adjuvant treatment for chronic pain patients on opioid therapy.||Narang S, Gibson D, Wasan AD, Ross EL, Michna E, Nedeljkovic SS, Jamison RN.||2008||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC reduced pain|
|Show||Cancer||Nabilone for the treatment of paraneoplastic night sweats: a report of four cases.||Maida V.||2008||Nabilone||Open study||Significant improvement of night sweats within 2 days|
|Show||Pain||A prospective identification of neuropathic pain in specific chronic polyneuropathy syndromes and response to pharmacological therapy.||Toth C, Au S.||2008||Cannabis;Nabilone||Open study||Similar treatment effects and side effects of cannabinoids compared to other medications|
|Show||Pain||Open-label, add-on study of tetrahydrocannabinol for chronic nonmalignant pain.||Haroutiunian S, Rosen G, Shouval R, Davidson E.||2008||Delta-9-THC||Open study||5 patients reported adequate response to the treatment.|
|Show||Epilepsy||Marijuana: an effective antiepileptic treatment in partial epilepsy? A case report and review of the literature.||Mortati K, Dworetzky B, Devinsky O.||2007||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Significant improvement of epilepsy with the use of cannabis.|
|Show||Pain||Dose-dependent effects of smoked cannabis on capsaicin-induced pain and hyperalgesia in healthy volunteers.||Wallace M, Schulteis G, Atkinson JH, Wolfson T, Lazzaretto D, Bentley H, Gouaux B, Abramson I.||2007||Cannabis||Controlled study||A medium dose of cannabis reduced pain, while a high dose increased pain induced by capsaicin|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Pain||Oromucosal ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol for neuropathic pain associated with multiple sclerosis: an uncontrolled, open-label, 2-year extension trial.||Rog DJ, Nurmikko TJ, Young CA.||2007||Cannabis||Open study||No development of tolerance within a period of two years of treatment|
|Show||[Fitness to drive in spite (because) of THC] [Article in German]||Strohbeck-Kühner P, Skopp G, Mattern R.||2007||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Significant improvement of driving-related performance|
|Show||Pain||Sativex successfully treats neuropathic pain characterised by allodynia: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.||Nurmikko TJ, Serpell MG, Hoggart B, Toomey PJ, Morlion BJ, Haines D.||2007||Cannabis||Controlled study||Significant improvement in pain by cannabis|
|Show||Vaporization as a smokeless cannabis delivery system: a pilot study.||Abrams DI, Vizoso HP, Shade SB, Jay C, Kelly ME, Benowitz NL||2007||Cannabis||Controlled study;Basic research||Vaporization of cannabis is a safe and effective mode of delivery of THC|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss||Anorexia of aging in long term care: is dronabinol an effective appetite stimulant? – a pilot study.||Wilson MM, Philpot C, Morley JE||2007||Delta-9-THC||Open study||A trend towards weight gain|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Appetite loss/weight loss;HIV/AIDS||THC improves appetite and reverses weight loss in AIDS patients||Dejesus E, Rodwick BM, Bowers D, Cohen CJ, Pearce D||2007||Delta-9-THC||Open study||THC improved appetite and weight and reduced nausea|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;HIV/AIDS||Dronabinol and marijuana in HIV-positive marijuana smokers: caloric intake, mood, and sleep.||Haney M, Gunderson EW, Rabkin J, Hart CL, Vosburg SK, Comer SD, Foltin RW||2007||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC and cannabis caused an increase in caloric intake and weight|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Efficacy of dronabinol alone and in combination with ondansetron versus ondansetron alone for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.||Meiri E, Jhangiani H, Vredenburgh JJ, Barbato LM, Carter FJ, Yang HM, Baranowski V.||2007||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Dronabinol was as effective as ondansetron in reducing nausea and vomiting. Combination therapy was not more effective.|
|Show||Spasticity;Multiple sclerosis||Randomized controlled trial of cannabis-based medicine in spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis||Collin C, Davies P, Mutiboko IK, Ratcliffe S, for the Sativex Spasticity in MS Study Group||2007||Cannabis||Controlled study||Significantly reduction in spasticity|
|Show||HIV/AIDS;Pain||Cannabis in painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy: A randomized placebo-controlled trial.||Abrams DI, Jay CA, Shade SB, Vizoso H, Reda H, Press S, Kelly ME, Rowbotham MC, Petersen KL.||2007||Cannabis||Controlled study||Smoked cannabis was well tolerated and effectively relieved chronic neuropathic pain from HIV-associated sensory neuropathy.|
|Show||Glaucoma||Dronabinol and retinal hemodynamics in humans.||Plange N, Arend KO, Kaup M, Doehmen B, Adams H, Hendricks S, Cordes A, Huth J, Sponsel WE, Remky A.||2007||Delta-9-THC||Open study||THC reduced intraoculat pressure and improved blood circulation in the retina.|
|Show||Pain||Nabilone for the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia.||Skrabek RQ, Galimova L, Ethansand Daryl K.||2007||Nabilone||Controlled study||Significant reduction of pain and improvement of quality of life with nabilone|
|Show||Pain||Efficacy of dronabinol as an adjuvant treatment for chronic pain patients on opioid therapy||Narang S, Gibson D, Wasan AD, Ross EL, Michna E, Nedeljkovic SS, Jamison RN||2007||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study;Open study||THC had an additional effect on pain relief|
|Show||Spasticity;Spinal cord injury;Pain||Sativex® in the Treatment of Central Neuropathic Pain due to Spinal Cord Injury: A Randomised Controlled Study||Berman J & the Sativex Spinal Cord Injury Study Group, Bosworth T2 Guy G & Stott C.||2007||Cannabis||Controlled study||primary outcome mean NRS 11 poitn pain scale – nod difference – BPI secondary ourcome benefit – significant at p<0.032|
|Show||Effects of a cannabinoid receptor agonist on colonic motor and sensory functions in humans: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.||Esfandyari T, Camilleri M, Busciglio I, Burton D, Baxter K, Zinsmeister AR.||2007||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC relaxes the colon and reduces postprandial colonic motility|
|Show||Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Medicinal cannabis does not influence the clinical pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and docetaxel.||Engels FK, de Jong FA, Sparreboom A, Mathot RA, Loos WJ, Kitzen JJ, de Bruijn P, Verweij J, Mathijssen RH.||2007||Cannabis||Open study||Cannabis did not influence the pharmacokinetics of the two anti-cancer drugs|
|Show||Bipolar disorders||The effect of extreme marijuana use on the long-term course of bipolar I illness: a single case study.||El-Mallakh RS, Brown C.||2007||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Cannabis decreased the number of depressed days and increased the number of hypomanic days.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis||Cannabis; adverse effects from an oromucosal spray.||Scully C.||2007||Cannabis||Open study||The spray caused reversible damage to the mucosa|
|Show||Long term marijuana users seeking medical cannabis in California (2001-2007): demographics, social characteristics, patterns of cannabis and other drug use of 4117 applicants.||O’Connell TJ, Bou-Matar CB.||2007||Cannabis||Survey|
|Show||Spasticity;Spinal cord injury||The treatment of spasticity with Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol in persons with spinal cord injury.||Hagenbach U, Luz S, Ghafoor N, Berger JM, Grotenhermen F, Brenneisen R, Mader M.||2006||Delta-9-THC||Open study||Significant improvement of spasticity with THC|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis||Randomised controlled study of cannabis-based medicine (Sativex®) in patients suffering from multiple sclerosis associated detrusor overactivity||de Ridder D, Constantinescu CS,Fowler C, Kavia R, Sarantis N.||2006||Cannabis||Controlled study||A significant reduction in the number of voids per day and during the night.|
|Show||Spasticity;Multiple sclerosis||A randomised controlled study of Sativex® in patients with symptoms of spasticity due to multiple sclerosis||Collin C, Ambler Z, Kent R, McCalla R.||2006||Cannabis||Controlled study||Spasticity of patients who received cannabis and complied with the study protocol was significantly reduced compared to placebo.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Appetite loss/weight loss;Cancer;Pain;Depression;Anxiety||The synthetic cannabinoid nabilone improves pain and symptom management in cancer patients||Maida V.||2006||Nabilone||Open study||Nabilone treatment improved pain, nausea, appetite and several other symptoms|
|Show||Pain||Synergistic affective analgesic interaction between delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and morphine.||Roberts JD, Gennings C, Shih M.||2006||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||There was a synergistic effect between THC and morphine on the affective component of pain but not on the sensory component|
|Show||Pain||[(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol and the opioid receptor agonist piritramide do not act synergistically in postoperative pain.] [Article in German]||Seeling W, Kneer L, Buchele B, Gschwend JE, Maier L, Nett C, Simmet T, Steffen P, Schneider M, Rockemann M.||2006||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Application of THC reduced the need of an opioid to treat postoperative pain but the difference to placebo was not significant|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Appetite loss/weight loss;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||[Dronabinol for supportive therapy in patients with malignant melanoma and liver metastases.] [Article in German]||Zutt M, Hanssle H, Emmert S, Neumann C, Kretschmer L.||2006||Delta-9-THC||Open study||A significant increase in appetite and decrease in nausea in most patients.|
|Show||Dronabinol reduces signs and symptoms of idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a case report.||Raby WN, Modica PA, Wolintz RJ, Murtaugh K.||2006||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||Improvement of signs and symptoms of the disease|
|Show||Cannabidiol monotherapy for treatment-resistant schizophrenia||Zuardi AW, Hallak JE, Dursun SM, Morais SL, Faria Sanches R, Musty RE, Crippa JA.||2006||Cannabidiol||Open study||CBD monotherapy was not effective in treatment-resistant schizophrenia|
|Show||Alzheimer’s disease||Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol for night-time agitation in severe dementia||Walther S, Mahlberg R, Eichmann U, Kunz D||2006||Delta-9-THC||Open study||Reduction in night-time agitation in actigraphy and in the neuropsychiatric inventory NPI|
|Show||Pain||A multicenter dose-escalation study of the analgesic and adverse effects of an oral cannabis extract (Cannador) for postoperative pain management.||Holdcroft A, Maze M, Dore C, Tebbs S, Thompson S.||2006||Cannabis||Controlled study||The optimal dose was 10 mg Cannador, effectively reducing postoperative pain without serious side effects.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis||The effect of cannabis on urge incontinence in patients with multiple sclerosis: a multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial (CAMS-LUTS).||Freeman RM, Adekanmi O, Waterfield MR, Waterfield AE, Wright D, Zajicek J.||2006||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Cannabis and dronabinol caused a significant reduction in incontinence|
|Show||Spasticity;Spinal cord injury||[Respiratory failure due to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in a tetraplegic patient.]. [Article in German]||Neuburger M, Schley M, Schmelz M, Schuepfer G, Konrad C.||2006||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||Dronabinol reduced spasticity but worsened respiration|
|Show||Cancer||A pilot clinical study of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme.||Guzman M, Duarte MJ, Blazquez C, Ravina J, Rosa MC, Galve-Roperh I, Sanchez C, Velasco G, Gonzalez-Feria L.||2006||Delta-9-THC||Open study||THC was well tolerated in this pilot study of intrakranial cannabinoid administration|
|Show||Pain||Delta-9-THC based monotherapy in fibromyalgia patients on experimentally induced pain, axon reflex flare, and pain relief.||Schley M, Legler A, Skopp G, Schmelz M, Konrad C, Rukwied R.||2006||Delta-9-THC||Open study||Five of the nine patients withdrew from the study due to side effects. Four patients experienced significant pain relief|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;Cancer||Comparison of orally administered cannabis extract and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in treating patients with cancer-related anorexia-cachexia syndrome: a multicenter, phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial from the Cannabis-in-Cachexia-Study-Group||Strasser F, Luftner D, Possinger K, Ernst G, Ruhstaller T, Meissner W, Ko YD, Schnelle M, Reif M, Cerny T.||2006||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||No difference between cannabis, THC and placebo|
|Show||[Topical cannabinoid agonists : An effective new possibility for treating chronic pruritus.] [Article in German]||Stander S, Reinhardt HW, Luger TA.||2006||Other cannabinoids||Open study||Topical application of a cream with N-palmitoyl ethanolamine had a good antipruritic effect in most patients.|
|Show||Pain||[Benefits of an add-on treatment with the synthetic cannabinomimetic nabilone on patients with chronic pain – a randomized controlled trial.] [Article in German]||Pinsger M, Schimetta W, Volc D, Hiermann E, Riederer F, Polz W.||2006||Nabilone||Controlled study||Nabilone caused a significant reduction in pain and improvement of quality of life.|
|Show||Pain||Effects of nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, on postoperative pain.||Beaulieu P.||2006||Nabilone||Controlled study||No pain reduction with nabilone.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Pain||Low dose treatment with the synthetic cannabinoid Nabilone significantly reduces spasticity-related pain : A double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over trial.||Wissel J, Haydn T, Muller J, Brenneis C, Berger T, Poewe W, Schelosky LD.||2006||Nabilone||Controlled study||Significant reduction of pain|
|Show||Glaucoma||Effect of Sublingual Application of Cannabinoids on Intraocular Pressure: A Pilot Study.||Tomida I, Azuara-Blanco A, House H, Flint M, Pertwee RG, Robson PJ.||2006||Delta-9-THC;Cannabidiol||Controlled study||Significant reduction of intraocular pressure|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer chemotherapy;Pain||Cannabinoids in the management of intractable chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and cancer-related pain.||Sutton IR, Daeninck P.||2006||Nabilone||Survey;Uncontrolled case report||Significant improvement in one case of intractable neuropathic pain and one case of refractory cinv|
|Show||Pain||Preliminary assessment of the efficacy, tolerability and safety of a cannabis-based medicine (Sativex) in the treatment of pain caused by rheumatoid arthritis.||Blake DR, Robson P, Ho M, Jubb RW, McCabe CS.||2006||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis produced improvements in pain and sleep|
|Show||Efficacy and safety of dexanabinol in severe traumatic brain injury: results of a phase III randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.||Maas AI, Murray G, Henney H 3rd, Kassem N, Legrand V, Mangelus M, Muizelaar JP, Stocchetti N, Knoller N; Pharmos TBI investigators.||2006||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||No effect of dexanabinol|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting||Survey of medicinal cannabis use among childbearing women: patterns of its use in pregnancy and retroactive self-assessment of its efficacy against ‘morning sickness’.||Westfall RE, Janssen PA, Lucas P, Capler R.||2006||Cannabis||Survey||Cannabis effective against nausea and vomiting|
|Show||Pain||Experience with the synthetic cannabinoid nabilone in chronic noncancer pain.||Berlach DM, Shir Y, Ware MA.||2006||Nabilone||Open study||9 patients reported reduced pain intensity|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting||Prevention of nausea and vomiting following breast surgery.||Layeeque R, Siegel E, Kass R, Henry-Tillman RS, Colvert M, Mancino A, Klimberg VS.||2006||Delta-9-THC||Open study||Postoperative nausea and vomiting was reduced by prophylactic administration of dronabinol and prochlorperazine|
|Show||Effect of a cannabinoid agonist on gastrointestinal transit and postprandial satiation in healthy human subjects: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.||Esfandyari T, Camilleri M, Ferber I, Burton D, Baxter K, Zinsmeister AR.||2006||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC retarded gastric emptying|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting||Cannabis use improves retention and virological outcomes in patients treated for hepatitis C.||Sylvestre DL, Clements BJ, Malibu Y.||2006||Cannabis||Open study||Participants who used cannabis maintained adherence to treatment more offen|
|Show||Spasticity;Multiple sclerosis;Pain||Long-term use of a cannabis-based medicine in the treatment of spasticity and other symptoms in multiple sclerosis.||Wade DT, Makela PM, House H, Bateman C, Robson P.||2006||Cannabis||Open study||Long-term use of cannabis maintains its therapeutic effects|
|Show||Spasticity;Multiple sclerosis;Pain||Cannabis use in patients with multiple sclerosis.||Chong MS, Wolff K, Wise K, Tanton C, Winstock A, Silber E.||2006||Cannabis||Survey||A subgroup of patients with severe disabilitiy appears to derive some benefit|
|Show||Pain||Evaluation of herbal cannabis characteristics by medical users: a randomized trial.||Ware MA, Ducruet T, Robinson AR.||2006||Cannabis||Controlled study||Medical cannabis users can appreciate differences in herbal cannabis products|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Concurrent cannabis use during treatment for comorbid ADHD and cocaine dependence: effects on outcome.||Aharonovich E, Garawi F, Bisaga A, Brooks D, Raby WN, Rubin E, Nunes EV, Levin FR.||2006||Cannabis||Open study||Moderate cannabis use had a positive effect of retention rates and abstinence from cocaine|
|Show||Spasticity;Multiple sclerosis||Cannabinoids in multiple sclerosis (CAMS) study: safety and efficacy data for 12 months follow up.||Zajicek JP, Sanders HP, Wright DE, Vickery PJ, Ingram WM, Reilly SM, Nunn AJ, Teare LJ, Fox PJ, Thompson AJ.||2005||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Spasticity in the Ashworth scale was significantly reduced by an average of 1.82 in the THC group; no significant reduction in the cannabis group|
|Show||Spasticity;Multiple sclerosis||Cannabis-based medicinal extract (Sativex) produced significant improvements in a subjective measure of spasticity which were maintained on long-term treatment with no evidence of tolerance.||Robson P, Wade D, Makela P, House H, Bateman C||2005||Cannabis||Controlled study||Beneficial effects of cannabis on spasticity in MS seem to be maintained over long-term treatment, with no evidence of tolerance.|
|Show||HIV/AIDS;Pain||Smoked cannabis therapy for HIV-related painful peripheral neuropathy: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.||Abrams DI, Jay CA, Vizoso H, Shade SB, Reda H, Press S, Kelly ME, Rowbotham M, Petersen K||2005||Cannabis||Controlled study||Smoked cannabis is effective in reducing HIV-related neuropathic pain|
|Show||Epilepsy||Treatment with CBD in oily solution of drug-resistant paediatric epilepsies.||Pelliccia A, Grassi G, Romano A, Crocchialo P||2005||Cannabidiol||Open study||Improvement of epilepsy without side effects|
|Show||Pain||Standardized cannabis extract in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia – a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over study.||Ernst G, Denke C, Reif M, Schnelle M, Hagmeister H||2005||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis did not reduce pain|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Pain||Randomized, controlled trial of cannabis-based medicine in central pain in multiple sclerosis.||Rog DJ, Nurmikko TJ, Friede T, Young CA.||2005||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis is effective in reducing pain and sleep disturbance in patients with multiple sclerosis related central neuropathic pain|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;HIV/AIDS||Marijuana use and its association with adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected persons with moderate to severe nausea.||de Jong BC, Prentiss D, McFarland W, Machekano R, Israelski DM.||2005||Cannabis||Open study||Cannabis improved adherence to antiretroviral therapy in HIV/AIDS|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;HIV/AIDS;Alzheimer’s disease||Dronabinol and marijuana in HIV(+) marijuana smokers: acute effects on caloric intake and mood.||Haney M, Rabkin J, Gunderson E, Foltin RW.||2005||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC and cannabis cause increased caloric intake|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss||Dronabinol – eine mögliche neue Therapieoption bei COPD-Patienten mit pulmonaler Kachexie [Dronabinol, a possible new therapeutic option in patients with COPD and pulmonal cachexia]||Bergmann K-C||2005||Delta-9-THC||Open study||On average 1,5 kg of weight gain and increase of walking distance|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Appetite loss/weight loss;HIV/AIDS;Pain;Anxiety||Cannabis use in HIV for pain and other medical symptoms.||Woolridge E, Barton S, Samuel J, Osorio J, Dougherty A, Holdcroft A.||2005||Cannabis||Survey||27% used cannabis for the treatment of various symptoms|
|Show||Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol effects in schizophrenia: implications for cognition, psychosis, and addiction.||D’Souza DC, Abi-Saab WM, Madonick S, Forselius-Bielen K, Doersch A, Braley G, Gueorguieva R, Cooper TB, Krystal JH.||2005||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC is associated with transient exacerbation in core psychotic and cognitive deficits in schizophrenia.|
|Show||Pain;Depression;Anxiety||Cannabis use in sickle cell disease: a questionnaire study.||Howard J, Anie KA, Holdcroft A, Korn S, Davies SC.||2005||Cannabis||Survey||36% had used cannabis to treat symptoms|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Low efficacy of non-opioid drugs in opioid withdrawal symptoms.||Hermann D, Klages E, Welzel H, Mann K, Croissant B.||2005||Cannabis||Survey||Only low efficacy of cannabis in alleviating opioid withdrawal symptoms|
|Show||Efficacy and tolerance of the cream containing structured physiological lipids with endocannabinoids in the treatment of uremic pruritus: a preliminary study.||Szepietowski JC, Szepietowski T, Reich A.||2005||Other cannabinoids||Open study||Improvement of pruritus with the cream|
|Show||The medicinal use of cannabis in the UK: results of a nationwide survey.||Ware MA, Adams H, Guy GW.||2005||Cannabis||Survey||Cannabis use was reported by 25 % of patients with chronic pain and 22 % of patients with multiple sclerosis|
|Show||Clinical improvement and reduction of immunosuppressive drug therapy in cannabis treated patients with crohn’s disease.||Hergenrather JY, Mikuriya TH, Bearman D.||2005||Cannabis||Survey||The majority of patients found a substantial improvement of their symptoms|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis||Cannabinoid influence on cytokine profile in multiple sclerosis.||Katona S, Kaminski E, Sanders H, Zajicek J.||2005||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||There were no significant effects of cannabinoids on the cytokine profiles examined.|
|Show||Pain||Efficacy of two cannabis based medicinal extracts for relief of central neuropathic pain from brachial plexus avulsion: results of a randomised controlled trial.||Berman JS, Symonds C, Birch R.||2004||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Significant pain relief and improvement of sleep|
|Show||Parkinson’s disease||Cannabis for dyskinesia in Parkinson disease: a randomized double-blind crossover study.||Carroll CB, Bain PG, Teare L, Liu X, Joint C, Wroath C, Parkin SG, Fox P, Wright D, Hobart J, Zajicek JP.||2004||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis had no treatment effect on levodopa-induced dyskinesia.|
|Show||Parkinson’s disease||Survey on cannabis use in Parkinson’s disease: subjective improvement of motor symptoms.||Venderova K, Ruzicka E, Vorisek V, Visnovsky P.||2004||Cannabis||Survey||25% of the respondents had taken cannabis and 45.9% of these described some form of benefit.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Pain||Does the cannabinoid dronabinol reduce central pain in multiple sclerosis? Randomised double blind placebo controlled crossover trial||Svendsen KB, Jensen TS, Bach FW||2004||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Significant reduction of pain by THC|
|Show||Spasticity;Multiple sclerosis;Pain;Tremor||Do cannabis-based medicinal extracts have general or specific effects on symptoms in multiple sclerosis? A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study on 160 patients.||Wade DT, Makela P, Robson P, House H, Bateman C.||2004||Cannabis||Controlled study||Spasticity scores were significantly reduced by cannabis.|
|Show||Spasticity;Multiple sclerosis||Efficacy of tetrahydrocannabinol in patients refractory to standard antiemetic therapy.Efficacy, safety and tolerability of an orally administered cannabis extract in the treatment of spasticity in patients with multiple sclerosis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study.||Vaney C, Heinzel-Gutenbrunner M, Jobin P, Tschopp F, Gattlen B, Hagen U, Schnelle M, Reif M.||2004||Cannabis||Controlled study||Significant reduction in spasm frequency in the 37 patients who received at least 90% of the dose.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis||An open-label pilot study of cannabis-based extracts for bladder dysfunction in advanced multiple sclerosis.||Brady CM, DasGupta R, Dalton C, Wiseman OJ, Berkley KJ, Fowler CJ.||2004||Cannabis||Open study||Urinary urgency, the number and volume of incontinence episodes, frequency and nocturia all decreased.|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Tremor||The effect of cannabis on tremor in patients with multiple sclerosis.||Fox P, Bain PG, Glickman S, Carroll C, Zajicek J.||2004||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC;Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||No significant improvement of tremor|
|Show||Pain||Are oral cannabinoids safe and effective in refractory neuropathic pain?||Attal N, Brasseur L, Guirimand D, Clermond-Gnamien S, Atlami S, Bouhassira D||2004||Delta-9-THC||Open study||No significant decraese of pain in 7 patients, more than 60% decrease in one patient|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Marijuana withdrawal in humans: effects of oral THC or divalproex.||Haney M, Hart CL, Vosburg SK, Nasser J, Bennett A, Zubaran C, Foltin RW.||2004||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC abolished withdrawal symptoms|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;HIV/AIDS;Pain;Depression||Patterns of marijuana use among patients with HIV/AIDS followed in a public health care setting.||Prentiss D, Power R, Balmas G, Tzuang G, Israelski DM.||2004||Cannabis||Survey||Improvement of pain, appetite and depression/anxiety by using cannabis|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;Spasticity;Pain;Depression||Survey of cannabis use in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.||Amtmann D, Weydt P, Johnson KL, Jensen MP, Carter GT.||2004||Cannabis||Survey||Moderate improvement of pain, spasticity, appetite and depression|
|Show||Pain||Initial experiences with medicinal extracts of cannabis for chronic pain: results from 34 ‘N of 1’ studies.||Notcutt W, Price M, Miller R, Newport S, Phillips C, Simmons S, Sansom C.||2004||Cannabis||Controlled study||Improvement of pain|
|Show||Effect of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on nocturnal sleep and early-morning behavior in young adults.||Nicholson AN, Turner C, Stone BM, Robson PJ.||2004||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC;Cannabidiol||Controlled study||THC had sedative effects, CBD had alerting effects|
|Show||Cannabis improves night vision: A pilot study of dark adaptometry and scotopic sensitivity in kif smokers of the Rif Mountains of Northern Morocco.||Russo EB, Merzouki A, Molero Mesa J, Frey KA, Bach PJ.||2004||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Oral THC and smoking of cannabis improved night vision|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Cannabis as a Substitute for Alcohol: A Harm-Reduction Approach||Mikuriya TH||2004||Cannabis;Nabilone||Uncontrolled case report||Cannabis is a successful substituent of alcohol|
|Show||Spasticity;Spinal cord injury;Multiple sclerosis;Pain||A preliminary controlled study to determine whether whole-plant cannabis extracts can improve intractable neurogenic symptoms.||Wade DT, Robson P, House H, Makela P, Aram J.||2003||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC;Cannabidiol||Controlled study||Pain relief associated with both THC and CBD was significantly superior to placebo. Impaired bladder control, muscle spasms and spasticity were improved by cannabis in some patients|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;Alzheimer’s disease||Safety and efficacy of dronabinol in the treatment of agitation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease with anorexia: A retrospective chart review||Patel S, Shua-Haim JR, Pass M||2003||Delta-9-THC||Open study||Weight gain in all, reduction of agitation in 65%.|
|Show||HIV/AIDS||Short-term effects of cannabinoids in patients with HIV-1 infection: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.||Abrams DI, Hilton JF, Leiser RJ, Shade SB, Elbeik TA, Aweeka FT, Benowitz NL, Bredt BM, Kosel B, Aberg JA, Deeks SG, Mitchell TF, Mulligan K, Bacchetti P, McCune JM, Schambelan M||2003||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Cannabis and THC had no significant effect on HI virus load and on CD4+ and CD8+ cell count|
|Show||Spasticity;Spinal cord injury||The treatment of spasticity with D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (D9-THC) in patients with spinal cord injury||Hagenbach U, Luz S, Brenneisen R, Mäder M||2003||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Significant reduction of spasticity|
|Show||Spasticity;Dystonia;Epilepsy;Anxiety||Experiences with THC-treatment in children and adolescents||Lorenz R||2003||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||Positive effects of THC in children with severe neurological disorders|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Pain||Randomised controlled trial of cannabis based medicinal extracts (CBME) in central neuropathic pain due to multiple sclerosis.||Young CA, Rog DJ||2003||Cannabis||Controlled study||Significant reduction in pain|
|Show||Pain||Efficacy of two cannabis-based medicinal extracts for relief of central neuropathic pain from brachial plexus avulsion: results of a randomised controlled trial||Berman J, Lee J, Cooper M, Cannon A, Sach J, McKerral S, Taggart M, Symonds C, Fishel K, Birch R||2003||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Significant pain relief and improvement of sleep|
|Show||Pain||Analgesic effect of the synthetic cannabinoid CT-3 on chronic neuropathic pain: a randomized controlled trial.||Karst M, Salim K, Burstein S, Conrad I, Hoy L, Schneider U.||2003||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||Significant reduction of pain|
|Show||Pain||Cannabis use for chronic non-cancer pain: results of a prospective survey.||Ware MA, Doyle CR, Woods R, Lynch ME, Clark AJ||2003||Cannabis||Survey||Cannabis use is prevalent among the chronic non-cancer pain population|
|Show||Alzheimer’s disease||Open-label study of dronabinol in the treatment of refractory agitation in Alzheimer’s disease: a pilot study||Ross JS, Shua-Haim JR||2003||Delta-9-THC||Open study||Significant reduction of agitation|
|Show||HIV/AIDS;Pain||The effects of smoked cannabis in painful peripheral neuropathy and cancer pain refractory to opiods.||Abrams DI, Jay Ch, Petersen K, Shade S, Vizoso H, Reda H, Benowitz N, Rowbotham M.||2003||Cannabis||Open study||10 of the 16 participants experienced a greater than 30% reduction in their pain|
|Show||Tourette’s syndrome||Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is effective in the treatment of tics in Tourette syndrome: a 6-week randomized trial.||Muller-Vahl KR, Schneider U, Prevedel H, Theloe K, Kolbe H, Daldrup T, Emrich HM.||2003||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Results provide evidence that THC is effective in the treatment of tics.|
|Show||Pain||Lack of analgesic efficacy of oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in postoperative pain.||Buggy DJ, Toogood L, Maric S, Sharpe P, Lambert DG, Rowbotham DJ||2003||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||5 mg was ineffective in reduding postoperative pain.|
|Show||Spasticity;Multiple sclerosis;Pain||Cannabinoids for treatment of spasticity and other symptoms related to multiple sclerosis (CAMS study): multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial.||Zajicek J, Fox P, Sanders H, Wright D, Vickery J, Nunn A, Thompson A, on behalf of the UK||2003||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||No effect of cannabinoids on spasticity as measured by the Ashworth scale, while patient-reported spasticity and pain decreased.|
|Show||Pain||A case of cannabinoid rotation in a young woman with chronic cystitis||Krenn H Daha LK Oczenski W Fitzgerald R D||2003||Delta-9-THC;Nabilone||Uncontrolled case report||THC reduced pain with low side effects; nabilone caused strong psychic side effects|
|Show||Pain||Cannabis reduces opioid dose in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain.||Lynch ME, Clark AJ.||2003||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Improvement in pain, spasticity, bladder spasm, and sleep.|
|Show||Spasticity;Multiple sclerosis;Pain;Depression||Cannabis use as described by people with multiple sclerosis.||Page SA, Verhoef MJ, Stebbins RA, Metz LM, Levy JC.||2003||Cannabis||Survey||Improvement of pain, spasticity and anxiety/depression|
|Show||Pain||The analgesic effect of oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), morphine, and a THC-morphine combination in healthy subjects under experimental pain conditions.||Naef M, Curatolo M, Petersen-Felix S, Arendt-Nielsen L, Zbinden A, Brenneisen R.||2003||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||No effect of THC on experimental pain in healthy subjects|
|Show||Survey on the medical use of cannabis and THC in Germany.||Grotenhermen F, Schnelle M.||2003||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Survey||Cannabis and THC were effective in many conditions|
|Show||Histamine induced responses are attenuated by a cannabinoid receptor agonist in human skin.||Dvorak M, Watkinson A, McGlone F, Rukwied R.||2003||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||Peripheral administration of HU210 attenuates histamine-induced itch|
|Show||Pain||Cannabinoid agonists attenuate capsaicin-induced responses in human skin.||Rukwied R, Watkinson A, McGlone F, Dvorak M.||2003||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||A topically applied cannabinoid receptor agonist (HU210) reduced pain caused by capsaicin|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;Cancer||Dronabinol versus megestrol acetate versus combination therapy for cancer-associated anorexia: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group study.||Jatoi A, Windschitl HE, Loprinzi CL, Sloan JA, Dakhil SR, Mailliard JA, Pundaleeka S, Kardinal CG, Fitch TR, Krook JE, Novotny PJ, Christensen B.||2002||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||megestrol acetate was superior to THC|
|Show||Pain||[The therapeutic use of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (dronabinol) in refractory neuropathic pain] [Article in French].||Clermont-Gnamien S, Atlani S, Attal N, Le Mercier F, Guirimand F, Brasseur L.||2002||Delta-9-THC||Open study||No signficant effect of THC on pain|
|Show||Tourette’s syndrome||Treatment of Tourette’s syndrome with Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC): a randomized crossover trial.||Muller-Vahl KR, Schneider U, Koblenz A, Jobges M, Kolbe H, Daldrup T, Emrich HM.||2002||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Significant improvement of tics and obsessive-compulsive behavior after treatment with THC.|
|Show||Dystonia||Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the potential of cannabinoid receptor stimulation in the treatment of dystonia.||Fox SH, Kellett M, Moore AP, Crossman AR, Brotchie JM||2002||Nabilone||Controlled study||No significant reduction in dystonia following treatment with nabilone|
|Show||Spasticity;Multiple sclerosis||Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of orally administered cannabinoids in MS.||Killestein J, Hoogervorst EL, Reif M, Kalkers NF, Van Loenen AC, Staats PG, Gorter RW, Uitdehaag BM, Polman CH||2002||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Compared with placebo, neither THC nor plant-extract treatment reduced spasticity.|
|Show||Preliminary observation with dronabinol in patients with intractable pruritus secondary to cholestatic liver disease.||Neff GW, O’Brien CB, Reddy KR, Bergasa NV, Regev A, Molina E, Amaro R, Rodriguez MJ, Chase V, Jeffers L, Schiff E.||2002||Delta-9-THC||Open study||THC signficantly reduced intractable cholestatic related pruritus|
|Show||Spasticity||A casuistic rationale for the treatment of spastic and myocloni in a childhood neurodegenerative disease: neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis of the type Jansky-Bielschowsky.||Lorenz R.||2002||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||Improvement of spasticity|
|Show||Chronic Cannabis Use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program: An Examination of Benefits and Adverse Effects of Legal Clinical Cannabis||E. Russo, M.L. Mathre, A. Byrne, R. Velin, P.J. Bach, J. Sanchez-Ramos, K.A. Kirlin||2002||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Effective treatment of different serious conditions with cannabis|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Crack heads and roots daughters: The therapeutic use of cannabis in Jamaica.||Dreher M.||2002||Cannabis||Open study||Cannabis was the most effective and readily available therapy to quit cocaine use|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting||Hyperemesis Gravidarum and Clinical Cannabis: To Eat or Not to Eat?||Curry W-NL||2002||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Cannabis effective in treating nausea and vomiting in pregnant women|
|Show||Cannabis treatments in obstetrics and gynecology: A historical review.||Russo E.||2002||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Cannabis was effective in a wide range of gynecological conditions|
|Show||Tourette’s syndrome||Müller-Vahl KR, Schneider U, Emrich HM.||Combined treatment of Tourette syndrome with delta-9-THC and dopamine receptor agonists.||2002||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||THC may be combined with neuroleptics|
|Show||Parkinson’s disease||Cannabinoids reduce levodopa-induced dyskinesia in Parkinson’s disease: a pilot study.||Sieradzan KA, Fox SH, Hill M, Dick JP, Crossman AR, Brotchie JM||2001||Nabilone||Controlled study||significant reduction of levodopa-induced dyskinesia|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting||Antiemetic efficacy of smoked marijuana: subjective and behavioral effects on nausea induced by syrup of ipecac.||Soderpalm AH, Schuster A, de Wit H||2001||Cannabis||Controlled study||Ondansetron superior to cannabis in reducing nausea and vomiting|
|Show||Spinal cord injury||Clinical investigation of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as an alternative therapy for overactive bladders in spinal cord injury (SCI) patients.||Hagenbach U, Ghafoor N, Brenneisen R, Luz S, Mäder M.||2001||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Significant improvement of some parameters of bladder function|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis||Acute and chronic effects of cannabis based medicinal extract on refractory lower urinary tract dysfunction in patients with advanced multiple sclerosis – early results||Brady CM, DasGupta R, Wiseman OJ, Berkley KJ, Fowler CJ||2001||Cannabis||Open study||Mean maximum cystometric capacity increased|
|Show||Pain||[Tetrahydrocannabinol for treatment of chronic pain] [Article in German]||Elsner F, Radbruch L, Sabatowski R.||2001||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||Sufficient pain relief in three patients|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Effects of smoked cannabis and oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on nausea and emesis after cancer chemotherapy: A review of state clinical trials.||Musty RE, Rossi R.||2001||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Open study||Cannabis caused symptom relief in 70-100%, dronabinol caused symptom relief in 76-88%|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;Spasticity;Pain||Marijuana in the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.||Carter GT, Rosen BS.||2001||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Cannabis relieved several symptoms of ALS|
|Show||HIV/AIDS||Differential Effects of Medical Marijuana Based on Strain and Route of Administration: A Three-Year Observational Study||Corral VL||2001||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report|
|Show||Hemp for headache: An in-depth historical and scientific review of cannabis in migraine treatment.||Russo EB||2001||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Cannabis may be effective in the treatment of headache|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Appetite loss/weight loss;HIV/AIDS||Marijuana Use in HIV-Positive and AIDS Patients: Results of an Anonymous Mail Survey||Sidney S.||2001||Cannabis||Survey||22.4 % used cannabis for medicinal purposes|
|Show||Pain||Antinociceptive, subjective and behavioral effects of smoked marijuana in humans.||Greenwald MK, Stitzer ML.||2000||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis produced dose-dependent antinociception|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis||Randomised controlled trial of cannabis based medicine (CBM, Stativex®) to treat detrusor overactivity in multiple sclerosis.||Kavia R, De Ridder D, Sarantis N, Constantinescu C, Fowler.||2000||Cannabis||Controlled study||There was no effect on daily incontinence, but the cannabis extract was superior to placebo for nocturia.|
|Show||Tourette’s syndrome||Treatment of Tourette’s syndrome with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.||Muller-Vahl KR, Schneider U, Kolbe H, Emrich HM.||1999||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||Improvement of tics and obsessive-compulsive behavior|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis;Pain||Analgesic effect of the cannabinoid analogue nabilone is not mediated by opioid receptors.||Hamann W, di Vadi PP.||1999||Nabilone||Open study||Relieve of pain|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Therapeutic use of cannabis by crack addicts in Brazil.||Labigalini E Jr, Rodrigues LR, Da Silveira DX.||1999||Cannabis||Open study||Cannabis use helped patients to quit crack use by reducing the craving symptoms|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Therapeutic use of cannabis by crack addicts in Brazil.||Labigalini E, Jr., Rodrigues LR, Da Silveira DX.||1999||Cannabis||Open study||Cannabis reduced craving and helped patients to quit cocaine|
|Show||Bipolar disorders||The use of cannabis as a mood stabilizer in bipolar disorder: anecdotal evidence and the need for clinical research.||Grinspoon L, Bakalar JB.||1998||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||A number of patients find cannabis (marihuana) useful in the treatment of their bipolar disorder|
|Show||Tourette’s syndrome||Cannabinoids: possible role in patho-physiology and therapy of Gilles de la Tourette syndrome.||Muller-Vahl KR, Kolbe H, Schneider U, Emrich HM.||1998||Cannabis||Survey||Evidence that marijuana improves tics and behavioural disorders in TS.|
|Show||Parkinson’s disease||The effects of the cannabinoid receptor agonist nabilone on L-DOPA induced dyskinesia in patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (PD).||Sieradzan KA, Fox SH, Dick J, Brotchie JM.||1998||Nabilone||Controlled study||Activation of cannabinoid receptors can reduce L-DOPA-induced dyskinesia in man without aggravating parkinsonism.|
|Show||Hiccups||Marijuana for intractable hiccups.||Gilson I, Busalacchi M.||1998||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Smoking cannabis stopped hiccups that did not respond to usual medications on the 8th day|
|Show||Spasticity;Multiple sclerosis;Pain;Tremor;Depression||The perceived effects of smoked cannabis on patients with multiple sclerosis.||Consroe P, Musty R, Rein J, Tillery W, Pertwee R||1997||Cannabis||Survey||In more than 80% improvement of spasticity, pain, tremor, depression, anxiety, and paresthesia|
|Show||Pain||Pain relief with oral cannabinoids in familial Mediterranean fever.||Holdcroft A, Smith M, Jacklin A, Hodgson H, Smith B, Newton M, Evans F||1997||Cannabis||Controlled study||reduction of need for morphin|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Intractable nausea and vomiting due to gastrointestinal mucosal metastases relieved by tetrahydrocannabinol (dronabinol).||Gonzalez-Rosales F, Walsh D||1997||Delta-9-THC||Uncontrolled case report||patients was treated with several antiemetic drugs, but it was not until dronabinol was added that the nausea and vomiting stopped|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;HIV/AIDS||Long-term efficacy and safety of dronabinol for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-associated anorexia.||Beal JE, Olson R, Lefkowitz L, Laubenstein L, Bellman P, Yangco B, Morales JO, Murphy R, Powderly W, Plasse TF, Mosdell KW, Shepard KV||1997||Delta-9-THC||Open study||tendency to stable weight for 7 months|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;HIV/AIDS||The safety and pharmacokinetics of single-agent and combination therapy with megestrol acetate and dronabinol for the treatment of HIV wasting syndrome. The DATRI 004 Study Group. Division of AIDS Treatment Research Initiative.||Timpone JG, Wright DJ, Li N, Egorin MJ, Enama ME, Mayers J, Galetto G||1997||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||weight loss with THC, weight gain with megestrol acetate|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;Alzheimer’s disease||Effects of dronabinol on anorexia and disturbed behavior in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.||Volicer L, Stelly M, Morris J, McLaughlin J, Volicer BJ||1997||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||higher weight gain with THC; reduction of disturbed behaviour with THC|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer chemotherapy||Marijuana to prevent nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: a survey of clinical oncologists.||Schwartz RH, Voth EA, Sheridan MJ.||1997||Cannabis||Survey||Only a small percentage of oncologists prescribed marijuana|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis; Spinal cord injury; Spasticity; Pain||The effect of orally and rectally administered delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on spasticity: a pilot study with 2 patients.||Brenneisen R, Egli A, Elsohly MA, Henn V, Spiess Y||1996||Delta-9-THC||improvement of joint function and ability to walk; in 1 patient additional alleviation of pain|
|Show||Cancer chemotherapy; Nausea/vomiting||An efficient new cannabinoid antiemetic in pediatric oncology.||Abrahamov A, Abrahamov A, Mechoulam R||1995||Delta-9-THC||Open study||complete prevention of emesis|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis; Spasticity||Nabilone in the treatment of multiple sclerosis.||Martyn CN, Illis LS, Thom J||1995||Nabilone||Controlled study||improvement of muscle spasms and frequency of nocturia|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;HIV/AIDS;Depression||Dronabinol as a treatment for anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS.||Beal JE, Olson R, Laubenstein L, Morales JO, Bellman P, Yangco B, Lefkowitz L, Plasse TF, Shepard KV||1995||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||increased appetite; improvement in mood; stabel weight|
|Show||Spasticity;Spinal cord injury||Treatment of spasticity in spinal cord injury with dronabinol, a tetrahydrocannabinol derivative.||Kogel RW, Johnson PB, Chintam R, Robinson CJ, Nemchausky BA.||1995||Delta-9-THC||Open study||Spasticity was markedly improved in 2 o 5 patients|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;Cancer||A phase II study of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol for appetite stimulation in cancer-associated anorexia.||Nelson K, Walsh D, Deeter P, Sheehan F||1994||Delta-9-THC||Open study||increase of appetite in 13 patients|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis||Short-term effects of smoking marijuana on balance in patients with multiple sclerosis and normal volunteers||Greenberg HS, Werness SAS, Pugh JE, Andrus RO, Anderson DJ, Domino EF||1994||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis reduced posture and balance in patients with MS|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting||Effect of nabilone on nausea and vomiting after total abdominal hysterectomy.||Lewis IH, Campbell DN, Barrowcliffe MP.||1994||Nabilone||Controlled study||Nabilone and metoclopramide were equally effective in reducing nausea and vomiting|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;HIV/AIDS||Effect of dronabinol on nutritional status in HIV infection.||Struwe M, Kaempfer SH, Geiger CJ, Pavia AT, Plasse TF, Shepard KV, Ries K, Evans TG.||1993||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Trends toward weight gain, improved appetite, decreased symptom stress|
|Show||Tourette’s syndrome||Effective treatment of Tourette’s syndrome with marijuana.||Hemming M, Yellowlees PM.||1993||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Improvement of symptoms with cannabis|
|Show||HIV/AIDS; Appetite loss/weight loss; Depression||Dronabinol stimulates appetite and causes weight gain in HIV patients.||Plasse T, Conant M, Gorter R, Shepard KV||1992||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||increase in appetite, trend toward weight gain|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;HIV/AIDS||Dronabinol effects on weight in patients with HIV infection.||Gorter R, Seefried M, Volberding P||1992||Delta-9-THC||Open study||weight gain|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Dronabinol and prochlorperazine in combination for treatment of cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.||Lane M, Vogel CL, Ferguson J, Krasnow S, Saiers JL, Hamm J||1991||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||prochlorperazine better than THC, both drugs combined better than both alone|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;HIV/AIDS||Recent clinical experience with dronabinol.||Plasse TF, Gorter RW, Krasnow SH, Lane M, Shepard KV, Wadleigh RG||1991||Delta-9-THC||Open study||Significant weight gain|
|Show||Controlled clincal trial of cannabidiol in Huntington’s disease.||Consroe P, Laguna J, Allender J, Snider S, Stern L, Sandyk R, Kennedy K, Schram K||1991||Cannabidiol||Controlled study||CBD was neither symptomatically effective nor toxic.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer chemotherapy||Marijuana as antiemetic medicine: a survey of oncologists’ experiences and attitudes.||Doblin RE, Kleiman MA.||1991||Cannabis||Survey||54% of oncologists thought marijuana should be available on prescription|
|Show||Spasticity;Spinal cord injury;Pain||Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol shows antispastic and analgesic effects in a single case double-blind trial.||Maurer M, Henn V, Dittrich A, Hofmann A||1990||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC and codeine reduced pain; THC reduced spasticity|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;Cancer||Dronabinol enhancement of appetite in cancer patients.||Wadleigh R, Spaulding GM, Lumbersky B, Zimmer M, Shepard K, Plasse T||1990||Delta-9-THC||Open study||Patients continued to loose, but the weight loss decreased in all groups; appetite and mood increased|
|Show||Parkinson’s disease||Marijuana for parkinsonian tremor.||Frankel JP, Hughes A, Lees AJ, Stern GM.||1990||Cannabis||Open study||No improvement of tremor|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss;Cancer||Dronabinol enhancement of appetite in cancer patients.||Wadleigh R, Spaulding GM, Lumbersky B, Zimmer M, Shepard K, Plasse T.||1990||Delta-9-THC||Open study||Dronabinol stimulated mood and appetite|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis; Spasticity; Ataxia||Effect of cannabinoids on spasticity and ataxia in multiple sclerosis.||Meinck HM, Schönle PW, Conrad B||1989||Cannabis||Controlled study||improvement of tremor, spasticity and ataxia|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;HIV/AIDS||Nabilone as effective therapy for intractable nausea and vomiting in AIDS.||Green ST, Nathwani D, Goldberg DJ, Kennedy DH.||1989||Nabilone||Uncontrolled case report||Intractable nausea and vomiting was effectively relieved with nabilone|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Efficacy of tetrahydrocannabinol in patients refractory to standard anti-emetic therapy||McCabe M, Smith FP, Goldberg D, Macdonald J, Woolley PV, Warren R||1988||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC decreased nausea and vomiting in 23 of 36 (64%) patients|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss||Effects of smoked marijuana on food intake and body weight of humans living in a residential laboratory.||Foltin RW, Fischman MW, Byrne MF.||1988||Cannabis||Controlled study||Increases in body weight during periods of active marijuana smoking were greater than predicted by caloric intake alone.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||A randomized trial of oral nabilone and prochlorperazine compared to intravenous metoclopramide and dexamethasone in the treatment of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy regimens containing cisplatin or cisplatin analogues.||Cunningham D, Bradley CJ, Forrest GJ, Hutcheon AW, Adams L, Sneddon M, Harding M, Kerr DJ, Soukop M, Kaye SB.||1988||Nabilone||Open study||Metoclopramide/dexamethasone superior to nabilone/prochlorperazine|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Inhalation marijuana as an antiemetic for cancer chemotherapy.||Vinciguerra V, Moore T, Brennan E.||1988||Cannabis||Open study||Marijuana effective as antiemetic agent|
|Show||Tourette’s syndrome||Marijuana and Tourette’s syndrome.||Sandyk R, Awerbuch G.||1988||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||The patients notes a significant amelioration of symptoms when smoking cannabis|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis; Spasticity||Delta-9-THC in the treatment of spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis.||Ungerleider JT, Andyrsiak T, Fairbanks L, Ellison GW, Myers LW||1987||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||significant subjective improvement in spasticity at doses of 7.5 mg and above; no objective improvement|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Nabilone versus prochlorperazine for control of cancer chemotherapy-induced emesis in children: a double-blind, crossover trial.||Chan HS, Correia JA, MacLeod SM||1987||Nabilone||Controlled study||Nabilone effective as antiemetic drug for children|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting||A double-blind randomised cross-over comparison of nabilone and metoclopramide in the control of radiation-induced nausea.||Priestman SG, Priestman TJ, Canney PA.||1987||Nabilone||Controlled study||Nabilone similar effective as metoclopramide|
|Show||Pain||Lack of effect of cannabidiol in sustained neuropathia.||Lindstrom P, Lindblom U, Boreus L.||1987||Cannabidiol||Controlled study||no effect of CBD on pain|
|Show||Dystonia; Parkinson’s disease||Open label evaluation of cannabidiol in dystonic movement disorders.||Consroe P, Sandyk R, Snider SR||1986||Cannabidiol||Open study||20-50% improvement of dystonia; deterioration of tremor and hypokinesia in 2 patients with Parkinson’s disease|
|Show||Epilepsy||Anticonvulsant effect of cannabidiol.||Ames FR, Cridland S||1986||Cannabidiol||Controlled study||no significant effect in addition to standard medication|
|Show||Spasticity||Effect of Delta-9-THC on EMG Measurements in Human Spasticity||Truong XT, Hanigan WC||1986||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC reduced several types of spastic manifestations|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss||Behavioral analysis of marijuana effects on food intake in humans.||Foltin RW, Fishman MW, Brady JV.||1986||Cannabis||Controlled study||The administration of two or three active marijuana cigarettes during the social access period increased average daily caloric intake.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Nabilone and metoclopramide in the treatment of nausea and vomiting due to cisplatinum: a double blind study.||Crawford SM, Buckman R.||1986||Nabilone||Controlled study||No difference between nabilone and metoclopramide|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Nabilone: an alternative antiemetic for cancer chemotherapy.||Dalzell AM, Bartlett H, Lilleyman JS.||1986||Nabilone||Controlled study||Even for young children nabilone is an effective antiemetic, superior to domperidone.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Crossover comparison of the antiemetic efficacy of nabilone and alizapride in patients with nonseminomatous testicular cancer receiving cisplatin therapy.||Niederle N, Schutte J, Schmidt CG.||1986||Nabilone||Controlled study||Nabilone superior to alizapride.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Prospective randomized double-blind trial of nabilone versus domperidone in the treatment of cytotoxic-induced emesis.||Pomeroy M, Fennelly JJ, Towers M.||1986||Nabilone||Controlled study||Nabilone superior to domperidone|
|Show||Dystonia||Cannabidiol in dystonic movement disorders.||Sandyk R, Snider SR, Consroe P, Elias SM.||1986||Cannabidiol||Uncontrolled case report||Cannabidiol (CBD) reduced dystonic movements|
|Show||Spasticity||The effect of delta-9-THC on human spasticity.||Hanigan WC, Destree R, Truong XT.||1986||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Delta-9-THC proved clinically beneficial in two of five patients with intractable spasticity.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||THC or Compazine for the cancer chemotherapy patient–the UCLA study. Part II: Patient drug preference.||Ungerleider JT, Sarna G, Fairbanks LA, Goodnight J, Andrysiak T, Jamison K.||1985||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||nausea reduction was the main determinant of preference between THC and prochlorperazine|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||A cross-over comparison of nabilone and prochlorperazine for emesis induced by cancer chemotherapy.||Niiranen A, Mattson K.||1985||Nabilone||Controlled study||Nabilone is a moderately effective anti-emetic drug|
|Show||Parkinson’s disease||Beneficial and adverse effects of cannabidiol in a Parkinson patient with sinemet-induced dystonic dyskinesia.||Snider SR, Consroe P.||1985||Cannabidiol||Uncontrolled case report||Improvement of dyskinesia|
|Show||Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Antiemetic efficacy of levonantradol compared to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.||Citron ML, Herman TS, Vreeland F, Krasnow SH, Fossieck BE Jr, Harwood S, Franklin R, Cohen MH.||1985||Delta-9-THC;Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||Levonantradol appears to be at least as effective an antiemetic as THC ; well-tolerated side-effects.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Antiemetic therapy: a review of recent studies and a report of a random assignment trial comparing metoclopramide with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.||Gralla RJ, Tyson LB, Bordin LA, Clark RA, Kelsen DP, Kris MG, Kalman LB, Groshen S||1984||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Poorer antiemetic control and more side effects with dronabinol than with the metoclopramide, both better than placebo|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Randomized double blind comparison of delta-9-tetrahydroicannabinol (THC) and marijuana as chemotherapy antiemetics.||Levitt M, Faiman C, Hawks R, Wilson A||1984||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||9 patients no preference; 7 preferred oral THC, 4 preferred marijuana cigarettes (double-blind, double dummy crossover study)|
|Show||Asthma||Acute and subacute bronchial effects of oral cannabinoids.||Gong H Jr, Tashkin DP, Simmons MS, Calvarese B, Shapiro BJ||1984||Delta-9-THC||Open study||acute bronchodilator activity of delta 9-THC; no effect of cannabidiol; daily use of delta 9-THC not associated with tolerance|
|Show||Dystonia||Treatment of Meige’s syndrome with cannabidiol.||Snider S.R, Consroe P.||1984||Cannabidiol||Uncontrolled case report||50% improvement in spasm severity and frequency|
|Show||Cancer chemotherapy||Dose ranging evaluation of the antiemetic efficacy and toxicity of intramuscular levonantradol in cancer subjects with chemotherapy-induced emesis.||Stambaugh JE Jr, McAdams J, Vreeland F.||1984||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||Levonantradol more effective than placebo|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer||An initial evaluation of Nabilone in the control of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.||Priestman TJ, Priestman SG.||1984||Nabilone||Open study||Patients who did not respond to metaclopramide responded to nabilone.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer||Tetrahydrocannabinol vs. prochlorperazine. The effects of two antiemetics on patients undergoing radiotherapy.||Ungerleider JT, Andrysiak TA, Fairbanks LA, Tesler AS, Parker RG.||1984||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC was slightly superior to prochlorperazine|
|Show||Multiple sclerosis; Tremor||Tetrahydrocannabinol for tremor in multiple sclerosis.||Clifford DB||1983||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||2 patients with objective improvement, 5 with subjective improvement|
|Show||Asthma||Comparison of bronchial effects of nabilone and terbutaline in healthy and asthmatic subjects.||Gong H Jr, Tashkin DP, Calvarese B||1983||Nabilone||Controlled study||moderate bronchodilator action in healthy subjects; no difference to placebo in asthmatics|
|Show||Appetite loss/weight loss||A double-blind trial of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol in primary anorexia nervosa.||Gross H, Ebert MH, Faden VB, Goldberg SC, Kaye WH, Caine ED, Hawks R, Zinberg N||1983||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||no significant difference between THC and diazepam|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Anti-emetic efficacy and toxicity of nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, in lung cancer chemotherapy.||Ahmedzai S, Carlyle DL, Calder IT, Moran F.||1983||Nabilone||Controlled study||Symptom scores were significantly better for patients on nabilone for nausea, retching and vomiting.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||[Randomized comparative trial of a new anti-emetic: nabilone, in cancer patients treated with cisplatin][Article in French]||George M, Pejovic MH, Thuaire M, Kramar A, Wolff JP.||1983||Nabilone||Controlled study||Nabilone, in comparison with chlorpromazine did not significantly reduce the number of vomiting, but most patients preferred nabilone.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||A randomised multicentre single blind comparison of a cannabinoid anti-emetic (levonantradol) with chlorpromazine in patients receiving their first cytotoxic chemotherapy.||Hutcheon AW, Palmer JB, Soukop M, Cunningham D, McArdle C, Welsh J, Stuart F, Sangster G, Kaye S, Charlton D, et al.||1983||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||0.5 mg levonantradol was a more effective antiemtic than 25 mg chlorpromazine|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer chemotherapy||Cannabis and cancer chemotherapy: a comparison of oral delta-9-THC and prochlorperazine.||Ungerleider JT, Andrysiak T, Fairbanks L, Goodnight J, Sarna G, Jamison K.||1982||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||No significant differences between THC and prochlorperazine|
|Show||Spasticity;Spinal cord injury||Cannabis effect on spasticity in spinal cord injury.||Malec J, Harvey RF, Cayner JJ.||1982||Cannabis||Survey||Decreased spasticity with marijuana use|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting||Randomised clinical trial of levonantradol and chlorpromazine in the prevention of radiotherapy-induced vomiting.||Lucraft HH, Palmer MK||1982||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||The frequency of vomiting was similar after levonantradol and chlorpromazine.|
|Show||Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||A double-blind, controlled trial of nabilone vs. prochlorperazine for refractory emesis induced by cancer chemotherapy.||Johansson R, Kilkku P, Groenroos M.||1982||Nabilone||Controlled study||Severity of nausea and number of vomiting ejections and dry retching episodes were significantly less under nabilone.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||A multi-institutional Phase III study of nabilone vs. placebo in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.||Jones SE, Durant JR, Greco FA, Robertone A.||1982||Nabilone||Controlled study||Nabilone is an effective antiemetic agent for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.|
|Show||Spasticity||Treatment of human spasticity with delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol.||Petro DJ, Ellenberger C Jr||1981||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||reduced spasticity with 10 mg THC|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||A prospective evaluation of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an antiemetic in patients receiving adriamycin and cytoxan chemotherapy.||Chang AE, Shiling DJ, Stillman RC, Goldberg NH, Seipp CA, Barofsky I, Rosenberg||1981||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||no significant reduction of the number of vomiting, volume of emesis, degree of nausea, or duration of nausea|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Dose vs response of tetrahydroannabinol (THC) vs prochlorperazine as chemotherapy antiemetics.||Levitt M, Wilson A, Bowman D, Faiman C, Kemel S, Krepart G||1981||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC 15 mg was the most effective against vomiting, prochlorperazine was the most effective antinauseant|
|Show||Pain||Evaluation of intramuscular levonantradol and placebo in acute postoperative pain.||Jain AK, Ryan JR, McMahon FG, Smith G.||1981||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||significant pain relief compared with placebo|
|Show||Glaucoma||Topical delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol and aqueous dynamics in glaucoma.||Merritt JC, Perry DD, Russell DN, Jones BF||1981||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||no effect|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Comparative trial of the antiemetic effects of THC and haloperidol||Neidhart JA, Gagen MM, Wilson HE, Young DC||1981||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC and haloperidol equally effective|
|Show||Cancer chemotherapy;Glaucoma||Physiologic observations in a controlled clinical trial of the antiemetic effectiveness of 5, 10, and 15 mg of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol in cancer chemotherapy. Ophthalmologic implications.||Levitt M, Wilson A, Bowman D, Kemel S, Krepart G, Marks V, Schipper H, Thomson G, Weinerman B, Weinerman R||1981||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||Patients were remarkably free of adverse physiologic effects.|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Nabilone: an effective antiemetic in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.||Einhorn LH, Nagy C, Furnas B, Williams SD.||1981||Nabilone||Controlled study||Sixty patients (75 per cent) reported nabilone to be more effective than prochlorperazine for relief of nausea and vomiting.|
|Show||Pain||A study of levonantradol, a cannabinol derivative, for analgesia in post operative pain.||Kantor TG, Hopper M.||1981||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||Levonantradol has analgetic activity but may have central nervous system adverse effects in humans.|
|Show||Glaucoma||Clinical relevance of cannabis tolerance and dependence.||Jones RT, Benowitz NL, Herning RI.||1981||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study|
|Show||Anxiety||The efficacy and safety of nabilone (a synthetic cannabinoid) in the treatment of anxiety.||Fabre LF, McLendon D.||1981||Nabilone||Controlled study||Dramatic improvement in anxiety|
|Show||Anxiety||Single-dose study of nabilone in anxious volunteers.||Glass RM, Uhlenhuth EH, Hartel FW, Schuster CR, Fischman MW.||1981||Nabilone||Controlled study||Antianxiety effects in 2 of the 8 subjects|
|Show||Pain||Effects of moderate and high doses of marihuana on thermal pain: a sensory decision theory analysis.||Clark WC, Janal MN, Zeidenberg P, Nahas GG.||1981||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis increased perseption of pain|
|Show||Cancer chemotherapy; Nausea/vomiting||Antiemetics in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer: a randomized comparison of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and prochlorperazine.||Sallan SE, Cronin C, Zelen M, Zinberg NE||1980||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||no nausea and vomiting in 36 of 79 courses of chemotherapy with THC compared to 16 of 78 courses in patients who received prochlorperazine; improved appetite with THC|
|Show||Cancer chemotherapy; Nausea/vomiting||Antiemetic effect of tetrahydrocannabinol. Compared with placebo and prochlorperazine in chemotherapy-associated nausea and emesis.||Orr LE, McKernan JF, Bloome B||1980||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||no nausea and no vomiting (complete response) in 73% (40/55 courses) in THC group|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||The antiemetic activity of tetrahydrocanabinol versus metoclopramide and thiethylperazine in patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy.||Colls BM, Ferry DG, Gray AJ, Harvey VJ, McQueen EG.||1980||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||tetrahydrocannabinol given by mouth has an antiemetic effect of approximately the same order as thiethylperazine and metoclopramide|
|Show||Epilepsy||Chronic administration of cannabidiol to healthy volunteers and epileptic patients.||Cunha JM, Carlini EA, Pereira AE, Ramos OL, Pimentel C, Gagliardi R, Sanvito WL, Lander N, Mechoulam R||1980||Cannabidiol||Controlled study||4 of the 8 CBD subjects remained almost free of convulsive crises and 3 other patients demonstrated partial improvement|
|Show||Spasticity;Pain||Marihuana as a therapeutic agent for muscle spasm or spasticity.||Petro DJ||1980||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Relief from spasticity and pain|
|Show||Glaucoma||Effect of marihuana on intraocular and blood pressure in glaucoma.||Merritt JC, Crawford WJ, Alexander PC, Anduze AL, Gelbart SS||1980||Cannabis||Controlled study||Marihuana inhalation decreased intraocular and blood pressure.|
|Show||Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Double-blind comparison of the antiemetic effects of nabilone and prochlorperazine on chemotherapy-induced emesis.||Steele N, Gralla RJ, Braun DW Jr, Young CW.||1980||Nabilone||Controlled study||Both nabilone and prochlorperazine produced antiemetic effects|
|Show||Epilepsy||Chronic administration of cannabidiol to healthy volunteers and epileptic patients.||Cunha JM, Carlini EA, Pereira AE, Ramos OL, Pimentel C, Gagliardi R, Sanvito WL, Lander N, Mechoulam R||1980||Cannabidiol||Controlled study||4 of the 8 CBD subjects remained almost free of convulsive crises and 3 other patients demonstrated partial improvement|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an antiemetic for patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. A comparison with prochlorperazine and a placebo.||Frytak S, Moertel CG, O’Fallon JR, Rubin J, Creagan ET, O’Connell MJ, Schutt AJ, Schwartau NW||1979||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC and PCP equally effective; both better than placebo; THC produced psychic effects in 82%|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an antiemetic in cancer patients receiving high-dose methotrexate. A prospective, randomized evaluation.||Chang AE, Shiling DJ, Stillman RC, Goldberg NH, Seipp CA, Barofsky I, Simon RM, Rosenberg SA.||1979||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||14 of 15 patients had decreased vomiting and nausea|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as an antiemetic in patients treated with cancer chemotherapy; a double-blind cross-over trial against placebo||Kluin-Nelemans JC, Nelemans FA, Meuwissen OJATh, Maes RAA||1979||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||dronabinol superior to placebo (P<.01 for difference between groups at days 1 and 8 independently)|
|Show||Glaucoma||Effects of tetrahydrocannabinol on arterial and intraocular hypertension.||Crawford WJ, Merritt JC||1979||Cannabis||Controlled study||drop in IOP parallel with drop in arterial blood pressure|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting||Amelioration of cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.||Ekert H, Waters KD, Jurk IH, Mobilia J, Loughnan P||1979||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC was effective in reducing nausea and vomiting but not in all patients|
|Show||Nausea/vomiting;Cancer;Cancer chemotherapy||Superiority of nabilone over prochlorperazine as an antiemetic in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.||Herman TS, Einhorn LH, Jones SE, Nagy C, Chester AB, Dean JC, Furnas B, Williams SD, Leigh SA, Dorr RT, Moon TE.||1979||Nabilone||Controlled study||When both drugs were compared, both nausea and vomiting episodes were significantly lower in patients given nabilone.|
|Show||Pain||Effect of benzopyranoperidine, a delta-9-THC congener, on pain.||Jochimsen PR, Lawton RL, VerSteeg K, Noyes Jr R||1978||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||Bezopyranoperidine was not more effective than placebo|
|Show||Cancer;Pain||Effect of a nitrogen analog of tetrahydrocannabinol on cancer pain.||Staquet M, Gantt C, Machin D.||1978||Other cannabinoids||Controlled study||NIB was superior to placebo and to secobarbital but is not useful clinically because of the frequency of side effects.|
|Show||Glaucoma||Effect of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on intraocular pressure in humans.||Cooler P, Gregg JM||1977||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||reduction in intraocular pressure|
|Show||Pain||Effects of intravenous tetrahydrocannabinol on experimental and surgical pain. Psychological correlates of the analgesic response.||Raft D, Gregg J, Ghia J, Harris L||1977||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||No pain relief with THC|
|Show||Asthma||Bronchial effects of aerosolized delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol in healthy and asthmatic subjects.||Tashkin DP, Reiss S, Shapiro BJ, Calvarese B, Olsen JL, Lodge JW.||1977||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||THC effective in healthy subjects and 3 asthmatic subjects; aerosol caused bronchoconstriction in 2 asthmatic subjects|
|Show||Cancer; Appetite loss/weight loss; Depression||Regelson W, Butler JR, Schulz J, Kirk T, Peek L, Green ML, Zalis MO||1976||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||weight gain with THC; weight los with placebo|
|Show||Asthma||Bronchodilator effect of delta1-tetrahydrocannabinol administered by aerosol of asthmatic patients.||Williams SJ, Hartley JP, Graham JD||1976||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||significant broncholdilation with THC; faster action of salbutamol but both drugs equivalent at 1 hour|
|Show||Cancer chemotherapy; Nausea/vomiting||Antiemetic effect of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.||Sallan SE, Zinberg NE, Frei E 3d||1975||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||for patients completing the study there were 5 complete responses (no vomiting) and 7 partial responses (50% decrease of vomiting) of overall 15 courses|
|Show||Cancer; Pain||Analgesic effect of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.||Noyes R Jr, Brunk SF, Baram DA, Canter A||1975||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||pain relief with 15-20 mg THC|
|Show||Cancer; Pain||The analgesic properties of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and codeine.||Noyes R Jr, Brunk SF, Avery DAH, Canter AC||1975||Delta-9-THC||Controlled study||milde analgesic effect; with 20 mg THC strong adverse effects|
|Show||Epilepsy||Anticonvulsant nature of marihuana smoking.||Consroe PF, Wood GC, Buchsbaum H||1975||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Cannabis was able to control seizures in conjunction with phenobarbital and diphenylhydantoin.|
|Show||Asthma||Effects of smoked marijuana in experimentally induced asthma.||Tashkin DP, Shapiro BJ, Lee YE, Harper CE||1975||Cannabis||Controlled study||after experimental induction of acute bronchospasm prompt correction of the bronchospasm with cannabis|
|Show||Glaucoma||Marijuana smoking and reduced pressure in human eyes: drug action or epiphenomenon?||Flom MC, Adams AJ, Jones RT||1975||Delta-9-THC||Open study||IOP reduction in 7 of 15|
|Show||Asthma||Acute effects of smoked marijuana and oral delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol on specific airway conductance in asthmatic subjects.||Tashkin DP, Shapiro BJ, Frank IM.||1974||Cannabis;Delta-9-THC;Cannabidiol||Controlled study||Smoked marijuana and oral THC caused significant bronchodilation of at least 2 hours duration.|
|Show||Spasticity;Spinal cord injury;Pain||The perceived effects of marijuana on spinal cord injured males.||Dunn M, Davis R.||1974||Cannabis||Survey||Decrease in pain and spasticity.|
|Show||Pain||Marihuana and pain.||Hill SY, Schwin R, Goodwin DW, Powell B.||1974||Cannabis||Controlled study||Cannabis increased pain sensitivity|
|Show||Glaucoma||Marihuana smoking and intraocular pressure.||Hepler RS, Frank IR||1971||Cannabis||Open study||9 of 11 had drop in intraocular pressure of 16-45%|
|Show||Dependency/withdrawal||Cannabis substitution. An adjunctive therapeutic tool in the treatment of alcoholism.||Mikuriya TH||1970||Cannabis||Uncontrolled case report||Marijuana consumption may help to decrease alcolholic intake.|
I was forwarded this beautifully written email to our Police Minister and wanted to share it, as I feel it sums up exactly the issues NZ faces with it’s draconian cannabis prohibition law.
——– Forwarded Message ——–
|Date:||Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:58:56 +1300|
Judith Collins MP Police Minister kia ora Judith I saw on parliament TV yesterday, that the Govt. is looking to try & resolve 'the gang problem'. May I suggest, you take a radical shift away from, the standard response of 'get tough, lock them up' etc. The main source of their income is supposedly illegal drugs (mostly cannabis ?). Maybe it was time that Aotearoa/NZ looked to changes occurring overseas; Australia, Canada, parts of EU & several states in USA. They are moving from the outdated, zero-tolerance approach, to decriminalisation & legal regulation (similar to Alcohol). License the drug cultivation & supply (R18) to registered manufacturers & TAX it. This would bolster the total revenue take, this could then be put back into Education, employment & other social services. I read that in these other countries, use rates decline after they made changes & the 'novelty wore off'. Prohibition actually creates the 'mystique' that attracts rebellious youth/people to drugs, not away. It is increasingly been seen that, as with Alcohol in 1920s USA (Al Capone etc.), prohibition creates black-markets, gangsters & corruption, that are the main issues around 'the Gangs of Aotearoa'. Alcohol prohibition in USA was repealed in 1933 as a total failure & replaced with 'legal regulation', that continues today. There is an old saying 'If you fail to learn from the mistakes of the past, you are doomed to repeat them' & we repeat them we have ! just my 10c worth cheers [redacted] Citizen & Voter of NZ Advocate for law reform :-)
I proudly present my “Colorado Conversion”. A version of the US law modified for New Zealand, and a call for help to all legal minds to make history and participate in the first ever open sourced private members bill for parliament!
This is OPEN SOURCE government the document below can be edited by anyone, even anonymously without a Google account, you can also use the link to download it as PDF, DOCX formats for printing.
The following is a static copy of the Google Doc above, in case of any issues with that document. It can become out of date compared to the version above, dated 2 March 2016.
A Bill On The Use and Regulation of Cannabis
Based on the US Colorado use regulation bill and Colorado medical cannabis code
Initial conversion to New Zealand by Tom Atkinson aka Tomachi.TV
Under development as a private member’s bill for The Cannabis Party cannabis.org.nz
Permalink for this bill: http://www.legalise.org.nz/cannabis-bill/
Summary of the measure:
Be it Enacted by the People of New Zealand:
Cannabis sativa and plant extracts of cannabis be removed from the schedules of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 of New Zealand by amendment; and in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of Cannabis; permitting a person eighteen years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of Cannabis; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring Parliament to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of Cannabis; requiring that the first $20 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to a Student Loans Assistance fund; and second $20 million to a school construction fund.
(a) In the interest of the efficient use of law enforcement resources, enhancing revenue for public purposes, and individual freedom, the people of New Zealand find and declare that the use of Cannabis should be legal for persons eighteen years of age or older and taxed in a manner similar to alcohol.
(b) In the interest of the health and public safety of our citizenry, the people of New Zealand further find and declare that Cannabis should be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol so that:
(i) Individuals will have to show proof of age before purchasing Cannabis;
(ii) Selling, distributing, or transferring Cannabis to minors and other individuals under the age of eighteen shall remain illegal;
(iii) Driving under the influence of Cannabis shall remain illegal;
(iv) Legitimate, taxpaying business people, and not criminal actors, will conduct sales of Cannabis; and
(v) Cannabis sold in new zealand will be labeled and subject to additional regulations to ensure that consumers are informed and protected.
(c) In the interest of enacting rational policies for the treatment of all variations of the cannabis plant, the people of New Zealand further find and declare that industrial hemp should be regulated separately from strains of cannabis with higher delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations.
(d) The people of New Zealand further find and declare that it is necessary to ensure consistency and fairness in the application of this section throughout New Zealand and that, therefore, the matters addressed by this section are, except as specified herein, matters of nationwide concern.
As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) “New Zealand medical Cannabis code” refers to the code included in this document.
(b) “Consumer” means a person eighteen years of age or older who purchases Cannabis or Cannabis products for personal use by persons eighteen years of age or older, but not for resale to others.
(c) “Department” means the Department of Inland Revenue or its successor agency.
(d) “Industrial Hemp” means the plant of the genus Cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed three-tenths of a percent on a dry weight basis.
(e) “Locality” means a county, municipality, or city and county.
(f) “Cannabis” or “marihuana” means all parts of the plant of the genus cannabis whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the plant, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or its resin, including Cannabis concentrate. “Cannabis” or “marihuana” does not include industrial hemp, nor does it include fiber produced from the stalks, oil, or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with Cannabis to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product.
(g) “Cannabis accessories” means any equipment, products, or materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, composting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, vaporizing, or containing Cannabis, or for ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing Cannabis into the human body.
(h) “Cannabis cultivation facility” means an entity licensed to cultivate, prepare, and package Cannabis and sell Cannabis to retail Cannabis stores, to Cannabis product manufacturing facilities, and to other Cannabis cultivation facilities, but not to consumers.
(i) “Cannabis establishment” means a Cannabis cultivation facility, a Cannabis testing facility, a Cannabis product manufacturing facility, or a retail Cannabis store.
(j) “Cannabis product manufacturing facility” means an entity licensed to purchase Cannabis; manufacture, prepare, and package Cannabis products; and sell Cannabis and Cannabis products to other Cannabis product manufacturing facilities and to retail Cannabis stores, but not to consumers.
(k) “Cannabis products” means concentrated Cannabis products and Cannabis products that are comprised of Cannabis and other ingredients and are intended for use or consumption, such as, but not limited to, edible products, ointments, and tinctures.
(l) “Cannabis testing facility” means an entity licensed to analyse and certify the safety and potency of Cannabis.
(m) “Medical Cannabis center” means an entity licensed by a local council to sell Cannabis and Cannabis products pursuant to the New Zealand medical Cannabis code.
(n) “Retail Cannabis store” means an entity licensed to purchase Cannabis from Cannabis cultivation facilities and Cannabis and Cannabis products from Cannabis product manufacturing facilities and to sell Cannabis and Cannabis products to consumers.
(o) “Unreasonably impracticable” means that the measures necessary to comply with the regulations require such a high investment of risk, money, time, or any other resource or asset that the operation of a Cannabis establishment is not worthy of being carried out in practice by a reasonably prudent businessperson.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under New Zealand law or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under New Zealand law for persons eighteen years of age or older:
(a) Possessing, using, displaying, purchasing, or transporting Cannabis accessories or one ounce or less of Cannabis.
(b) Possessing, growing, processing, or transporting no more than six Cannabis plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants, and possession of the Cannabis produced by the plants on the premises where the plants were grown, provided that the growing takes place in an enclosed, locked space, is not conducted openly or publicly, and is not made available for sale.
(c) Transfer of one ounce or less of Cannabis without remuneration to a person who is eighteen years of age or older.
(d) Consumption of Cannabis, provided that nothing in this section shall permit consumption that is conducted openly and publicly or in a manner that endangers others.
(e) Assisting another person who is eighteen years of age or older in any of the acts described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this subsection.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under New Zealand law or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under New Zealand law for persons eighteen years of age or older:
(a) Manufacture, possession, or purchase of Cannabis accessories or the sale of Cannabis accessories to a person who is eighteen years of age or older.
(b) Possessing, displaying, or transporting Cannabis or Cannabis products; purchase of Cannabis from a Cannabis cultivation facility; purchase of Cannabis or Cannabis products from a Cannabis product manufacturing facility; or sale of Cannabis or Cannabis products to consumers, if the person conducting the activities described in this paragraph has obtained a current, valid license to operate a retail Cannabis store or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee or agent of a licensed retail Cannabis store.
(c) Cultivating, harvesting, processing, packaging, transporting, displaying, or possessing Cannabis; delivery or transfer of Cannabis to a Cannabis testing facility; selling Cannabis to a Cannabis cultivation facility, a Cannabis product manufacturing facility, or a retail Cannabis store; or the purchase of Cannabis from a Cannabis cultivation facility, if the person conducting the activities described in this paragraph has obtained a current, valid license to operate a Cannabis cultivation facility or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee, or agent of a licensed Cannabis cultivation facility.
(d) Packaging, processing, transporting, manufacturing, displaying, or possessing Cannabis or Cannabis products; delivery or transfer of Cannabis or Cannabis products to a Cannabis testing facility; selling Cannabis or Cannabis products to a retail Cannabis store or a Cannabis product manufacturing facility; the purchase of Cannabis from a Cannabis cultivation facility; or the purchase of Cannabis or Cannabis products from a Cannabis product manufacturing facility, if the person conducting the activities described in this paragraph has obtained a current, valid license to operate a Cannabis product manufacturing facility or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee, or agent of a licensed Cannabis product manufacturing facility.
(e) Possessing, cultivating, processing, repackaging, storing, transporting, displaying, transferring or delivering Cannabis or Cannabis products if the person has obtained a current, valid license to operate a Cannabis testing facility or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee, or agent of a licensed Cannabis testing facility.
(f) Leasing or otherwise allowing the use of property owned, occupied or controlled by any person, corporation or other entity for any of the activities conducted lawfully in accordance with paragraphs (a) through (e) of this subsection.
(a) Not later than July 1, 2016 [CHECKDATE], the department shall adopt regulations necessary for implementation of this section. Such regulations shall not prohibit the operation of Cannabis establishments, either expressly or through regulations that make their operation unreasonably impracticable. Such regulations shall include:
(i) Procedures for the issuance, renewal, suspension, and revocation of a license to operate a Cannabis establishment, with such procedures subject to all requirements of the sale and supply of alcohol act 2012 [CHECKLAW] or any successor provision;
(ii) A schedule of application, licensing and renewal fees, provided, application fees shall not exceed five thousand dollars, with this upper limit adjusted annually for inflation, unless the department determines a greater fee is necessary to carry out its responsibilities under this section, and provided further, an entity that is licensed under the New Zealand medical Cannabis code to cultivate or sell Cannabis or to manufacture Cannabis products at the time this section takes effect and that chooses to apply for a separate Cannabis establishment license shall not be required to pay an application fee greater than five hundred dollars to apply for a license to operate a Cannabis establishment in accordance with the provisions of this section;
(iii) Qualifications for licensure that are directly and demonstrably related to the operation of a Cannabis establishment;
(iv) Security requirements for Cannabis establishments;
(v) Requirements to prevent the sale or diversion of Cannabis and Cannabis products to persons under the age of eighteen;
(vi) Labeling requirements for Cannabis and Cannabis products sold or distributed by a Cannabis establishment;
(vii) Health and safety regulations and standards for the manufacture of Cannabis products and the cultivation of Cannabis;
(viii) Restrictions on the advertising and display of Cannabis and Cannabis products; and
(ix) Civil penalties for the failure to comply with regulations made pursuant to this section.
(b) In order to ensure the most secure, reliable, and accountable system for the production and distribution of Cannabis and Cannabis products in accordance with this subsection, in any competitive application process the department shall have as a primary consideration whether an applicant:
(i) Has prior experience producing or distributing Cannabis or Cannabis products pursuant to section 14 of this article and the New Zealand medical Cannabis code in the locality in which the applicant seeks to operate a Cannabis establishment; and
(ii) Has, during the experience described in subparagraph (i), complied consistently with section 14 of this article, the provisions of the New Zealand medical Cannabis code and conforming regulations.
(c) In order to ensure that individual privacy is protected, notwithstanding paragraph (a), the department shall not require a consumer to provide a retail Cannabis store with personal information other than government-issued identification to determine the consumer’s age, and a retail Cannabis store shall not be required to acquire and record personal information about consumers other than information typically acquired in a financial transaction conducted at a retail liquor store.
(d) Parliament shall enact an excise tax to be levied upon Cannabis sold or otherwise transferred by a Cannabis cultivation facility to a Cannabis product manufacturing facility or to a retail Cannabis store at a rate not to exceed fifteen percent prior to January 1, 2017 [CHECKDATE] and at a rate to be determined by Parliament thereafter, and shall direct the department to establish procedures for the collection of all taxes levied. Provided, the first twenty million dollars in revenue raised annually from any such excise tax shall be disbursed evenly to all students with student loan, and the second twenty million dollars do a school capital construction fund dedicated to early childcare, primary and secondary schools. Provided further, no such excise tax shall be levied upon Cannabis intended for sale at medical Cannabis centers pursuant to section 14 of this article and the New Zealand medical Cannabis code.
(e) Not later than July 1, 2017 [CHECKDATE], each locality shall enact an ordinance or regulation specifying the entity within the locality that is responsible for processing applications submitted for a license to operate a Cannabis establishment within the boundaries of the locality and for the issuance of such licenses should the issuance by the locality become necessary because of a failure by the department to adopt regulations pursuant to paragraph (a) or because of a failure by the department to process and issue licenses as required by paragraph (g).
(f) A locality may enact ordinances or regulations, not in conflict with this section or with regulations or legislation enacted pursuant to this section, governing the time, place, manner and number of Cannabis establishment operations; establishing procedures for the issuance, suspension, and revocation of a license issued by the locality in accordance with paragraph (h) or (i), such procedures to be subject to all requirements of article 4 of title 24 of the New Zealand administrative procedure act or any successor provision; establishing a schedule of annual operating, licensing, and application fees for Cannabis establishments, provided, the application fee shall only be due if an application is submitted to a locality in accordance with paragraph (i) and a licensing fee shall only be due if a license is issued by a locality in accordance with paragraph (h) or (i); and establishing civil penalties for violation of an ordinance or regulation governing the time, place, and manner of a Cannabis establishment that may operate in such locality. A locality may prohibit the operation of Cannabis cultivation facilities, Cannabis product manufacturing facilities, Cannabis testing facilities, or retail Cannabis stores through the enactment of an ordinance or through an initiated or referred measure; provided, any initiated or referred measure to prohibit the operation of Cannabis cultivation facilities, Cannabis product manufacturing facilities, Cannabis testing facilities, or retail Cannabis stores must appear on a general election ballot during an even numbered year.
(g) Each application for an annual license to operate a Cannabis establishment shall be submitted to the department. The department shall:
(i) Begin accepting and processing applications on July 1, 2016 [CHECKDATE];
(ii) Immediately forward a copy of each application and half of the license application fee to the locality in which the applicant desires to operate the Cannabis establishment;
(iii) Issue an annual license to the applicant between forty-five and ninety days after receipt of an application unless the department finds the applicant is not in compliance with regulations enacted pursuant to paragraph (a) or the department is notified by the relevant locality that the applicant is not in compliance with ordinances and regulations made pursuant to paragraph (f) and in effect at the time of application, provided, where a locality has enacted a numerical limit on the number of Cannabis establishments and a greater number of applicants seek licenses, the department shall solicit and consider input from the locality as to the locality’s preference or preferences for licensure; and (iv) upon denial of an application, notify the applicant in writing of the specific reason for its denial.
(h) If the department does not issue a license to an applicant within ninety days of receipt of the application filed in accordance with paragraph (g) and does not notify the applicant of the specific reason for its denial, in writing and within such time period, or if the department has adopted regulations pursuant to paragraph (a) and has accepted applications pursuant to paragraph (g) but has not issued any licenses by July 1, 2017 [CHECKDATE], the applicant may resubmit its application directly to the locality, pursuant to paragraph (e), and the locality may issue an annual license to the applicant. A locality issuing a license to an applicant shall do so within ninety days of receipt of the resubmitted application unless the locality finds and notifies the applicant that the applicant is not in compliance with ordinances and regulations made pursuant to paragraph (f) in effect at the time the application is resubmitted and the locality shall notify the department if an annual license has been issued to the applicant. If an application is submitted to a locality under this paragraph, the department shall forward to the locality the application fee paid by the applicant to the department upon request by the locality. A license issued by a locality in accordance with this paragraph shall have the same force and effect as a license issued by the department in accordance with paragraph (g) and the holder of such license shall not be subject to regulation or enforcement by the department during the term of that license. A subsequent or renewed license may be issued under this paragraph on an annual basis only upon resubmission to the locality of a new application submitted to the department pursuant to paragraph (g).
(i) If the department does not adopt regulations required by paragraph (a), an applicant may submit an application directly to a locality after July 1, 2017 [CHECKDATE] and the locality may issue an annual license to the applicant. A locality issuing a license to an applicant shall do so within ninety days of receipt of the application unless it finds and notifies the applicant that the applicant is not in compliance with ordinances and regulations made pursuant to paragraph (f) in effect at the time of application and shall notify the department if an annual license has been issued to the applicant. A license issued by a locality in accordance with this paragraph shall have the same force and effect as a license issued by the department in accordance with paragraph (g) and the holder of such license shall not be subject to regulation or enforcement by the department during the term of that license. A subsequent or renewed license may be issued under this paragraph on an annual basis if the department has not adopted regulations required by paragraph (a) at least ninety days prior to the date upon which such subsequent or renewed license would be effective or if the department has adopted regulations pursuant to paragraph (a) but has not, at least ninety days after the adoption of such regulations, issued licenses pursuant to paragraph (g).
(j) Not later than July 1, 2016 [CHECKDATE], Parliament shall enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing and sale of industrial hemp.
(a) Nothing in this section is intended to require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale or growing of Cannabis in the workplace or to affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of Cannabis by employees.
(b) Nothing in this section is intended to allow driving under the influence of Cannabis or driving while impaired by Cannabis or to supersede statutory laws related to driving under the influence of Cannabis or driving while impaired by Cannabis, nor shall this section prevent the government from enacting and imposing penalties for driving under the influence of or while impaired by Cannabis.
(c) Nothing in this section is intended to permit the transfer of Cannabis, with or without remuneration, to a person under the age of eighteen or to allow a person under the age of eighteen to purchase, possess, use, transport, grow, or consume Cannabis.
(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a person, employer, school, hospital, detention facility, corporation or any other entity who occupies, owns or controls a property from prohibiting or otherwise regulating the possession, consumption, use, display, transfer, distribution, sale, transportation, or growing of Cannabis on or in that property.
Nothing in this section shall be construed:
(a) To limit any privileges or rights of a medical Cannabis patient, primary caregiver, or licensed entity as provided in section 14 of this article and the New Zealand medical Cannabis code;
(b) To permit a medical Cannabis center to distribute Cannabis to a person who is not a medical Cannabis patient;
(c) To permit a medical Cannabis center to purchase Cannabis or Cannabis products in a manner or from a source not authorised under the New Zealand medical Cannabis code;
(d) To permit any medical Cannabis center licensed pursuant to section 14 of this article and the New Zealand medical Cannabis code to operate on the same premises as a retail Cannabis store; or
(e) To discharge the department, the New Zealand board of health, or the New Zealand Ministry of Health from their statutory and constitutional duties to regulate medical Cannabis pursuant to section 14 of this article and the New Zealand medical Cannabis code.
All provisions of this section are self-executing except as specified herein, are severable, and, except where otherwise indicated in the text, shall supersede conflicting local government, local charter, ordinance, or resolution, and other local council provisions.
Unless otherwise provided by this section, all provisions of this section shall become effective upon official declaration of the vote hereon by proclamation of the governor general
-Section 101. Short title.
This article shall be known and may be cited as the “New Zealand Medical Cannabis Code”.
-Section 102. Legislative declaration.
(1) Parliament hereby declares that this article shall be deemed an exercise for the protection of the economic and social welfare and the health, peace, and morals of the people of this country.
(2) Parliament further declares that it is unlawful to cultivate, manufacture, distribute, or sell medical Cannabis, except in compliance with the terms, conditions, limitations, and restrictions in section this article or when acting as a primary caregiver in compliance with the terms, conditions, limitations, and restrictions of the Public Health and Disability Amendment Act 2013.
-Section 103. Applicability.
(1) (a) On July 1, 2016 [CHECKDATE], a person who is operating an established, locally approved business for the purpose of cultivation, manufacture, or sale of medical Cannabis or medical Cannabis-infused products or a person who has applied to a local government to operate a locally approved business for the purpose of cultivation, manufacture, or sale of medical Cannabis or medical Cannabis-infused products which is subsequently granted may continue to operate that business in accordance with any applicable national or local laws. “Established”, as used in this paragraph (a), shall mean owning or leasing a space with a storefront and remitting sales taxes in a timely manner on retail sales of the business as required pursuant to relevant applicable sales taxes.
(b) To continue operating a business or operation as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), the owner shall, on or before July 1, 2016 [CHECKDATE], complete forms as provided by the department of inland revenue and shall pay a fee, which shall be credited to the medical Cannabis license cash fund established pursuant to section 501. The purpose of the fee shall be to pay for the direct and indirect costs of the National Licensing Authority and the development of application procedures and rules necessary to implement this article. Payment of the fee and completion of the form shall not create a local or national license or a present or future entitlement to receive a license. An owner issued a local license after July 1, 2016 [CHECKDATE], shall complete the forms and pay the fee pursuant to this paragraph (b) within thirty days after issuance of the local license. In addition to any criminal penalties for selling without a license, it shall be unlawful to continue operating a business or operation without filing the forms and paying the fee as described in this paragraph (b), and any violation of this section shall be prima-facie evidence of unsatisfactory character, record, and reputation for any future application for license under this article.
(c) Local councils shall provide to the National Licensing Authority, upon request, a list that includes the name and location of each local center or operation licensed in said region, so that the National Licensing Authority can identify any center or operation operating unlawfully.
(2) (a) Prior to July 1, 2016 [CHECKDATE], a local council may adopt and enforce a resolution or ordinance licensing, regulating, or prohibiting the cultivation or sale of medical Cannabis. In a region where such an ordinance or resolution has been adopted, a person who is not registered as a patient or primary caregiver pursuant to the Medical Cannabis Code, and who is cultivating or selling medical Cannabis shall not be entitled to an affirmative defence to a criminal prosecution as provided for in this document unless the person is in compliance with the applicable local council bylaw.
(b) On or before July 1, 2016 [CHECKDATE], a business or operation shall certify that it is cultivating at least seventy percent of the medical Cannabis necessary for its operation.
(c) On and after July 1, 2016 [CHECKDATE], all businesses for the purpose of cultivation, manufacture, or sale of medical Cannabis or medical Cannabis-infused products, as defined in this article, shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this article and any rules promulgated pursuant to this article; except that a person that has met the deadlines set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section that has not had its application acted upon by the National Licensing Authority may continue to operate until action is taken on the application, unless the person is operating in a local council jurisdiction that has imposed a prohibition on licensure. While continuing to operate prior to the National Licensing Authority acting on the application, the person shall otherwise be subject to the terms and conditions of this article and all rules promulgated pursuant to this article.
(d) (I) On and after July 1, 2016 [CHECKDATE], persons who did not meet all requirements of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section as of July 1, 2016 [CHECKDATE], may begin to apply for a license pursuant to this article. A business or operation that applies and is approved for its license after July 1, 2016 [CHECKDATE], shall certify to the National Licensing Authority that it is cultivating at least seventy percent of the medical Cannabis necessary for its operation within ninety days after being licensed.
(II) For those persons that are licensed prior to July 1, 2016 [CHECKDATE], the person may apply to the local council and national licensing authorities regarding changes to its license and may apply for a new license if the license is for a business that has been licensed and the person is purchasing that business or if the business is changing license type.
(III) For a person who has met the deadlines set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section and who has lost his or her location because a city council has voted pursuant to section 106 to ban his or her operation, the person may apply for a new license with a local licensing authority and transfer the location of its pending application with the National Licensing Authority.
(e) This article sets forth the exclusive means by which manufacture, sale, distribution, and dispensing of medical Cannabis may occur in New Zealand.
-Section 104. Definitions.
As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) “Good cause”, for purposes of refusing or denying a license renewal, reinstatement, or initial license issuance, means:
(a) The licensee or applicant has violated, does not meet, or has failed to comply with any of the terms, conditions, or provisions of this article, any rules promulgated pursuant to this article, or any supplemental local law, rules, or regulations;
(b) The licensee or applicant has failed to comply with any special terms or conditions that were placed on its license pursuant to an order of the national or local licensing authority;
(c) The licensed premises have been operated in a manner that adversely affects the public health or welfare or the safety of the immediate neighborhood in which the establishment is located.
(1.5) “Immature plant” means a nonflowering medical Cannabis plant that is no taller than 25 centimeters and no wider than 25 centimeters produced from a cutting, clipping, or seedling and that is in a growing container that is no larger than seven centimeters wide and seven centimeters tall that is sealed on the sides and bottom.
(2) “License” means to grant a license or registration pursuant to this article.
(3) “Licensed premises” means the premises specified in an application for a license under this article, which are owned or in possession of the licensee and within which the licensee is authorised to cultivate, manufacture, distribute, or sell medical Cannabis in accordance with the provisions of this article.
(4) “Licensee” means a person licensed or registered pursuant to this article.
(5) “Local licensing authority” means an authority designated by municipal or county charter, ordinance, or resolution, or the governing body of a municipality, city and county, or the board of county commissioners of a county if no such authority is designated.
(6) “Location” means a particular parcel of land that may be identified by an address or other descriptive means.
(7) “Medical Cannabis” means Cannabis that is grown and sold pursuant to the provisions of this article but shall not be considered a nonprescription drug or an over-the-counter medication.
(8) “Medical Cannabis center” means a person licensed pursuant to this article to operate a business as described in section 402 that sells medical Cannabis to registered patients or primary caregivers, but is not themselves a primary caregiver.
(9) “Medical Cannabis-infused product” means a product infused with medical Cannabis that is intended for use or consumption other than by smoking, including but not limited to edible products, ointments, and tinctures. These products, when manufactured or sold by a licensed medical Cannabis center or a medical Cannabis-infused product manufacturer, shall not be considered a food or drug for the purposes of the “New Zealand Food and Drug Act”, part 4 of article 5 of title 25, C.R.S [CHECKLAW].
(10) “Medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturer” means a person licensed pursuant to this article to operate a business as described in section -404.
(11) “Optional premises” means the premises specified in an application for a medical Cannabis center license with related growing facilities in New Zealand for which the licensee is authorised to grow and cultivate Cannabis for a purpose authorised by this legislation.
(12) “Optional premises cultivation operation” means a person licensed pursuant to this article to operate a business as described in section 403.
(13) “Person” means a natural person, partnership, association, company, corporation, limited liability company, or organisation, or a manager, agent, owner, director, servant, officer, or employee thereof.
(14) “Premises” means a distinct and definite location, which may include a building, a part of a building, a room, or any other definite contiguous area.
(15) “School” means a public or private preschool or a public or private primary, intermediate, high school, but excludes tertiary and adult training institutes.
(16) “National Licensing Authority” means the authority created for the purpose of regulating and controlling the licensing of the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, and sale of medical Cannabis in this country, pursuant to section 201.
-Section 105. Limited access areas.
Subject to the provisions of section 701, a limited access area shall be a building, room, or other contiguous area upon the licensed premises where medical Cannabis is grown, cultivated, stored, weighed, displayed, packaged, sold, or possessed for sale, under control of the licensee, with limited access to only those persons licensed by the National Licensing Authority. All areas of ingress or egress to limited access areas shall be clearly identified as such by a sign as designated by the National Licensing Authority.
-Section 106. Local option.
The operation of this article shall be nationwide unless a local council, by either a majority vote at a regular election or special election or a majority of the members of the governing board for the local council, vote to prohibit the operation of medical Cannabis centers, optional premises cultivation operations, and medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturers’ licenses.
-Section 201. National Licensing Authority — Creation.
(1) For the purpose of regulating and controlling the licensing of the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, and sale of medical Cannabis in this country, there is hereby created the National Licensing Authority, which shall be the executive director of the department of inland revenue or the deputy director of the department of inland revenue if the executive director so designates.
(2) The executive director of the department of inland revenue shall be the chief administrative officer of the National Licensing Authority and may employ, pursuant to relevant and applicable tax law, such officers and employees as may be determined to be necessary, which officers and employees shall be part of the authority. The National Licensing Authority shall, at its discretion, based upon workload, employ no more than one full-time equivalent employee for each twenty medical Cannabis centers licensed by or making application with the authority. No moneys shall be appropriated to the National Licensing Authority from the general consolidated fund for the operation of this article, nor shall the National Licensing Authority expend any general consolidated fund moneys for the operation of this article.
-Section 202. Powers and Duties of National Licensing Authority.
(1) The National Licensing Authority shall:
(a) Grant or refuse national licenses for the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, and sale of medical Cannabis as provided by law; suspend, fine, restrict, or revoke such licenses upon a violation of this article, or a rule promulgated pursuant to this article; and impose any penalty authorised by this article or any rule promulgated pursuant to this article. The National Licensing Authority may take any action with respect to a registration pursuant to this article as it may with respect to a license pursuant to this article, in accordance with the procedures established pursuant to this article.
(b) (I) Promulgate such rules and such special rulings and findings as necessary for the proper regulation and control of the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, and sale of medical Cannabis and for the enforcement of this article. A local council that has adopted a temporary moratorium regarding the subject matter of this article shall be specifically authorised to extend the moratorium until July 1, 2019 [CHECKDATE].
(c) Hear and determine at a public hearing any contested national license denial and any complaints against a licensee and administer oaths and issue subpoenas to require the presence of persons and the production of papers, books, and records necessary to the determination of any hearing so held. The National Licensing Authority may, at its discretion, delegate to the department of inland revenue hearing officers the authority to conduct licensing, disciplinary, and rule-making hearings. When conducting such hearings, the hearing officers shall be employees of the National Licensing Authority under the direction and supervision of the executive director and the National Licensing Authority.
(d) Maintain the confidentiality of reports or other information obtained from a licensee showing the sales volume or quantity of medical Cannabis sold, or revealing any patient information, or any other records that are exempt from public inspection pursuant to state law. Such reports or other information may be used only for a purpose authorised by this article or for any other state or local law enforcement purpose. Any information released related to patients may be used only for a purpose authorised by this article or to verify that a person who presented a registry identification card to a state or local law enforcement official is lawfully in possession of such card.
(e) Develop such forms, licenses, identification cards, and applications as are necessary or convenient in the discretion of the National Licensing Authority for the administration of this article or any of the rules promulgated under this article;
(f) Prepare and transmit annually, in the form and manner prescribed by the heads of the principal departments a report accounting to the governor for the efficient discharge of all responsibilities assigned by law or directive to the National Licensing Authority; and
(g) In recognition of the potential medicinal value of medical Cannabis, make a request by July 1, 2019 [CHECKDATE], to Medsafe NZ to reschedule, for pharmaceutical purposes, medical Cannabis into a more appropriate category.
(2) (a) Rules promulgated pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section may include, but need not be limited to, the following subjects:
(I) Compliance with, enforcement of, or violation of any provision of this article, or any rule issued pursuant to this article, including procedures and grounds for denying, suspending, fining, restricting, or revoking a national license issued pursuant to this article;
(II) Specifications of duties of officers and employees of the National Licensing Authority;
(III) Instructions for local licensing authorities and law enforcement officers;
(IV) Requirements for inspections, investigations, searches, seizures, forfeitures, and such additional activities as may become necessary from time to time;
(V) Creation of a range of penalties for use by the National Licensing Authority;
(VI) Prohibition of misrepresentation and unfair practices;
(VII) Control of informational and product displays on licensed premises;
(VIII) Development of individual identification cards for owners, officers, managers, contractors, employees, and other support staff of entities licensed pursuant to this article, including a fingerprint-based criminal history record check as may be required by the National Licensing Authority prior to issuing a card;
(IX) Identification of national licensees and their owners, officers, managers, and employees;
(X) Security requirements for any premises licensed pursuant to this article, including, at a minimum, lighting, physical security, video, alarm requirements, and other minimum procedures for internal control as deemed necessary by the National Licensing Authority to properly administer and enforce the provisions of this article, including reporting requirements for changes, alterations, or modifications to the premises;
(XI) Regulation of the storage of, warehouses for, and transportation of medical Cannabis;
(XII) Sanitary requirements for medical Cannabis centers, including but not limited to sanitary requirements for the preparation of medical Cannabis-infused products;
(XIII) The specification of acceptable forms of picture identification that a medical Cannabis center may accept when verifying a sale;
(XIV) Labeling standards;
(XIV.5) Prohibiting the sale of medical Cannabis-infused products unless the product is packaged:
(A) In special packaging that is designed or constructed to be significantly difficult for children under five years of age to open and not difficult for normal adults to use properly and that does not allow the product to be seen without opening the packaging material; or
(B) In packaging that is labeled “Medicinal product — keep out of reach of children”;
(XV) Records to be kept by licensees and the required availability of the records;
(XVI) National licensing procedures, including procedures for renewals, reinstatements, initial licenses, and the payment of licensing fees;
(XVII) The reporting and transmittal of monthly sales tax payments by medical Cannabis centers;
(XVIII) Authorization for the department of inland revenue to have access to licensing information to ensure sales and income tax payment and the effective administration of this article;
(XIX) Authorization for the department of inland revenue to issue administrative citations and procedures for issuing, appealing, and creating a citation violation list and schedule of penalties; and
(XX) Such other matters as are necessary for the fair, impartial, stringent, and comprehensive administration of this article.
(b) Nothing in this article shall be construed as delegating to the National Licensing Authority the power to fix prices for medical Cannabis.
(c) Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit a police’s ability to investigate unlawful activity in relation to a medical Cannabis center, optional premises cultivation operation, or medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturer. A police shall have the authority to run a New Zealand crime information center criminal history record check of a primary caregiver, licensee, or employee of a licensee during an investigation of unlawful activity related to medical Cannabis.
-Section 301. Local council licensing authority — applications — licenses.
(1) A local licensing authority may issue only the following medical Cannabis licenses upon payment of the fee and compliance with all local licensing requirements to be determined by the local licensing authority:
(a) A medical Cannabis center license; (b) An optional premises cultivation license; (c) A medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturing license.
(2) (a) A local licensing authority shall not issue a local license unless the relevant local council has adopted an ordinance or resolution containing specific standards for license issuance, or if no such ordinance or resolution is adopted prior to July 1, 2016 [CHECKDATE], then a local licensing authority shall consider the minimum licensing requirements of this part 3 when issuing a license.
(b) In addition to all other standards applicable to the issuance of licenses under this article, the local governing body may adopt additional standards for the issuance of medical Cannabis center, optional premises cultivation, or medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturer licenses consistent with the intent of this article that may include, but need not be limited to:
(I) Distance restrictions between premises for which local licenses are issued;
(II) Reasonable restrictions on the size of an applicant’s licensed premises; and
(III) Any other requirements necessary to ensure the control of the premises and the ease of enforcement of the terms and conditions of the license.
(3) An application for a license specified in subsection (1) of this section shall be filed with the appropriate local licensing authority on forms provided by the National Licensing Authority and shall contain such information as the National Licensing Authority may require and any forms as the local licensing authority may require. Each application shall be verified by the oath or affirmation of the persons prescribed by the National Licensing Authority.
(4) An applicant shall file, at the time of application for a local license, plans and specifications for the interior of the building if the building to be occupied is in existence at the time. If the building is not in existence, the applicant shall file a plot plan and a detailed sketch for the interior and submit an architect’s drawing of the building to be constructed. In its discretion, the local or National Licensing Authority may impose additional requirements necessary for the approval of the application.
-Section 302. Public hearing notice — posting and publication.
(1) Upon receipt of an application for a local license, except an application for renewal or for transfer of ownership, a local licensing authority may schedule a public hearing upon the application to be held not less than thirty days after the date of the application. If the local licensing authority schedules a hearing for a license application, it shall post and publish public notice thereof not less than ten days prior to the hearing. The local licensing authority shall give public notice by posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the license applicant’s premises for which license application has been made and by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the applicant’s premises are located.
(2) Public notice given by posting shall include a sign of suitable material, not less than twenty-two inches wide and twenty-six inches high, composed of letters not less than one inch in height and stating the type of license applied for, the date of the application, the date of the hearing, the name and address of the applicant, and such other information as may be required to fully apprise the public of the nature of the application. The sign shall contain the names and addresses of the officers, directors, or manager of the facility to be licensed.
(3) Public notice given by publication shall contain the same information as that required for signs.
(4) If the building in which medical Cannabis is to be cultivated, manufactured, or distributed is in existence at the time of the application, a sign posted as required in subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall be placed so as to be conspicuous and plainly visible to the general public. If the building is not constructed at the time of the application, the applicant shall post a sign at the premises upon which the building is to be constructed in such a manner that the notice shall be conspicuous and plainly visible to the general public.
(5) (a) A local licensing authority, or a license applicant with local licensing authority approval, may request that the National Licensing Authority conduct a concurrent review of a new license application prior to the local licensing authority’s final approval of the license application. Local licensing authorities who permit a concurrent review will continue to independently review the applicant’s license application.
(b) When conducting a concurrent application review, the National Licensing Authority may advise the local licensing authority of any items that it finds that could result in the denial of the license application. Upon correction of the noted discrepancies, if the correction is permitted by the National Licensing Authority, the National Licensing Authority shall notify the local licensing authority of its conditional approval of the license application subject to the final approval by the local licensing authority. The National Licensing Authority shall then issue the applicant’s local license upon receiving evidence of final approval by the local licensing authority.
(c) All applications submitted for concurrent review shall be accompanied by all applicable national license and application fees. Any applications that are later denied or withdrawn may allow for a refund of license fees only. All application fees provided by an applicant shall be retained by the respective licensing authority.
-Section 303. Results of investigation — decision of authorities.
(1) Not less than five days prior to the date of the public hearing authorised in section – 302, the local licensing authority shall make known its findings, based on its investigation, in writing to the applicant and other parties of interest. The local licensing authority has authority to refuse to issue a license provided for in this section for good cause, subject to judicial review.
(2) Before entering a decision approving or denying the application for a local license, the local licensing authority may consider, except where this article specifically provides otherwise, the facts and evidence adduced as a result of its investigation, as well as any other facts pertinent to the type of license for which application has been made, including the number, type, and availability of medical Cannabis centers, optional premises cultivation operations, or medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturers located in or near the premises under consideration, and any other pertinent matters affecting the qualifications of the applicant for the conduct of the type of business proposed.
(3) Within thirty days after the public hearing or completion of the application investigation, a local licensing authority shall issue its decision approving or denying an application for local licensure. The decision shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for the decision. The local licensing authority shall send a copy of the decision by certified mail to the applicant at the address shown in the application.
(4) After approval of an application, a local licensing authority shall not issue a local license until the building in which the business to be conducted is ready for occupancy with such furniture, fixtures, and equipment in place as are necessary to comply with the applicable provisions of this article, and then only after the local licensing authority has inspected the premises to determine that the applicant has complied with the architect’s drawing and the plot plan and detailed sketch for the interior of the building submitted with the application.
(5) After approval of an application for local licensure, the local licensing authority shall notify the National Licensing Authority of such approval, who shall investigate and either approve or disapprove the application for national licensure.
-Section 304. Medical Cannabis license bond.
(1) Before the National Licensing Authority issues a national license to an applicant, the applicant shall procure and file with the National Licensing Authority evidence of a good and sufficient bond in the amount of five thousand dollars with corporate surety thereon duly licensed to do business with the state, approved as to form by the attorney general, and conditioned that the applicant shall report and pay all sales and use taxes due, or for which the IRD is the collector or collecting agent, in a timely manner, as provided in law.
(2) A corporate surety shall not be required to make payments to the state claiming under such bond until a final determination of failure to pay taxes due to the state has been made by the National Licensing Authority or a court of competent jurisdiction.
(3) All bonds required pursuant to this section shall be renewed at such time as the bondholder’s license is renewed. The renewal may be accomplished through a continuation certificate issued by the surety.
-Section 305. National Licensing Authority — application and issuance procedures.
(1) Applications for a national license under the provisions of this article shall be made to the National Licensing Authority on forms prepared and furnished by the National Licensing Authority and shall set forth such information as the National Licensing Authority may require to enable the National Licensing Authority to determine whether a national license should be granted. The information shall include the name and address of the applicant, the names and addresses of the officers, directors, or managers, and all other information deemed necessary by the National Licensing Authority. Each application shall be verified by the oath or affirmation of such person or persons as the National Licensing Authority may prescribe.
(2) The National Licensing Authority shall not issue a national license pursuant to this section until the local licensing authority has approved the application for a local license and issued a local license as provided for in sections 301 to 303.
(3) Nothing in this article shall preempt or otherwise impair the power of a local government to enact ordinances or resolutions concerning matters authorised to local governments.
-Section 306. Denial of application.
(1) The National Licensing Authority shall deny a national license if the premises on which the applicant proposes to conduct its business do not meet the requirements of this article or for reasons set forth in section 104 (1) (c) or 305, and the National Licensing Authority may deny a license for good cause as defined by section 104 (1) (a) or (1) (b).
(2) If the National Licensing Authority denies a national license pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the applicant shall be entitled to a hearing and judicial review. The National Licensing Authority shall provide written notice of the grounds for denial of the national license to the applicant and to the local licensing authority at least fifteen days prior to the hearing.
-Section 307. Persons prohibited as licensees.
(1) A license provided by this article shall not be issued to or held by:
(a) A person until the annual fee therefore has been paid;
(c) A corporation, if the criminal history of any of its officers, directors, or stockholders indicates that the officer, director, or stockholder is not of good moral character;
(d) A licensed physician making patient recommendations;
(f) A person under eighteen years of age;
(g) A person licensed pursuant to this article who, during a period of licensure, or who, at the time of application, has failed to:
(I) Provide a surety bond or file any tax return with a taxing agency;
(II) Pay any taxes, interest, or penalties due;
(III) Pay any judgments due to a government agency;
(IV) Stay out of default on a government-issued student loan;
(V) Pay child support; or
(VI) Remedy an outstanding delinquency for taxes owed, an outstanding delinquency for judgments owed to a government agency, or an outstanding delinquency for child support;
(j) A sheriff, deputy sheriff, police officer, or prosecuting officer, or an officer or employee of the National Licensing Authority or a local licensing authority;
(k) A person whose authority to be a primary caregiver;
(l) A person for a license for a location that is currently licensed as a retail food establishment or wholesale food registrant; or
(m) An owner, as defined by rule of the National Licensing Authority, who has not been a resident of New Zealand for at least two years prior to the date of the owner’s application; except that:
(I) (A) For an owner who submits an application for licensure pursuant to this article by July 1, 2017 [CHECKDATE], this requirement shall not apply to that owner if he or she was a resident of New Zealand on July 1, 2006 [CHECKDATE].
(a) In investigating the qualifications of an applicant or a licensee, the national and local licensing authorities may have access to criminal history record information furnished by a criminal justice agency subject to any restrictions imposed by such agency. In the event the national or local licensing authority considers the applicant’s criminal history record, the national or local licensing authority shall also consider any information provided by the applicant regarding such criminal history record, including but not limited to evidence of rehabilitation, character references, and educational achievements, especially those items pertaining to the period of time between the applicant’s last criminal conviction and the consideration of the application for a national license.
(b) As used in paragraph (a) of this subsection (2), “criminal justice agency” means any court or any governmental agency or subunit of such agency that administers criminal justice pursuant to an executive order and that allocates a substantial part of its annual budget to the administration of criminal justice.
(c) At the time of filing an application for issuance or renewal of a medical Cannabis center license, medical Cannabis-infused product manufacturer license, or optional premises cultivation license, an applicant shall submit a set of his or her fingerprints and file personal history information concerning the applicant’s qualifications for a national license on forms prepared by the National Licensing Authority. The national or local licensing authority shall submit the fingerprints to the New Zealand bureau of investigation for the purpose of conducting fingerprint- based criminal history record checks. The New Zealand bureau of investigation shall forward the fingerprints to the federal bureau of investigation for the purpose of conducting fingerprint-based criminal history record checks. The national or local licensing authority may acquire a name-based criminal history record check for an applicant or a license holder who has twice submitted to a fingerprint-based criminal history record check and whose fingerprints are unclassifiable. An applicant who has previously submitted fingerprints for national licensing purposes may request that the fingerprints on file be used. The national or local licensing authority shall use the information resulting from the fingerprint-based criminal history record check to investigate and determine whether an applicant is qualified to hold a national license pursuant to this article. The national or local licensing authority may verify any of the information an applicant is required to submit.
-Section 308. Restrictions for applications for new licenses.
(1) The national or a local licensing authority shall not receive or act upon an application for the issuance of a national or local license pursuant to this article:
(a) If the application for a national or local license concerns a particular location that is the same as or within one thousand feet of a location for which, within one year immediately preceding the date of the application, the state or a local licensing authority denied an application for the same class of license due to the nature of the use or other concern related to the location;
(b) Until it is established that the applicant is, or will be, entitled to possession of the premises for which application is made under a lease, rental agreement, or other arrangement for possession of the premises or by virtue of ownership of the premises;
(c) For a location in an area where the cultivation, manufacture, and sale of medical Cannabis as contemplated is not permitted under the applicable zoning laws of the local council;
(d) (I) If the building in which medical Cannabis is to be sold is located within one thousand feet of a school, an alcohol or drug treatment facility, seminary, or a residential child care facility. The provisions of this section shall not affect the renewal or reissuance of a license once granted or apply to licensed premises located or to be located on land owned by a local council, nor shall the provisions of this section apply to an existing licensed premises on land owned by the crown, or apply to a license in effect and actively doing business before said principal campus was constructed. The local licensing authority, may enact bylaws, by resolution, may vary the distance restrictions imposed by this subparagraph (I) for a license or may eliminate one or more types of schools, campuses, or facilities from the application of a distance restriction established by or pursuant to this subparagraph (I).
(II) The distances referred to in this paragraph (d) are to be computed by direct measurement from the nearest property line of the land used for a school or campus to the nearest portion of the building in which medical Cannabis is to be sold, using a route of direct pedestrian access.
(III) In addition to the requirements of section 303 (2), the local licensing authority shall consider the evidence and make a specific finding of fact as to whether the building in which the medical Cannabis is to be sold is located within any distance restrictions established by or pursuant to this paragraph (d).
-Section 309. Transfer of ownership.
(1) A national or local license granted under the provisions of this article shall not be transferable except as provided in this section, but this section shall not prevent a change of location as provided in section 310 (13).
(2) For a transfer of ownership, a license holder shall apply to the national and local licensing authorities on forms prepared and furnished by the National Licensing Authority. In determining whether to permit a transfer of ownership, the national and local licensing authorities shall consider only the requirements of this article, any rules promulgated by the National Licensing Authority, and any other local restrictions. The local licensing authority may hold a hearing on the application for transfer of ownership. The local licensing authority shall not hold a hearing pursuant to this subsection (2) until the local licensing authority has posted a notice of hearing in the manner described in section 302 (2) on the licensed medical Cannabis center premises for a period of ten days and has provided notice of the hearing to the applicant at least ten days prior to the hearing. Any transfer of ownership hearing by the National Licensing Authority shall be held in compliance with the requirements specified in section 302.
-Section 310. Licensing in general.
(1) This article authorizes a county, municipality, or city and county to prohibit the operation of medical Cannabis centers, optional premises cultivation operations, and medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturers’ licenses and to enact reasonable regulations or other restrictions applicable to medical Cannabis centers, optional premises cultivation licenses, and medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturers’ licenses based on local government zoning, health, safety, and public welfare laws for the distribution of medical Cannabis that are more restrictive than this article.
(2) A medical Cannabis center, optional premises cultivation operation, or medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturer may not operate until it has been licensed by the local licensing authority and the National Licensing Authority pursuant to this article. In connection with a license, the applicant shall provide a complete and accurate list of all owners, officers, and employees who work at, manage, own, or are otherwise associated with the operation and shall provide a complete and accurate application as required by the National Licensing Authority.
(3) A medical Cannabis center, optional premises cultivation operation, or medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturer shall notify the National Licensing Authority in writing within ten days after an owner, officer, or employee ceases to work at, manage, own, or otherwise be associated with the operation. The owner, officer, or employee shall surrender his or her identification card to the National Licensing Authority on or before the date of the notification.
(4) A medical Cannabis center, optional premises cultivation operation, or medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturer shall notify the National Licensing Authority in writing of the name, address, and date of birth of an owner, officer, manager, or employee before the new owner, officer, or employee begins working at, managing, owning, or being associated with the operation. The owner, officer, manager, or employee shall pass a fingerprint-based criminal history record check as required by the National Licensing Authority and obtain the required identification prior to being associated with, managing, owning, or working at the operation.
(5) A medical Cannabis center, optional premises cultivation operation, or medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturer shall not acquire, possess, cultivate, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense Cannabis for any purpose except to assist patients.
(6) All officers, managers, and employees of a medical Cannabis center, optional premises cultivation operation, or medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturer shall be residents of New Zealand upon the date of their license application. An owner shall meet the residency requirements in section 307 (1) (m). A local licensing authority shall not issue a license provided for in this article until that share of the license application fee due to the crown has been received by the department of inland revenue. All licenses granted pursuant to this article shall be valid for a period not to exceed two years after the date of issuance unless revoked or suspended pursuant to this article or the rules promulgated pursuant to this article.
(7) Before granting a local or national license, the respective licensing authority may consider, except where this article specifically provides otherwise, the requirements of this article and any rules promulgated pursuant to this article, and all other reasonable restrictions that are or may be placed upon the licensee by the licensing authority. With respect to a second or additional license for the same licensee or the same owner of another licensed business pursuant to this article, each licensing authority shall consider the effect on competition of granting or denying the additional licenses to such licensee and shall not approve an application for a second or additional license that would have the effect of restraining competition.
(8) (a) Each license issued under this article is separate and distinct. It is unlawful for a person to exercise any of the privileges granted under a license other than the license that the person holds or for a licensee to allow any other person to exercise the privileges granted under the licensee’s license. A separate license shall be required for each specific business or business entity and each geographical location.
(b) At all times, a licensee shall possess and maintain possession of the premises or optional premises for which the license is issued by ownership, lease, rental, or other arrangement for possession of the premises.
(9) (a) The licenses provided pursuant to this article shall specify the date of issuance, the period of licensure, the name of the licensee, and the premises or optional premises licensed. The licensee shall conspicuously place the license at all times on the licensed premises or optional premises.
(b) A local licensing authority shall not transfer location of or renew a license to sell medical Cannabis until the applicant for the license produces a license issued and granted by the National Licensing Authority covering the whole period for which a license or license renewal is sought.
(10) In computing any period of time prescribed by this article, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be counted as any other day.
(11) A licensee shall report each transfer or change of financial interest in the license to the national and local licensing authorities thirty days prior to any transfer or change pursuant to section 309. A report shall be required for transfers of capital stock of any corporation regardless of size.
(12) Each licensee shall manage the licensed premises himself or herself or employ a separate and distinct manager on the premises and shall report the name of the manager to the national and local licensing authorities. The licensee shall report any change in manager to the national and local licensing authorities thirty days prior to the change pursuant to section 309.
(13) (a) A licensee may move his or her permanent location to any other place in the same municipality or city and county for which the license was originally granted, or in the same county if the license was granted for a place outside the corporate limits of a municipality or city and county, but it shall be unlawful to cultivate, manufacture, distribute, or sell medical Cannabis at any such place until permission to do so is granted by the national and local licensing authorities provided for in this article.
(b) In permitting a change of location, the national and local licensing authorities shall consider all reasonable restrictions that are or may be placed upon the new location by the local council, and any such change in location shall be in accordance with all requirements of this article and rules promulgated pursuant to this article.
-Section 311. License renewal.
(1) Ninety days prior to the expiration date of an existing license, the National Licensing Authority shall notify the licensee of the expiration date by first class mail at the licensee’s address of record with the National Licensing Authority. A licensee shall apply for the renewal of an existing license to the local licensing authority not less than forty-five days and to the National Licensing Authority not less than thirty days prior to the date of expiration. A local licensing authority shall not accept an application for renewal of a license after the date of expiration, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section. The National Licensing Authority may extend the expiration date of the license and accept a late application for renewal of a license provided that the applicant has filed a timely renewal application with the local licensing authority. All renewals filed with the local licensing authority and subsequently approved by the local licensing authority shall next be processed by the National Licensing Authority. The national or the local licensing authority, in its discretion, subject to the requirements of this subsection (1) and subsection (2) of this section and based upon reasonable grounds, may waive the forty-five-day or thirty-day time requirements set forth in this subsection (1). The local licensing authority may hold a hearing on the application for renewal only if the licensee has had complaints filed against it, has a history of violations, or there are allegations against the licensee that would constitute good cause. The local licensing authority shall not hold a renewal hearing provided for by this subsection (1) for a medical Cannabis center until it has posted a notice of hearing on the licensed medical Cannabis center premises in the manner described in section 302 (2) for a period of ten days and provided notice to the applicant at least ten days prior to the hearing. The local licensing authority may refuse to renew any license for good cause, subject to judicial review.
(2) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a licensee whose license has been expired for not more than ninety days may file a late renewal application upon the payment of a nonrefundable late application fee of five hundred dollars to the local licensing authority. A licensee who files a late renewal application and pays the requisite fees may continue to operate until both the national and local licensing authorities have taken final action to approve or deny the licensee’s late renewal application unless the national or local licensing authority summarily suspends the license.
(b) The national and local licensing authorities may not accept a late renewal application more than ninety days after the expiration of a licensee’s permanent annual license. A licensee whose permanent annual license has been expired for more than ninety days shall not cultivate, manufacture, distribute, or sell any medical Cannabis until all required licenses have been obtained.
(c) Notwithstanding the amount specified for the late application fee in paragraph (a) of this subsection (2), the National Licensing Authority by rule or as otherwise provided by law may reduce the amount of the fee if necessary, by reducing the uncommitted reserves of the fund to which all or any portion of the fee is credited. After the uncommitted reserves of the fund are sufficiently reduced, the National Licensing Authority by rule or as otherwise provided by law may increase the amount of the fee.
-Section 312. Inactive licenses.
The national or local licensing authority, in its discretion, may revoke or elect not to renew any license if it determines that the licensed premises have been inactive, without good cause, for at least one year.
-Section 313. Unlawful financial assistance.
(1) The National Licensing Authority, by rule and regulation, shall require a complete disclosure of all persons having a direct or indirect financial interest, and the extent of such interest, in each license issued under this article.
(2) A person shall not have an unreported financial interest in a license pursuant to this article unless that person has undergone a fingerprint-based criminal history record check as provided for by the National Licensing Authority in its rules; except that this subsection (2) shall not apply to banks, savings and loan associations, or industrial banks supervised and regulated by an agency of the government, or to mortgagees, or to stockholders, directors, or officers thereof.
(3) This section is intended to prohibit and prevent the control of the outlets for the sale of medical Cannabis by a person or party other than the persons licensed pursuant to the provisions of this article.
(1) For the purpose of regulating the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, and sale of medical Cannabis, the National Licensing Authority in its discretion, upon application in the prescribed form made to it, may issue and grant to the applicant a license from any of the following classes, subject to the provisions and restrictions provided by this article:
(a) Medical Cannabis center license; (b) Optional premises cultivation license; (c) Medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturing license; and
(d) Occupational licenses and registrations for owners, managers, operators, employees, contractors, and other support staff employed by, working in, or having access to restricted areas of the licensed premises, as determined by the National Licensing Authority. The National Licensing Authority may take any action with respect to a registration pursuant to this article as it may with respect to a license pursuant to this article, in accordance with the procedures established pursuant to this article.
(2) All persons licensed pursuant to this article shall collect sales tax on all sales made pursuant to the licensing activities.
(3) A national chartered bank or a credit union may loan money to any person licensed pursuant to this article for the operation of a licensed business.
-Section 402. Medical Cannabis center license.
(1) A medical Cannabis center license shall be issued only to a person selling medical Cannabis pursuant to the terms and conditions of this article.
(2) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a medical Cannabis center licensee may also sell medical Cannabis-infused products that are prepackaged and labeled so as to clearly indicate all of the following:
(I) That the product contains medical Cannabis;
(II) That the product is manufactured without any regulatory oversight for health, safety, or efficacy; and
(III) That there may be health risks associated with the consumption or use of the product.
(b) A medical Cannabis licensee may contract with a medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturing licensee for the manufacture of medical Cannabis-infused products upon a medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturing licensee’s licensed premises.
(3) Every person selling medical Cannabis as provided for in this article shall sell only medical Cannabis grown in its medical Cannabis optional premises licensed pursuant to this article. In addition to medical Cannabis, a medical Cannabis center may sell no more than six immature plants to a patient; except that a medical Cannabis center may sell more than six immature plants, but may not exceed half the recommended plant count, to a patient who has been recommended an expanded plant count by his or her recommending physician. A medical Cannabis center may sell immature plants to a primary caregiver, another medical Cannabis center, or a medical Cannabis-infused product manufacturer pursuant to rules promulgated by the National Licensing Authority. The provisions of this subsection (3) shall not apply to medical Cannabis-infused products.
(4) Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (3) of this section to the contrary, a medical Cannabis licensee may purchase not more than thirty percent of its total on-hand inventory of medical Cannabis from another licensed medical Cannabis center in New Zealand. A medical Cannabis center may sell no more than thirty percent of its total on-hand inventory to another New Zealand licensed medical Cannabis licensee; except that the director of the division that regulates medical Cannabis may grant a temporary waiver:
(a) To a medical Cannabis center or applicant if the medical Cannabis center or applicant suffers a catastrophic event related to its inventory; or
(b) To a new medical Cannabis center licensee for a period not to exceed ninety days so the new licensee can cultivate the necessary medical Cannabis to comply with this subsection (4).
(5) Prior to initiating a sale, the employee of the medical Cannabis center making the sale shall verify that the purchaser has a valid registration card issued pursuant to section 106, or a copy of a current and complete new application for the medical Cannabis registry administered by the Ministry of Health that is documented by a certified mail return receipt as having been submitted to the Ministry of Health within the preceding thirty-five days, and a valid picture identification card that matches the name on the registration card. A purchaser may not provide a copy of a renewal application in order to make a purchase at a medical Cannabis center. A purchaser may only make a purchase using a copy of his or her application from 8 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday. If the purchaser presents a copy of his or her application at the time of purchase, the employee must contact the Ministry of Health to determine whether the purchaser’s application has been denied. The employee shall not complete the transaction if the purchaser’s application has been denied. If the purchaser’s application has been denied, the employee shall be authorised to confiscate the purchaser’s copy of the application and the documentation of the certified mail return receipt, if possible, and shall, within seventy-two hours after the confiscation, turn it over to the Ministry of Health or police. The failure to confiscate the copy of the application and document of the certified mail return receipt or to turn it over to the Ministry of Health or police within seventy-two hours after the confiscation shall not constitute a criminal offense.
(5.5) Transactions for the sale of medical Cannabis or a medical Cannabis-infused product at a medical Cannabis center may be completed by using an automated machine that is in a restricted access area of the center if the machine complies with the rules promulgated by the National Licensing Authority regarding the transaction of sale of product at a medical Cannabis center and the transaction complies with subsection (5) of this section.
(6) A medical Cannabis center may provide a sample of its products to a laboratory that has an occupational license from the National Licensing Authority for testing and research purposes. The laboratory may develop, test, and produce medical Cannabis-based products. The laboratory may contract method or product development with a licensed medical Cannabis center or licensed medical Cannabis infused-product manufacturer. The National Licensing Authority shall promulgate rules pursuant to its authority in section 202, related to acceptable testing and research practices, including but not limited to testing, standards, quality control analysis, equipment certification and calibration, and chemical identification and other substances used in bona fide research methods. A laboratory that has an occupational license from the National Licensing Authority for testing purposes shall not have any interest in a licensed medical Cannabis center or a licensed medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturer.
(7) All medical Cannabis sold at a licensed medical Cannabis center shall be labeled with a list of all chemical additives, including but not limited to nonorganic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, that were used in the cultivation and the production of the medical Cannabis.
(8) A licensed medical Cannabis center shall comply with all provisions of the Bill of Rights as the provisions relate to persons with disabilities.
(9) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 901 (4) (m), a medical Cannabis center may sell below cost or donate to a patient who has been designated indigent by the Ministry of Health or who is in hospice care:
(a) Medical Cannabis; or
(b) No more than eight immature plants; except that a medical Cannabis center may sell or donate more than eight immature plants, but may not exceed half the recommended plant count, to a patient who has been recommended an expanded plant count by his or her recommending physician; or
(c) Medical Cannabis-infused products to patients.
-Section 403. Optional premises cultivation license.
(1) An optional premises cultivation license may be issued only to a person licensed pursuant to section 402 (1) or 404 (1) who grows and cultivates medical Cannabis at an additional licensed premises contiguous or not contiguous with the licensed premises of the person’s medical Cannabis center license or the person’s medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturing license.
(2) Optional premises cultivation licenses may be combined in a common area solely for the purposes of growing and cultivating medical Cannabis and used to provide medical Cannabis to more than one licensed medical Cannabis center or licensed medical Cannabis-infused product manufacturer so long as the holder of the optional premise cultivation license is also a common owner of each licensed medical Cannabis center or licensed medical Cannabis-infused product manufacturer to which medical Cannabis is provided. In accordance with promulgated rules relating to plant and product tracking requirements, each optional premises cultivation licensee shall supply medical Cannabis only to its associated licensed medical Cannabis centers or licensed medical Cannabis-infused product manufacturers.
-Section 404. Medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturing license.
(1) A medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturing license may be issued to a person who manufactures medical Cannabis-infused products, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this article.
(2) Medical Cannabis-infused products shall be prepared on a licensed premises that is used exclusively for the manufacture and preparation of medical Cannabis-infused products and using equipment that is used exclusively for the manufacture and preparation of medical Cannabis-infused products.
(3) A medical Cannabis-infused products licensee shall have a written agreement or contract with a medical Cannabis center licensee, which contract shall at a minimum set forth the total amount of medical Cannabis obtained from a medical Cannabis center licensee to be used in the manufacturing process, and the total amount of medical Cannabis-infused products to be manufactured from the medical Cannabis obtained from the medical Cannabis center. A medical Cannabis-infused products licensee shall not use medical Cannabis from more than five different medical Cannabis centers in the production of one medical Cannabis-infused product. The medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturing licensee may sell its products to any licensed medical Cannabis center.
(4) All licensed premises on which medical Cannabis-infused products are manufactured shall meet the sanitary standards for medical Cannabis-infused product preparation promulgated pursuant to section -202 (2) (a) (XII).
(5) The medical Cannabis-infused product shall be sealed and conspicuously labeled in compliance with this article and any rules promulgated pursuant to this article. The labeling of medical Cannabis-infused products is a matter of nationwide concern.
(6) Medical Cannabis-infused products may not be consumed on a premises licensed pursuant to this article.
(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, sales of medical Cannabis-infused products shall not be exempt from GST.
(8) A medical Cannabis-infused products licensee that has an optional premises cultivation license shall not sell any of the medical Cannabis that it cultivates except for the medical Cannabis that is contained in medical Cannabis-infused products.
(9) (a) A medical Cannabis-infused products licensee may not have more than six hundred medical Cannabis plants on its premises or at its optional premises cultivation operation; except that the director of the division that regulates medical Cannabis may grant a waiver in excess of six hundred Cannabis plants based on the consideration of the factors in paragraph (b) of this subsection (9).
(b) The director of the division that regulates medical Cannabis shall consider the following factors in determining whether to grant the waiver described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (9):
(I) The nature of the products manufactured;
(II) The business need;
(III) Existing business contracts with licensed medical Cannabis centers for the production of medical Cannabis-infused products; and
(IV) The ability to contract with licensed medical Cannabis centers for the production of medical Cannabis-infused products.
(10) A medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturer may provide a sample of its products to a laboratory that has an occupational license from the National Licensing Authority for testing and research purposes. The National Licensing Authority shall promulgate rules pursuant to its authority in section 202 (1) (b), related to acceptable testing and research practices. A laboratory that has an occupational license from the National Licensing Authority for testing purposes shall not have any interest in a licensed medical Cannabis center or a licensed medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturer.
-Section 501. Medical Cannabis license cash fund.
(1) All moneys collected by the National Licensing Authority pursuant to this article shall be transmitted to the treasurer, who shall credit the same to the medical Cannabis license cash fund, which fund is hereby created and referred to in this section as the “fund”. The moneys in the fund shall be subject to annual appropriation by Parliament to the department of inland revenue for the direct and indirect costs associated with implementing this article. Any moneys in the fund not expended for the purpose of this article may be invested by the state treasurer as provided by law. All interest and income derived from the investment and deposit of moneys in the fund shall be credited to the fund. Any unexpended and unencumbered moneys remaining in the fund at the end of a fiscal year shall remain in the fund and shall not be credited or transferred to the general consolidated fund or another fund.
(2) The executive director of the department of inland revenue by rule or as otherwise provided by law may reduce the amount of one or more of the fees if necessary, to reduce the uncommitted reserves of the fund to which all or any portion of one or more of the fees is credited. After the uncommitted reserves of the fund are sufficiently reduced, the executive director by rule or as otherwise provided by law may increase the amount of one or more of the fees.
(3) (a) The National Licensing Authority shall establish fees for processing the following types of applications, licenses, notices, or reports required to be submitted to the National Licensing Authority:
(I) Applications for licenses listed in section 401 and rules promulgated pursuant to that section;
(II) Applications to change location pursuant to section 310 and rules promulgated pursuant to that section;
(III) Applications for transfer of ownership pursuant to section -10 and rules promulgated pursuant to that section;
(IV) License renewal and expired license renewal applications pursuant to section 311; and
(V) Licenses as listed in section 401.
(b) The amounts of such fees, when added to the other fees transferred to the fund pursuant to this section, shall reflect the actual direct and indirect costs of the National Licensing Authority in the administration and enforcement of this article so that the fees avoid exceeding the statutory limit on uncommitted reserves in administrative agency cash funds as set forth in section 402 (3).
(c) The National Licensing Authority may charge applicants licensed under this article a fee for the cost of each fingerprint analysis and background investigation undertaken to qualify new officers, directors, managers, or employees.
(d) At least annually, the National Licensing Authority shall review the amounts of the fees and, if necessary, adjust the amounts to reflect the direct and indirect costs of the National Licensing Authority.
(4) Except as provided in subsection (5) of this section, the National Licensing Authority shall establish a basic fee that shall be paid at the time of service of any subpoena upon the National Licensing Authority, plus a fee for meals and a fee for mileage, for each mile actually and necessarily traveled in going to and returning from the place named in the subpoena. If the person named in the subpoena is required to attend the place named in the subpoena for more than one day, there shall be paid, in advance, a sum to be established by the National Licensing Authority for each day of attendance to cover the expenses of the person named in the subpoena.
(5) The subpoena fee established pursuant to subsection (4) of this section shall not be applicable to any governmental agency.
-Section 502. Fees — allocation.
(1) Except as otherwise provided, all fees and fines provided for by this article shall be paid to the department of inland revenue, which shall transmit the fees to the state treasurer. The state treasurer shall credit the fees to the medical Cannabis license cash fund created in section 501.
(2) The expenditures of the National Licensing Authority shall be paid out of appropriations from the medical Cannabis license cash fund created in section 501.
-Section 503. Local license fees.
(1) Each application for a local license provided for in this article filed with a local licensing authority shall be accompanied by an application fee in an amount determined by the local licensing authority.
(2) License fees as determined by the local licensing authority shall be paid to the treasurer of the local council where the licensed premises is located in advance of the approval, denial, or renewal of the license.
-Section 601. Suspension — revocation — fines.
(1) In addition to any other sanctions prescribed by this article or rules promulgated pursuant to this article, the National Licensing Authority or a local licensing authority has the power, on its own motion or on complaint, after investigation and opportunity for a public hearing at which the licensee shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard, to suspend or revoke a license issued by the respective authority for a violation by the licensee or by any of the agents or employees of the licensee of the provisions of this article, or any of the rules promulgated pursuant to this article, or of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions of the license issued by the national or local licensing authority. The National Licensing Authority or a local licensing authority has the power to administer oaths and issue subpoenas to require the presence of persons and the production of papers, books, and records necessary to the determination of a hearing that the national or local licensing authority is authorised to conduct.
(2) The national or local licensing authority shall provide notice of suspension, revocation, fine, or other sanction, as well as the required notice of the hearing pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, by mailing the same in writing to the licensee at the address contained in the license. Except in the case of a summary suspension, a suspension shall not be for a longer period than six months. If a license is suspended or revoked, a part of the fees paid therefore shall not be returned to the licensee. Any license or permit may be summarily suspended by the issuing licensing authority without notice pending any prosecution, investigation, or public hearing pursuant to the terms of section 24-4-104 (4), C.R.S. [CHECKLAW] [CHECKLAW] Nothing in this section shall prevent the summary suspension of a license pursuant to section 24-4-104 (4), C.R.S. [CHECKLAW] [CHECKLAW] Each patient registered with a medical Cannabis center that has had its license summarily suspended may immediately transfer his or her primary center to another licensed medical Cannabis center.
(3) (a) Whenever a decision of the National Licensing Authority or a local licensing authority suspending a license for fourteen days or less becomes final, the licensee may, before the operative date of the suspension, petition for permission to pay a fine in lieu of having the license suspended for all or part of the suspension period. Upon the receipt of the petition, the national or local licensing authority may, in its sole discretion, stay the proposed suspension and cause any investigation to be made which it deems desirable and may, in its sole discretion, grant the petition if the national or local licensing authority is satisfied that:
(I) The public welfare and morals would not be impaired by permitting the licensee to operate during the period set for suspension and that the payment of the fine will achieve the desired disciplinary purposes;
(II) The books and records of the licensee are kept in such a manner that the loss of sales that the licensee would have suffered had the suspension gone into effect can be determined with reasonable accuracy; and
(III) The licensee has not had his or her license suspended or revoked, nor had any suspension stayed by payment of a fine, during the two years immediately preceding the date of the motion or complaint that resulted in a final decision to suspend the license or permit.
(b) The fine accepted shall be not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one hundred thousand dollars.
(c) Payment of a fine pursuant to the provisions of this subsection (3) shall be in the form of cash or in the form of a certified check or cashier’s check made payable to the national or local licensing authority, whichever is appropriate.
(4) Upon payment of the fine pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, the national or local licensing authority shall enter its further order permanently staying the imposition of the suspension. If the fine is paid to a local licensing authority, the governing body of the authority shall cause the moneys to be paid into the general consolidated fund of the local licensing authority. Fines paid to the National Licensing Authority pursuant to subsection (3) of this section shall be transmitted to the national treasurer, who shall credit the same to the medical Cannabis license cash fund created in section 501.
(5) In connection with a petition pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, the authority of the national or local licensing authority is limited to the granting of such stays as are necessary for the authority to complete its investigation and make its findings and, if the authority makes such findings, to the granting of an order permanently staying the imposition of the entire suspension or that portion of the suspension not otherwise conditionally stayed.
(6) If the national or local licensing authority does not make the findings required in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section and does not order the suspension permanently stayed, the suspension shall go into effect on the operative date finally set by the national or local licensing authority.
(7) Each local licensing authority shall report all actions taken to impose fines, suspensions, and revocations to the National Licensing Authority in a manner required by the National Licensing Authority. No later than January 15 of each year, the National Licensing Authority shall compile a report of the preceding year’s actions in which fines, suspensions, or revocations were imposed by local licensing authorities and by the National Licensing Authority. The National Licensing Authority shall file one copy of the report with the registrar of Parliament, and one copy in the parliament library.
-Section 602. Disposition of unauthorised Cannabis or Cannabis-infused products and related materials.
(1) The provisions of this section shall apply in addition to any criminal, civil, or administrative penalties and in addition to any other penalties prescribed by this article or any rules promulgated pursuant to this article. Any provisions in this article related to law enforcement shall be considered a cumulative right of the people in the enforcement of the criminal laws.
(2) Every licensee licensed under this article shall be deemed, by virtue of applying for, holding, or renewing such person’s license, to have expressly consented to the procedures set forth in this section.
(3) A national or local agency shall not be required to cultivate or care for any Cannabis or Cannabis-infused product belonging to or seized from a licensee. A national or local agency shall not be authorised to sell Cannabis, medical or otherwise.
(4) If the national or local licensing authority issues a final agency order imposing a disciplinary action against a licensee pursuant to section 601, then, in addition to any other remedies, the licensing authority’s final agency order may specify that some or all of the licensee’s Cannabis or Cannabis-infused product is not medical Cannabis or a medical Cannabis-infused product and is an illegal controlled substance. The order may further specify that the licensee shall lose any interest in any of the Cannabis or Cannabis-infused product even if the Cannabis or Cannabis-infused product previously qualified as medical Cannabis or a medical Cannabis-infused product. The final agency order may direct the destruction of any such Cannabis and Cannabis-infused products, except as provided in subsections (5) and (6) of this section. The authorised destruction may include the incidental destruction of any containers, equipment, supplies, and other property associated with the Cannabis or Cannabis-infused product.
(5) Following the issuance of a final agency order by the licensing authority imposing a disciplinary action against a licensee and ordering destruction authorised by subsection (4) of this section, a licensee shall have fifteen days within which to file a petition for stay of agency action with the district court. The action shall be filed in the city and county of Denver, which shall be deemed to be the residence of the National Licensing Authority for purposes of this section. The licensee shall serve the petition in accordance with the rules of civil procedure. The district court shall promptly rule upon the petition and shall determine whether the licensee has a substantial likelihood of success on judicial review so as to warrant delay of the destruction authorised by subsection (4) of this section or whether other circumstances, including but not limited to the need for preservation of evidence, warrant delay of such destruction. If destruction is so delayed pursuant to judicial order, the court shall issue an order setting forth terms and conditions pursuant to which the licensee may maintain the Cannabis and Cannabis-infused product pending judicial review, and prohibiting the licensee from using or distributing the Cannabis or Cannabis-infused product pending the review. The licensing authority shall not carry out the destruction authorised by subsection (4) of this section until fifteen days have passed without the filing of a petition for stay of agency action, or until the court has issued an order denying stay of agency action pursuant to this subsection (5).
(6) The licensing authority shall not carry out the destruction authorised by subsection (4) of this section until it has notified the district attorney for the judicial district in which the Cannabis is located to determine whether the Cannabis or product constitutes evidence in a criminal proceeding such that it should not be destroyed, and until fifteen days have passed from the date of the issuance of such notice.
(7) On or before January 1, 2012*****, the National Licensing Authority shall promulgate rules governing the implementation of this section.
-Section 701. Inspection procedures.
(1) Each licensee shall keep a complete set of all records necessary to show fully the business transactions of the licensee, all of which shall be open at all times during business hours for the inspection and examination of the National Licensing Authority or its duly authorised representatives. The National Licensing Authority may require any licensee to furnish such information as it considers necessary for the proper administration of this article and may require an audit to be made of the books of account and records on such occasions as it may consider necessary by an auditor to be selected by the National Licensing Authority who shall likewise have access to all books and records of the licensee, and the expense thereof shall be paid by the licensee.
(2) The licensed premises, including any places of storage where medical Cannabis is grown, stored, cultivated, sold, or dispensed, shall be subject to inspection by the national or local licensing authorities and their investigators, during all business hours and other times of apparent activity, for the purpose of inspection or investigation. For examination of any inventory or books and records required to be kept by the licensees, access shall be required during business hours. Where any part of the licensed premises consists of a locked area, upon demand to the licensee, such area shall be made available for inspection without delay, and, upon request by authorised representatives of the national or local licensing authority, the licensee shall open the area for inspection.
(3) Each licensee shall retain all books and records necessary to show fully the business transactions of the licensee for a period of the current tax year and the three immediately prior tax years.
-Section 801. Judicial review.
Decisions by the National Licensing Authority or a local licensing authority shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to section 24-4-106, C.R.S. [CHECKLAW]
-Section 901. Unlawful acts — exceptions.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this article, it is unlawful for a person:
(a) To consume medical Cannabis in a licensed medical Cannabis center, and it shall be unlawful for a medical Cannabis licensee to allow medical Cannabis to be consumed upon its licensed premises;
(b) With knowledge, to permit or fail to prevent the use of his or her registry identification by any other person for the unlawful purchasing of medical Cannabis;
(c) and (d) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2011, (HB 11-1043), ch. 266, p. 1210, 16, effective July 1, 2011.)
(2) It is unlawful for a person to buy, sell, transfer, give away, or acquire medical Cannabis except as allowed pursuant to this article.
(3) It is unlawful for a person licensed pursuant to this article:
(a) To be within a limited-access area unless the person’s license badge is displayed as required by this article, except as provided in section -701;
(b) To fail to designate areas of ingress and egress for limited-access areas and post signs in conspicuous locations as required by this article;
(c) To fail to report a transfer required by section -310 (11); or
(d) To fail to report the name of or a change in managers as required by section 310 (12).
(4) It is unlawful for any person licensed to sell medical Cannabis pursuant to this article:
(a) To display any signs that are inconsistent with local laws or regulations;
(b) To use advertising material that is misleading, deceptive, or false, or that is designed to
Appeal to minors;
(c) To provide public premises, or any portion thereof, for the purpose of consumption of medical Cannabis in any form;
(d) (I) To sell medical Cannabis to a person not licensed pursuant to this article or to a person not able to produce a valid patient registry identification card, unless the person has a copy of a current and complete new application for the medical Cannabis registry administered by the Ministry of Health that is documented by a certified mail return receipt as having been submitted to the Ministry of Health within the preceding thirty-five days and the employee assisting the person has contacted the Ministry of Health and, as a result, determined the person’s application has not been denied. Notwithstanding any provision in this subparagraph (I) to the contrary, a person under eighteen years of age shall not be employed to sell or dispense medical Cannabis at a medical Cannabis center or grow or cultivate medical Cannabis at an optional premises cultivation operation.
(II) If a licensee or a licensee’s employee has reasonable cause to believe that a person is exhibiting a fraudulent patient registry identification card in an attempt to obtain medical Cannabis, the licensee or employee shall be authorised to confiscate the fraudulent patient registry identification card, if possible, and shall, within seventy-two hours after the confiscation, turn it over to the Ministry of Health or police. The failure to confiscate the fraudulent patient registry identification card or to turn it over to the Ministry of Health or police within seventy-two hours after the confiscation shall not constitute a criminal offense.
(e) To possess more than eight medical Cannabis plants and two ounces of medical Cannabis for each patient who has registered the center as his or her primary center except that a medical Cannabis center may have an amount that exceeds the eight-plant and two-ounce product per patient limit if the center sells to patients that are authorised to have more than eight plants and two ounces of product. In the case of a patient authorised to exceed the eight-plant and two-ounce limit, the center shall obtain documentation from the patient’s physician that the patient needs more than eight plants and two ounces of product.
(f) To offer for sale or solicit an order for medical Cannabis in person except within the licensed premises;
(g) To have in possession or upon the licensed premises any medical Cannabis, the sale of which is not permitted by the license;
(h) To buy medical Cannabis from a person not licensed to sell as provided by this article;
(i) To sell medical Cannabis except in the permanent location specifically designated in the license for sale;
(j) To have on the licensed premises any medical Cannabis or Cannabis paraphernalia that shows evidence of the medical Cannabis having been consumed or partially consumed;
(k) To require a medical Cannabis center or medical Cannabis center with an optional premises cultivation license to make delivery to any premises other than the specific licensed premises where the medical Cannabis is to be sold;
(l) To sell, serve, or distribute medical Cannabis at any time other than between the hours of 8 a.m. And 7 p.m. Monday through Sunday;
(m) To violate the provisions of section 6-2-103 or 6-2-105, C.R.S. [CHECKLAW];
(n) To burn or otherwise destroy Cannabis or any substance containing Cannabis for the purpose of evading an investigation or preventing seizure; or
(o) To abandon a licensed premises or otherwise cease operation without notifying the state and local licensing authorities at least forty-eight hours in advance and without accounting for and forfeiting to the National Licensing Authority for destruction all Cannabis or products containing Cannabis.
(5) Except as provided in sections -402 (4), -403, and -404, it is unlawful for a medical Cannabis center, medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturing operation with an optional premises cultivation license, or medical Cannabis center with an optional premises cultivation license to sell, deliver, or cause to be delivered to a licensee any medical Cannabis not grown upon its licensed premises, or for a licensee or medical Cannabis center with an optional premises cultivation license or medical Cannabis-infused products manufacturing operation with an optional premises cultivation license to sell, possess, or permit sale of medical Cannabis not grown upon its licensed premises. A violation of the provisions of this subsection (5) by a licensee shall be grounds for the immediate revocation of the license granted under this article.
(6) It shall be unlawful for a physician who makes patient referrals to a licensed medical Cannabis center to receive anything of value from the medical Cannabis center licensee or its agents, servants, officers, or owners or anyone financially interested in the licensee, and it shall be unlawful for a licensee licensed pursuant to this article to offer anything of value to a physician for making patient referrals to the licensed medical Cannabis center.
(6.5) A peace officer or a police shall not use any patient information to make traffic stops pursuant to section 42-4-1302, C.R.S. [CHECKLAW]
(7) A person who commits any acts that are unlawful pursuant to this article or the rules authorised and adopted pursuant to this article commits a class 2 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S. [CHECKLAW], except for violations that would also constitute a violation of title 18, C.R.S. [CHECKLAW], which violation shall be charged and prosecuted pursuant to title 18, C.R.S. [CHECKLAW]
-Section 1001. Sunset review — article repeal.
(1) This article is repealed, effective July 1, 2015 [CHECKDATE].
(2) Prior to the repeal of this article, the department of regulatory agencies shall conduct a sunset review as described in section 24-34-104 (8), C.R.S. [CHECKLAW]
The public is invited to solicit the help of legal minds and interested parties to literally perform live edits and suggestions to Tom Atkinson’s (aka Tomachi) The Colorado Conversion live published Google doc.
Specific notice in this To Do List is called to edits to the following subjects: