Hawaii Officials Discuss Ways State Can Petition DEA For Exception To Federal Marijuana Schedule I Classification
By: Jason Karimi, WeedPress Contributor
Title: Hawaii Officials Discuss Ways State Can Petition DEA For Exception To Federal Marijuana Schedule I Classification
Sourced From: weedpress.wordpress.com/2021/03/25/hawaii-officials-discuss-ways-state-can-petition-dea-for-exception-to-federal-marijuana-schedule-i-classification/
Published Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 05:30:39 +0000
The roughly 2,000 Facebook followers and email subscribers here at WeedPress should be intrigued. On Tuesday this week, Hawaii’s Health, Human Services, and Homelessness committee discussed Hawaii House Concurrent Resolution 132. HCR 132 directs Hawaii officials to begin the process of “requesting the Department of Health to submit a request to the Drug Enforcement Administration for an exception to regulations and a petition to initiate proceedings for federal rulemaking to clarify that the state-authorized use of medical cannabis does not violate the federal controlled substances act.”
Below is recent discussion by Hawaii officials, as well as the full text of the proposal. Discussion is two minutes; the text is roughly one single-spaced page.
To view original video by clicking here: Hawaii House of Representatives YouTube channel.
Special thanks to Kurt Hanna of the Minnesota chapter of Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition (RAMP) for the find. Follow RAMP_MN on Twitter. To read more on Minnesota’s effort
Similar legislation is being advanced and discussed in Minnesota. Iowa officials have also agreed to apply to DEA for a federal exemption as well. Click here to follow WeedPress on Facebook for more upcoming articles as we continue our 12 year effort to end this unnecessary conflict between state and federal law — and bring law and order to otherwise lawful state medical marijuana industries.
Read more at Marijuana Moment: Iowa Officials To Seek Federal Marijuana Exemption From DEA
Other medical cannabis states are on board with following this already provided for legal remedy, most notably those of Iowa and Minnesota, who have been leading the effort by the states to properly exempt state medical marijuana industry from federal laws.
Back in 2014, the Minnesota Family Council (@MNFamilyCouncil on twitter), claimed that state marijuana laws are seemingly in violation of federal law. See the Family Council’s 2014 tweet on the right. Glad to report the Council should be satisfied that there is a solution advancing in cold Minnesota to the Minnesota Family Council’s wisely perceived problem.
Our current system of government already allows a process and solution to solve this the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws, and these three states, Hawaii, Iowa, and Minnesota, are in the lead to use this solution, 26 years after the first medical marijuana law was passed to allow for compassionate marijuana medicines to be provided to patients who otherwise could not find adequate relief for their medical conditions.
As the Hawaii House Health, Human Services, & Homelessness Committee discussed this past Tuesday March 23, the solution to the Minnesota Family Council’s problem with medical marijuana is found in Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations section 1307.03, which allows the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration to grant exceptions to certain federal regulations.
Hawaii’s language also states “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that when making a petition for federal rule making in accordance with Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations section 1308.43, the Department of Health is urged to offer the following proposed language: “§1307. State Authorization. The listing of marijuana as a controlled substance in Schedule I does not apply to the state-authorized use of marijuana, and persons using marijuana in compliance with state law are exempt from registration.”” Read the full text of HCR 132 below:
REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO SUBMIT A REQUEST TO THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO REGULATIONS AND A PETITION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR FEDERAL RULEMAKING TO CLARIFY THAT THE STATE-AUTHORIZED USE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.
WHEREAS, when Act 228, Session Laws of Hawaii 2000 (Act 228), was enacted, Hawaii became the first state to authorize the use of medical marijuana to treat debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and other chronic or debilitating diseases; and
WHEREAS, at the time Act 228 was enacted there was ample evidence to show that medical marijuana helps to alleviate pain and has other benefits for severely ill patients; and
WHEREAS, federal law expressly prohibits the use of marijuana, despite the evidence of the benefits of using medical cannabis; and
WHEREAS, this lack of clarity between state and federal marijuana laws has repercussions for medical cannabis patients and the State’s medical cannabis dispensaries, including loss of employment and discrimination in child custody hearings, federally subsidized housing, and applications for federal firearms permits, life insurance, and disability insurance for patients who use medical cannabis in compliance with state law; and
WHEREAS, Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations section 1307.03 allows the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration to grant exceptions to certain federal regulations; and
WHEREAS, obtaining an exception from the federal Controlled Substances Act for the state-authorized use of medical cannabis would benefit the State’s residents who use medical cannabis and the State’s medical cannabis dispensaries; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Thirty-first Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2021, the Senate concurring, that the Department of Health is requested to submit a request to the Drug Enforcement Administration for an exception to regulations and a petition to initiate proceedings for federal rulemaking to clarify that the state-authorized use of medical cannabis does not violate the federal Controlled Substances Act; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that when making the request for an exception to regulations, the Department of Health is urged to argue that Hawaii’s medical cannabis laws do not create any positive conflict with state or federal drug laws and to request a written acknowledgement from the Drug Enforcement Administration that the listing of marijuana as a controlled substance in Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act does not apply to the non-prescription use of cannabis under Hawaii’s medical cannabis registry and medical cannabis dispensary programs; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that when making a petition for federal rule making in accordance with Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations section 1308.43, the Department of Health is urged to offer the following proposed language: “§1307. State Authorization. The listing of marijuana as a controlled substance in Schedule I does not apply to the state-authorized use of marijuana, and persons using marijuana in compliance with state law are exempt from registration.”; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Concurrent Resolution be transmitted to the members of Hawaii’s Congressional Delegation, Governor, Attorney General, and Director of Health.
Does Kratom have a future in the United States or will it be banned indefinitely? We speak with Justin Kats of Kats Botanicals on his journey to starting a company selling Kratom and CBD products.
Why would someone copyright a cannabis strain? CBD School's Jenn Procacci talks with Dr. Dale Hunt, founder of Breeder's Best, plant scientist, and patent attorney, about intellectual property protection for independent cannabis breeders.
Psychedelic treatments for OCD may yield insights into whether therapeutic benefits are caused by the drug alone, acting physiologically on the brain, or are they caused by the lived, subjective response engendered by the drug?
Cannabis producers euphoria and a myriad of health benefits, according to Chris Kilham, the Medicine Hunter.
By: Nicole Sifers
Title: CBD Users Reveal 6 of the Most Compelling Benefits of CBD Oil
Sourced From: blog.thecbdistillery.com/cbd-users-reveal-6-of-the-most-compelling-benefits-of-cbd-oil/
Published Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:08:07 +0000
Over the past few years, market analysts have noticed a marked increase in the number of people investigating (and using) holistic therapies, natural remedies, and plant-sourced alternatives that help support physical and emotional wellbeing.1 The search for plant-sourced solutions eventually leads a significant number of people to the health and wellness potential of CBD (cannabidiol).
CBD is a non-intoxicating plant element classified as a cannabinoid. Unlike many pharmaceutical options, CBD has an impressively low risk of side effects, is generally well-tolerated, and has the potential to address many health and wellness concerns.2 Browsing the 6 most commonly reported benefits of CBD oil could help you decide if one of our high-quality hemp-derived products could be right for you.
Why Does CBD Oil Seem to Help with So Many Concerns?
While CBD is not a treatment or cure for any known health concerns, current research suggests the cannabinoid has considerable therapeutic potential. Individual effects seem to depend on which essential processes might be restored to balance (homeostasis) as the cannabinoid interacts with the receptors of the largest regulatory system in the body, the endocannabinoid system (ECS).3
ECS signaling regulates nearly every critical function, from your moods, emotions, and stress responses to organ function and hormonal regulation. That’s why so many researchers believe supporting ECS function with CBD has such remarkable health and wellness potential.4
The 6 Most Impressive Benefits Reported by CBD Users
While many people investigating the potential benefits of CBD find the latest lab tests, animal studies, and clinical trials quite intriguing, most often, it’s the real-world experiences of actual CBD users they find the most compelling. The following examples of the cannabinoid’s many potential benefits are based on data collected from the survey responses of nearly 2000 CBDistillery customers.
#1 – Soothing Overworked Muscles
The pain and stiffness many people experience after strenuous physical activity is usually caused by microscopic injuries to muscle fibers. Most often, it takes several days of rest for the body to fully recover.5 While over-the-counter pain relievers provide temporary relief, many people prefer easing their discomfort naturally.
Of the many CBD users responding to our survey, 84% report that CBD helps ease activity-induced pain and stiffness. Of those reporting favorable results, 90% prefer CBD over turmeric, a natural supplement often used by athletes for post-workout discomfort because of its analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties.6
#2 – Calming Post-Activity Inflammation
Microscopic muscle damage isn’t the only potential consequence of pushing your body to the limit. Overworked joints and muscles are also susceptible to inflammation. While inflammation is a natural defense triggered by your immune system to protect your body from further injury, that inflammatory response also causes secondary damage to surrounding tissues.
Engaging in similar activities before the inflammation subsides can cause an ongoing cycle of trauma and chronic inflammation. If you’re looking for a natural way to alleviate post-activity inflammation, you may find it helpful to know that 88% of our survey respondents also prefer using CBD over turmeric for inflammation.
#3 – Better Sleep
Market analysts predict the sleep aid industry is on track to be taking in revenues of $102 billion by 2023. While the industry is obviously thriving, researchers estimate that up to 70 million adults in our country are sleep deprived.7,8 Of course, sleep medications can help, but many people are hesitant to use them because of the high risk of side effects or morning grogginess.
The search for natural sleep solutions leads many people to hemp-derived CBD. According to the results collected from our 2019 survey, 89% of our survey respondents tell us that CBD helps them sleep better. We’ve also learned that 62% of those using multiple product types felt that CBD was more effective than when using a single product on its own.
#4 – Taming Mild or Temporary Anxiety
The symptoms and sensations associated with anxiety are directly linked to the way your body is wired to respond to danger. But knowing that rarely makes anxiety symptoms any easier to deal with. While there are several anti-anxiety medications available for short-term use, doctors usually prescribe anti-depressants for long-term symptom management. But those options aren’t right for everyone.
A 2019 article published in the New York Post revealed that 74% of their survey respondents considered natural, holistic alternatives were much safer to use than over-the-counter options.9 Those are the people most likely to calm anxiety symptoms with meditation, yoga, natural remedies, or plant-sourced products. Based on our 2019 survey results, 88% of CBD users report that CBD helps with mild or temporary anxiety symptoms.
#5 – Relaxation
Stress affects everyone differently. For some, unresolved stress makes them feel increasingly tense, overwhelmed, or irritable. Others develop physical symptoms, including digestive issues, frequent headaches, or difficulty sleeping. Many people find that once their stress levels are elevated, it can be difficult to relax and unwind without turning to comfort foods, wine, alcohol, or tobacco.
At best, those habits provide only short-term relief. For relaxation, 73% of our survey respondents prefer CBD over indulging in a glass of wine, 76% prefer the effects of CBD over alcohol in general, and 92% find CBD more relaxing than cigarettes. Plus, an impressive number of CBD users also prefer CBD over the relaxing effects of yoga (79%) and meditation (82%).
#6 – Skin Health and Appearance
Many commonly used ingredients in skincare products are known to irritate sensitive skin, harm the environment, and interfere with the skin’s natural ability to rejuvenate and repair. Many health-conscious consumers make the switch to natural skin care products after learning just how few of the ingredients listed on product labels have been evaluated for consumer safety.10,11
The search for safe, natural, effective skincare products leads many people to the nurturing, skin-revitalizing potential of CBD. As the cannabinoids in our CBDefine® Skin Care Cream penetrate the surface of your skin, they interact with important ECS receptors found on nearly every type of skin cell.12 While we don’t have survey feedback specific to skin benefits you’ll find numerous 5-star reviews on our product pages.
How Many Ways Might You Benefit From CBD Oil Products?
Current reports investigating consumer behavior show that a growing number of people favor natural health and wellness products over conventional options. While searching for safe, effective, plant-sourced solutions, many people turn their attention to the therapeutic potential of CBD oil. Knowing some of the many reasons adults of all ages are using hemp-derived CBD products could help you decide if this non-intoxicating plant element could also benefit you.
If you’d like to learn more about CBD products, ECS function, or the cannabinoid’s many potential benefits, visit CBDistillery to download The Ultimate CBD User Guide. Then consider browsing our selection of third-party tested CBD oil tinctures, softgels, gummies, topicals, and CBD pet products.
Based on the feedback of nearly 2000 CBDistillery customers, most survey participants report favorable results using CBD for relaxation, better sleep, and activity-related discomforts within 7-14 days of consistent use.
1. Investopedia. S Delventhal. (2020 February 29) New Generation of Consumers Increase Demand for Natural Products.
2. World Health Organization. (2018 June) Cannabidiol (CBD) Critical Review Report.
3. Journal of Young Investigators. CSallaberry, L Astern. (2018 June 01) The Endocannabinoid System, Our Universal Regulator.
4. Journals.Physiology.org. A Lingresti et al. (2016 September 14) From Phytocannabinoids to Cannabinoid Receptors and Endocannabinoids: Pleiotropic Physiological and Pathological Roles Through Complex Pharmacology.
5. Nature Reviews Immunology. J Tidball. (2017 February 06) Regulation of Muscle Growth and Regeneration by the Immune System.
6. WellSeek. M Radloff. (2019 May 04) Here’s How Turmeric Can Boost Recovery for Athletes.
7. P&S Market Research. (2018 May 28) Sleeping Aids Market Size to Hit $101.9 Billion by 2023.
8. CDC. (2021) Sleep and Sleep Disorders.
9. New York Post. SWNS (2019 December 09) More and More Americans Trading in Prescription Drugs for Natural Remedies.
10. Treehugger. (2014 June 23) Everything You Need to Know About Natural Skin Care.
11. Mademoiselle Organic (2019 December 14) Dirty Secrets About the Environmental Impacts of the Cosmetic and Skincare Industries.
12. Phytecs.com (2020) Introduction to the Skin’s Endocannabinoid System.
The post CBD Users Reveal 6 of the Most Compelling Benefits of CBD Oil appeared first on #CBDMOVEMENT™ BLOG.
Stephanie Robbins is the affiliate manager for Joy Organics. In this episode, she tells us about her son's success with CBD and the latest products from Joy.
By: Jason Karimi, WeedPress Contributor
Title: Accredited Medical Cannabidiol CMEs Available for Iowa’s Healthcare Practitioners
Sourced From: weedpress.wordpress.com/2021/03/23/accredited-medical-cannabidiol-cmes-available-for-iowas-healthcare-practitioners/
Published Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 04:17:04 +0000
Accredited Medical Cannabidiol CMEs Available for Iowa’s Healthcare Practitioners
3 Ways DEA Can Provide Exemptions For Schedule I Hemp Products Sales In Iowa Or Minnesota | 1996 Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation
By: Jason Karimi, WeedPress Contributor
Title: 3 Ways DEA Can Provide Exemptions For Schedule I Hemp Products Sales In Iowa Or Minnesota | 1996 Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation
Sourced From: weedpress.wordpress.com/2021/03/23/3-ways-dea-can-provide-exemptions-for-schedule-i-hemp-products-sales-in-iowa-or-minnesota-1996-journal-of-environmental-law-litigation/
Published Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:24:39 +0000
Iowa CBD and medical marijuana salespeople, take note.
Another colleague has this useful find from a random article from the Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation. Here’s a PDF:
Writes my colleague in an email this afternoon:
The entire law article is here available for download as a PDF:
See more on this effective and persuasive argument to protect Iowa cannabis patients:
Let’s get this done for the right reasons. Follow WeedPress on Facebook for more updates in our 12 year effort to apply for federal exemptions to state medical marijuana laws. We’re winning at this, and so can you. Do the work!
“No army – not even Big Tech partnered with Big Government – can stop an idea whose time has come. And Liberty is that idea.”
— Ron Paul
By: Jason Karimi, WeedPress Contributor
Title: Notes On Important Marijuana Cases
Sourced From: weedpress.wordpress.com/2021/03/23/notes-on-important-marijuana-cases/
Published Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:16:45 +0000
These are not my notes, and were sent by a colleague. Reposting here without permission, to help organize my notes a bit better.
Olsen v. DEA, 878 F.2d 1458, 1459 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
Petitioner in this case seeks a religious-use exemption from federal laws proscribing marijuana. We hold that the first amendment’s free exercise of religion guarantee does not require the requested exemption, and that petitioner was not denied equal protection-establishment clause rights by the government’s refusal to accommodate his church’s sacramental use of marijuana.
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 881 (1990)
The only decisions in which we have held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action have involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 884 (1990)
where the State has in place a system of individual exemptions, it may not refuse to extend that system to cases of “religious hardship” without compelling reason. Bowen v. Roy, supra, at 708.
Olsen v. DEA, 878 F.2d 1458, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
Furthermore, we recognize that even if the DEA were not empowered or obliged to act, Olsen would be entitled to a judicial audience. Ultimately, the courts cannot escape the obligation to address his plea that the exemption he seeks is mandated by the first amendment’s religion clauses. See Peyote Way Church of God v. Smith , 742 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1984) (upholding church’s standing to seek a declaratory judgment that denying church access to peyote is unconstitutional). We are aided in this task of judicial review by the consideration given the matter, in the first instance, by the expert administrator.
In sum, for purposes of this case, we accept the position that Congress did not strip the DEA of authority to rule on the merits of Olsen’s petitions, [Footnote 3] and we turn to the questions whether the free exercise of religion clause or the equal protection principle (coupled with the establishment clause) commands the exemption Olsen seeks.
Footnote 3: But see Olsen v. DEA, 776 F.2d 267 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied , 475 U.S. 1030, 89 L. Ed. 2d 344, 106 S. Ct. 1236 (1986) (while the DEA is obliged to respond to all exemption petitions, religious exemption for marijuana use falls outside the scope of 21 U.S.C. § 811). Subsequent to this Eleventh Circuit decision, Olsen broadened beyond 21 U.S.C. § 811 the bases of his exemption claim. See Reply Brief of Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae at 7 n. 5.
Olsen v. DEA, 878 F.2d 1458, 1462 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
And “Olsen does not dispute the government’s compelling interest in controlling the distribution and drug-related use of marijuana.” Brief of Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae at 18.
Olsen v. DEA, 878 F.2d 1458, 1462 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
Olsen refers to his proposal for restrictive use, see supra pp. 4-5, and claims that this case is now differently contoured than earlier ones. Even if the government is not required to accommodate to the extent of allowing a broad religious exemption, he argues, it can and must accommodate to the time- and place-specific use he has proposed. Because the tenets of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church endorse marijuana use every day throughout the day, however, Olsen’s proposal for confined use would not be self-enforcing.
Olsen v. DEA, 878 F.2d 1458, 1462 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
Critically, Olsen’s proposal would require the government to make supplies of marijuana available to Olsen’s church on a regular basis. See Reply Brief of Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae at 7, 17.
[See the cases cited right after this where the state already had a system in place and there would be no additional burden on the state – Olsen wanted the federal pot farm in Mississippi to supply the marjuana.]
Olsen v. DEA, 878 F.2d 1458, 1464 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
True, for purposes of the exemption requested, Olsen narrowed the permission he sought to track the one accorded the Native American Church. See Memorandum of Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support and on Behalf of Petitioner Carl E. Olsen at 29-30 (submitted to DEA on remand). But “narrow” use, concededly, is not his religion’s tradition.
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 15 (2005)
Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress’ commerce power. Brief for Respondents 22, 38. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. Rather, respondents’ challenge is actually quite limited; they argue that the CSA’s categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause.
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 20 (2005)
That the Secretary of Agriculture elected to exempt even smaller farms from regulation does not speak to his power to regulate all those whose aggregated production was significant, nor did that fact play any role in the Court’s analysis.
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 26 (2005)
The Court of Appeals was able to conclude otherwise only by isolating a “separate and distinct” class of activities that it held to be beyond the reach of federal power, defined as “the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician and in accordance with state law.” 352 F.3d at 1229. The court characterized this class as “different in kind from drug trafficking.” Id., at 1228. The differences between the members of a class so defined and the principal traffickers in Schedule I substances might be sufficient to justify a policy decision exempting the narrower class from the coverage of the CSA. The question, however, is whether Congress’ contrary policy judgment, i.e., its decision to include this narrower “class of activities” within the larger regulatory scheme, was constitutionally deficient. We have no difficulty concluding that Congress acted rationally in determining that none of the characteristics making up the purported class, whether viewed individually or in the aggregate, compelled an exemption from the CSA; rather, the subdivided class of activities defined by the Court [*27] of Appeals was an essential part of the larger regulatory scheme.
[Congress was aware of peyote and thought about including an exemption in the statute, but it was decided to do it by regulation – Congress could not have been aware that states would later authorize the use of marijuana]
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 28 (2005)
Accordingly, the mere fact that marijuana–like virtually every other controlled substance regulated by the CSA–is used for medicinal purposes cannot possibly serve to distinguish it from the core activities regulated by the CSA.
[state authorized use of marijuana is not limited to medical use, so the term “medical” is not a distinguishing factor]
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 28 n.37 (2005)
Respondents’ submission, if accepted, would place all homegrown medical substances beyond the reach of Congress’ regulatory jurisdiction.
[the exemption would be for “state authorized” use, not all homegrown medical substances – use of peyote is authorized by state laws, not by a church (although the state has delegated that authority to a church to determine who is exempt – there is no guidebook or published instructions on who can use peyote and how it should be used for religious purposes) – states have detailed laws and regulations explaining who can use marijuana and what it can and cannot be used for]
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 29 n.38 (2005)
California’s decision (made 34 years after the CSA was enacted) to impose “stric[t] controls” on the “cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical purposes,” post, at ____, 162 L. Ed. 2d, at 48 (Thomas, J., dissenting), cannot retroactively divest Congress of its authority under the Commerce Clause.
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 31 (2005)
The authority to grant permission whenever the doctor determines that a patient is afflicted with “any other illness for which marijuana provides relief,” Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 11362.5(b)(1)(A) (West Supp. 2005), is broad enough to allow even the most scrupulous doctor to conclude that some recreational uses would be therapeutic.
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 32 n.41 (2005)
The state policy allows patients to possess up to eight ounces of dried marijuana, and to cultivate up to 6 mature or 12 immature plants. Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 11362.77(a) (West Supp. 2005). However, the quantity limitations serve only as a floor. Based on a doctor’s recommendation, a patient can possess whatever quantity is necessary to satisfy his medical needs, and cities and counties are given carte blanche to establish more generous limits. Indeed, several cities and counties have done just that. For example, patients residing in the cities of Oakland and Santa Cruz and in the counties of Sonoma and Tehama are permitted to possess up to 3 pounds of processed marijuana. Reply Brief for United States 19 (citing Proposition 215 Enforcement Guidelines).
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 33 (2005)
Respondents also raise a substantive due process claim and seek to avail themselves of the medical necessity defense. These theories of relief were set forth in their complaint but were not reached by the Court of Appeals. We therefore do not address the question whether judicial relief is available to respondents on these alternative bases. We do note, however, the presence of another avenue of relief. As the Solicitor General confirmed during oral argument, the statute authorizes procedures for the reclassification of Schedule I drugs.