California's medical marijuana regulations are just beginning to go into effect, and one lawmaker wants to throw a wrench into the mix. Assemblyman Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg) has introduced Assembly Bill 2300, which would give landlords the authority to prohibit tenants from smoking medical cannabis in a rented residence. It passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on a 10-0 vote last week and heads to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Wood is linking his bill to a single study by UCSF that suggests secondhand cannabis smoke results in similar cardiovascular effects as tobacco smoke and may cause a drop in blood vessel function.
We think Wood's bill is unnecessary and could result in thousands of tenants across the state being without access to their medicine. While Wood's bill is limited to smoking marijuana, some patients may not be able to afford edible cannabis or other forms of the drug, such as oils. Patients in the state are allowed to grow a small number of marijuana plants themselves, thus reducing the money they otherwise would have to spend at dispensaries. People who live in places where there are no dispensaries could also be affected.
It's problematic that Wood is citing the UCSF study, which was presented at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2014. According to a UCSF news release, which Wood linked to in his news release, "marijuana and tobacco smoke are chemically and physically alike, aside from their active ingredients." And the study did show that blood vessel function in lab rats dropped 70 percent after 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke.
But the study is not definitive and was not done on humans, two caveats that Wood doesn't seem to have taken into account with his proposed legislation.
"More research is needed to determine if secondhand marijuana smoke has other similar effects to secondhand cigarette smoke in humans," the UCSF news release states.
California landlords have the authority to prohibit tenants from smoking tobacco in the home; Wood wants to apply the same rational for cannabis.
Last fall, Governor Jerry Brown signed a package of bills that comprise the California Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. Those bills establish the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation, set up different medical marijuana license types, and provide for local control, among numerous other provisions that involve many state departments, from health to agriculture to consumer affairs. It seems to us that Wood's proposal should have been incorporated into this package of regulations last year, rather than playing catch-up with a separate bill.
Moreover, his proposal comes at a time that medicinal marijuana is gaining in mainstream acceptance. Just last week, Huffington Post carried an article about how Walgreens, one of the largest pharmacy chains in the country, has published a discussion of the possible health benefits of medical marijuana on its health and wellness blog. Titled, "Clarifying Clinical Cannabis," the post describes medical cannabis, what conditions it can be used for, and the debate surrounding it, although we would note that the common uses listed on the Walgreens site do not include HIV/AIDS, for which the drug is also prescribed. Indeed, it was the HIV/AIDS and LGBT communities here in California that propelled Proposition 215 to victory back in 1996, when the state became the first in the country to legalize medicinal marijuana.
"More than half of the public now resides in jurisdictions where the physician-supervised use of cannabis therapy for qualifying patients is legal, and over 85 percent of voters acknowledge that cannabis is a safe and effective treatment that ought to be permitted," Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, told HuffPost.
"Therefore, it is hardly surprising that those within the public health sphere are now publicly acknowledging and responding to this reality."
There are legitimate concerns with secondhand smoke, whether it comes from tobacco, marijuana, or vaping. But Wood is jumping the gun in this case. At a time when more patients are turning to therapies like medical cannabis, it seems that lawmakers could do better than to single them out for smoking their medicine. If secondhand cannabis smoke becomes a major issue in the future, perhaps the Legislature can revisit this bill. Until then, we urge lawmakers to vote no on AB 2300.