There are many different types of meals and snacks you can make using Cannabis.  We have attempted to gather and make available to you some of the recipes we have come across.

read me

• Safe Access Now
• ( Chris Conrad ) Court Certified Cannabis Expert Witness
• Cannabis News (updated daily)
• Angel Justice
• The Media Awareness Project (updated daily)
• More >>

Statement: Adopted by the full Medical Board of California on May 7, 2004

On November 5, 1996, the people of California passed Proposition 215. Through this Initiative Measure, Section 11362.5 was added to the Health & Safety Code, and is also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The purposes of the Act include, in part:

"(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where the medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief; and

(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction."
 

Furthermore, Health & Safety Code section 11362.5(c) provides strong protection for physicians who choose to participate in the implementation of the Act. - "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes."

The Medical Board of California developed this statement since medical marijuana is an emerging treatment modality. The Medical Board wants to assure physicians who choose to recommend medical marijuana to their patients, as part of their regular practice of medicine, that they WILL NOT be subject to investigation or disciplinary action by the MBC if they arrive at the decision to make this recommendation in accordance with accepted standards of medical responsibility. The mere receipt of a complaint that the physician is recommending medical marijuana will not generate an investigation absent additional information indicating that the physician is not adhering to accepted medical standards.

These accepted standards are the same as any reasonable and prudent physician would follow when recommending or approving any other medication, and include the following:

1. History and good faith examination of the patient.
    
2. Development of a treatment plan with objectives.
    
3. Provision of informed consent including discussion of side effects.
    
4. Periodic review of the treatment's efficacy.
    
5. Consultation, as necessary.
    
6. Proper record keeping that supports the decision to recommend the use of medical marijuana.
    

In other words, if physicians use the same care in recommending medical marijuana to patients as they would recommending or approving any other medication, they have nothing to fear from the Medical Board.

Here are some important points to consider when recommending medical marijuana:

1. Although it could trigger federal action, making a recommendation in writing to the patient will not trigger action by the Medical Board of California.
   
    
2. A patient need not have failed on all standard medications, in order for a physician to recommend or approve the use of medical marijuana.
   
    
3. The physician should determine that medical marijuana use is not masking an acute or treatable progressive condition, or that such use will lead to a worsening of the patient's condition.
   
    
4. The Act names certain medical conditions for which medical marijuana may be useful, although physicians are not limited in their recommendations to those specific conditions. In all cases, the physician should base his/her determination on the results of clinical trials, if available, medical literature and reports, or on experience of that physician or other physicians, or on credible patient reports. In all cases, the physician must determine that the risk/benefit ratio of medical marijuana is as good, or better, than other medications that could be used for that individual patient.
   
    
5. A physician who is not the primary treating physician may still recommend medical marijuana for a patient's symptoms. However, it is incumbent upon that physician to consult with the patient's primary treating physician or obtain the appropriate patient records to confirm the patient's underlying diagnosis and prior treatment history.
   
    
6. The initial examination for the condition for which medical marijuana is being recommended must be in-person.
   
    
7. Recommendations should be limited to the time necessary to appropriately monitor the patient. Periodic reviews should occur and be documented at least annually or more frequently as warranted.
   
    
8. If a physician recommends or approves the use of medical marijuana for a minor, the parents or legal guardians must be fully informed of the risks and benefits of such use and must consent to that use.
   
    

Physicians may wish to refer to CMA's ON-CALL Document #1315 titled "The Compassionate Use Act of 1996", updated annually for additional information and guidance
(http://www.cmanet.org/bookstore/freeoncall2.cfm/CMAOnCall1315.pdf?call_number=1315&CFID=745764&CFTOKEN=27566287).

Although the Compassionate Use Act allows the use of medical marijuana by a patient upon the recommendation or approval of a physician, California physicians should bear in mind that marijuana is listed in Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act, which means that it has no accepted medical use under federal law. However, in Conant v. Walters (9th Cir.2002) F.3d 629 the United States Court of Appeals recognized that physicians have a constitutionally-protected right to discuss medical marijuana as a treatment option with their patients and make oral or written recommendation for medical marijuana. However, the court cautioned that physicians could exceed the scope of this constitutional protection if they conspire with, or aid and abet, their patients in obtaining medical marijuana.