Brownies Under Attack?

The San Francisco Department of Public Health targets edibles and hash

While vast majorities of medical cannabis patients are able to smoke in order to take their medication, many others—including those with asthma or lung cancer—turn to edibles.

This is a common practice in MMJ states, like California, but collectives here in San Francisco are saying they are under an assault by the Department of Public Health. The department recently released a Medical Cannabis Edibles Advisory recommending collectives to:

? Limit the production of medical cannabis to baked goods, candies and teas.

? Follow all safe food preparation and handling practices.

? Use only medical cannabis cultivated by dispensaries to produce medical cannabis edibles.

? Not produce or dispense syrups, capsules and other extracts that require concentrating cannabis ingredients or involve a chemical production process.

And while the city says this is not a “ban” on edibles or extracts, the new rules are to “avoid potential hazards associated with edibles, pending the development of a statewide regulatory approach,” according to the advisory.

This is bad news, Americans For Safe Access says.

“Basically, the Department of [Public] Health is moving in the direction of trying to close suppliers based on a misconception that edible producers are not part of a closed-loop system,” Hermes says.

Under the current law, as long as suppliers are members of the collectives they are supplying, they are considered part of a closed-loop system. Some edible suppliers say they are quitting because of the city’s stance on edibles, and Hermes points out that the real victims are the patients.

“The city of San Francisco has got it wrong, and it could result in a huge disruption for a form of medical marijuana that helps out patients who can’t smoke,” he says.

Under the scenario the city’s stance appears to spell out, collectives will be responsible for producing edibles for its patients, a hugely impractical move for some, downright impossible for many.

“Another issue is that a lot of edible production is localized, in large part because a few years ago there were federal busts of people producing on a statewide scale,” Hermes points out.

As a result, patients and collectives can’t shop elsewhere if their local supplier is found to be in violation.

“I don’t understand how they have the time to harass edible suppliers, but can’t do the legal research necessary to realize there is nothing out of compliance with state law going on between edible suppliers and collectives,” Hermes says. “It’s money poorly spent to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”

A coalition of political activists, dispensary owners and operators, patients and other interested citizens known as San Francisco United will be protesting this month by holding a Save Safe Access in San Francisco rally at the San Francisco City Hall on April 3 at 11:45 p.m.

San Francisco United is asking that supporters get involved in a variety of ways, including phone calls to the Mayor’s office, contacting the County Board of Supervisors to ask it to pass ordinances to protect patient’s rights and writing pro-MMJ letters to local newspapers.

The political battle for the rights of medical cannabis patients is not over. Despite widespread public support, opposition remains. Without rallies, protests and voter participation uninformed public officials will continue to close dispensaries statewide and decades of vital reform will mean nothing.

Have Your Cake . . .

Some MMJ patients can’t smoke cannabis because of lung or breathing issues due to, for example, lung cancer. In cases like these, patients can turn to edibles, such as cookies, cakes, beverages or other foods that are made with marijuana-infused butters or oils or kief, for example. The “chemical production process” the San Francisco Department of Public Health is alluding to is likely a reference to the way hash is made. Making hash using chemical solvents such as butane is already illegal (and highly dangerous—explosions can occur) under state law, but using water or carbon dioxide gas are both safer and legal.