Beginning in 1978, thirty-seven states enacted some form of medicinal cannabis legislation other than effective laws. These include:
Therapeutic Research Programs (state-run therapeutic research programs, not operable because of federal obstruction): Alabama, California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, Texas.
Symbolic Prescriptions (patients allowed to possess cannabis only if obtained through prescription, not operable because the CSA bars physicians from writing prescriptions for Schedule I drugs): Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin.
State Rescheduling (not operable because federal scheduling supersedes state schedules): Alaska, Iowa, Montana, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia.
Non-binding Resolutions Urging Federal Rescheduling: California, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Washington.

"Beginning in the late 1970s, a number of state governments sought to give large numbers of patients legal access to medical marijuana through federally approved research programs.

"While 26 states passed laws creating therapeutic research programs, only seven obtained all of the necessary federal permissions, received marijuana and/or THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary active ingredient in marijuana) from the federal government, and distributed the substances to approved patients through approved pharmacies. Those seven states were California, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee, and Washington.

"Typically, patients were referred to the program by their personal physicians. These patients, who often had not responded well to conventional treatments, underwent medical and psychological screening processes. Then, the patients applied to their state patient qualification review board, which resided within the state health department. If granted permission, they would receive marijuana from approved pharmacies. Patients were required to monitor their usage and marijuana’s effects, which the state used to prepare reports for the FDA. (Interestingly, former Vice President Al Gore’s sister received medical marijuana through the Tennessee program while undergoing chemotherapy for cancer in the early 1980s.)

"These programs were designed to enable patients to use marijuana. The research was not intended to generate data that could lead to FDA approval of marijuana as a prescription medicine. For example, the protocols did not involve doubleblind assignment to research and control groups, nor did they involve the use of placebos.

"Such programs were discontinued by the mid-1980s, and the federal government has since made it more difficult for researchers to obtain marijuana for study, preferring to approve only those studies that are well-controlled clinical trials designed to yield essential scientific data."

"'It is the shared responsibility of professional nursing organizations to speak for nurses collectively in shaping health care and to promulgate change for the improvement of health and health care' (ANA, 2015, p. 36). Therefore, the ANA strongly supports:

"#&149; Scientific review of marijuana’s status as a federal Schedule I controlled substance and relisting marijuana as a federal Schedule II controlled substance for purposes of facilitating research.

"• Development of prescribing standards that includes indications for use, specific dose, route, expected effect and possible side effects, as well as indications for stopping a medication.

"• Establishing evidence-based standards for the use of marijuana and related cannabinoids.

"• Protection from criminal or civil penalties for patients using therapeutic marijuana and related cannabinoids as permitted under state laws.

"• Exemption from criminal prosecution, civil liability, or professional sanctioning, such as loss of licensure or credentialing, for health care practitioners who discuss treatment alternatives concerning marijuana or who prescribe, dispense or administer marijuana in accordance with professional standards and state laws."

(Dispensaries and Crime) "The cross-sectional results suggest that dispensaries are not associated with crime rates; however, current media and policy efforts have focused their attention on the place-based regulation of these dispensaries to protect the public against crime (California Police Chief’s Association, 2009; City of Los Angeles, 2010; Lopez, 2010). Based on the limited evidence presented by this study, it is unclear if place-based policies will be effective."

“Vaporization as a ‘Smokeless’ Cannabis Delivery System”
Donald Abrams, M.D., University of California, San Francisco
(vaporization of cannabis) "The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a vaporization system (the Volcano; VAPORMED® Inhalatoren; Tüttlingen, Germany) as a “smokeless” delivery system for inhaled cannabis. Because of concerns regarding the practicality and palatability of using cannabis cigarettes as a standard treatment, there has been an interest in developing alternative delivery systems. Participants were randomly assigned to receive low, medium, or high dose (1.7, 3.4, or 6.8% tetrahydrocannabinol) cannabis cigarettes delivered by smoking or by the vaporization
system on six study days.
"The full results of this study have been published in the journal Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (Abrams, et al., 2007 – see reference list). Eighteen healthy volunteers were recruited to participate in the research. The analysis indicated that the blood levels of vaporized cannabis are similar to those of smoked cannabis over a six hour period. However, blood concentrations of THC at 30 and 60 minutes after inhalation were significantly higher in vaporized cannabis as compared to smoked cannabis. In addition, carbon monoxide levels were significantly reduced with vaporization compared with smoked cannabis. Fourteen participants preferred vaporization, 2 preferred smoking, and 2 reported no preference. In summary, vaporization of cannabis was found to be a safe mode of delivery, and participants had a preference for vaporization over smoking as a delivery system in this trial."

(Federally-Subsidized Public Housing and Medical Cannabis) "In sum, PHAs [Public Housing Agencies] and owners may not grant reasonable accommodations that would allow tenants to grow, use, or otherwise possess, or distribute medical marijuana, even if in doing so tenants are complying with state laws authorizing medical marijuana-related conduct. Further, PHAs and owners must deny admission to those applicant households with individuals who are, at the time of consideration for admission, using marijuana. See 42 U.S.C. § 13661(b)(1)(A); Lester Memorandum at 2.
"We note, however, that PHAs and owners have statutorily-authorized discretion with respect to evicting or refraining from evicting current residents on account of their use of medical marijuana. See 42 U.S.C. § 13662(b)(1); Lester Memorandum at 5-7. If a PHA or owner desires to allow a resident who is currently using medical marijuana to remain as an occupant, the PHA or owner may do so as an exercise of that discretion, but not as reasonable accommodation. HUD regulations provide factors that PHAs and owners may consider when determining how to exercise their discretion to terminate tenancies because of current illegal drug use. See 24 C.F.R. § 966.4(1)(5)(vii)(B)(factors for PHAs); 5.852 (factors for PHAs and owners operating other assisted housing programs)."

"Cannabis indica became available in American pharmacies in the 1850’s following its introduction to western medicine by William O'Shaughnessy (1839).⁶ In its original pharmaceutical usage, it was regularly consumed orally, not smoked. The first popular American account of cannabis intoxication was published in 1854 by Bayard Taylor, writer, world traveler and diplomat."

In the Institute of Medicine's report on medical marijuana, the researchers examined the physiological risks of using marijuana and cautioned, "Marijuana is not a completely benign substance. It is a powerful drug with a variety of effects. However, except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications."

The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on medical marijuana stated, "The accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value for cannabinoid drugs, particularly for symptoms such as pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation."

The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on medical marijuana examined the question whether the medical use of marijuana would lead to an increase of marijuana use in the general population and concluded that, "At this point there are no convincing data to support this concern. The existing data are consistent with the idea that this would not be a problem if the medical use of marijuana were as closely regulated as other medications with abuse potential." The report also noted that, "this question is beyond the issues normally considered for medical uses of drugs, and should not be a factor in evaluating the therapeutic potential of marijuana or cannabinoids."