1. 24. Cohen, P. J. , “Medical Marijuana – The Conflict Between Scientific Evidence and Political Ideology,” Utah Law Review (2009): 35–104, at 67–69.
2. 31. Ingold, J. , “Pot Competition Branches Out,” Denver Post, December 20, 2009, at B-l.
3. 28. McKinley, J. , “Marijuana Hotbed Retreats on Medicinal Use,” New York Times, June 9, 2008, at A-1.
4. 2. Until recently, the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998 (Initiative 59 adopted under the District's Home Rule Charter) has been repealed by the Congress every year. Congress did not take such action in 2010. Provided that implementing legislation is also passed, the Initiative will provide (non-inclusive): Sec. 1. All seriously ill individuals have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes when a licensed physician has found the use of marijuana to be medically necessary and has recommended the use of marijuana for the treatment (or to mitigate the side effects of other treatments such as chemotherapy, including the use of AZT, protease inhibitors, etc., radiotherapy, etc.) or diseases and conditions associated with HIV and AIDS, glaucoma, muscle spasm, cancer and other serious or chronic illnesses for which the recommending physician reasonably believes that marijuana has demonstrated utility. Sec. 2. Medical patients who use, and their primary caregivers who obtain for such patients, marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a licensed physician do not violate the District of Columbia Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1981, effective August 5, 1981 (DC Law 4-29
5. DC Code 33-501 et seq.) ("Controlled Substances Act"), as amended and in so far as they comply with this act, are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction. See also, Craig, T. , "Swift Action Sought on Medical Marijuana: D.C. Council Chairman Ready to Begin Crafting Policy with Lifting of Ban," Washington Post, at B2 (December 15, 2009).