July 2014 in Fukushima 98,000,000 Becquerels Leaked from Radioactive Water Tanks

98,000,000 Bq of all β leaked from contaminated water tank

  Fukushima Diary 

On 9/4/2014, Tepco reported they found highly contaminated water leaking from the joint part of two tanks.

 

It was desalinated concentrated water. Cs-134/137 density was 9,800,000 Bq/m3, All β nuclide density to include Sr-90 was 98,000,000,000 Bq/m3.

They found the crack on the joint part. It became clear that contaminated water facilities are being deteriorated.

 

Tepco fixed the crack with bonding agent and plastic bag for emergency measure, however they haven’t announced any fundamental resolution for the deterioration of the entire facilities.

They comment the leaked volume was only 1L.

 

2 98,000,000 Bq of all β leaked from contaminated water tank

 

98,000,000 Bq of all β leaked from contaminated water tank

 

 

http://photo.tepco.co.jp/date/2014/201409-j/140904-01j.html

http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241395_5851.html

http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241399_5851.html

http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241410_5851.html

http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241411_5851.html

 

 

 

I tried to install a Bitcoin button on the sidebar. Because I don’t have bitcoin, I can’t test it to see if it works. I would be very glad if you use it for a test._____

_____

Français :

98 milliards de Bq de radioactivité β ont fuit d’une citerne

 

Le 4 septembre 2014, Tepco rapporte qu’ils ont découvert une fuite d’eau extrêmement radioactive à la jointure entre deux citernes.

 

Il s’agit d’eau concentrée et désalinisée. La radioactivité en Cs 134/137 était de 9,8 millions de Bq/m³, La radioactivité β, dont du Sr 90 était à 98,000,000,000 (98 milliards) Bq/m³.

Ils ont découvert une fissure sur la partie jointive. Il est devenu clair que les équipements de stockage des eaux extrêmement radioactive se détériorent.

Tepco a réparé la fissure en urgence avec du mastic et des sacs en plastique, ils n’ont néanmoins pas présenté de direction fondamentale à suivre contre la détérioration de tous les équipements.
Ils ont déclaré quel le volume de la fuite n’a été que de 1 litre.

2 98,000,000 Bq of all β leaked from contaminated water tank
98,000,000 Bq of all β leaked from contaminated water tank

http://photo.tepco.co.jp/date/2014/201409-j/140904-01j.html
http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241395_5851.html
http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241399_5851.html
http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241410_5851.html
http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241411_5851.html

J’ai essayé de mettre un bouton pour Bitcoin dans la barre de droite. Je ne peux pas le tester parce que je n’ai pas de compte bitcoin. Je serai grandement reconnaissant à celle/celui qui voudra bien l’utiliser pour le tester.

 

 

***NOTE FROM ANNA: Is is very simple. Fukushima nuclear power plant has been saturating the Pacific Ocean with radioactive mixed oxide fuels. It is rapidly spreading to the Atlantic Ocean. No sea water=NO FARMS=no life. PAY ATTENTION!!!

Fukushima/Becquerel radioactivity exposure information:

Conversion chart: http://www.asknumbers.com/RadioactivityConversion.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Becquerel

http://www.oasisllc.com/abgx/effects.htm

http://orise.orau.gov/reacts/guide/measure.htm

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/health_effects.html

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/14928/1/Neglis-Aplastic-Anemia.html

http://www.newsweek.com/near-fukushima-report-exclusion-zone-66453

 

 

National Conference of State Legislatures-State Quarantine and Isolation Statutes

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-quarantine-and-isolation-statutes.aspx

WHO WE ARE

Bill Pound, NCSL Executive DirectorSince 1975, NCSL has been the champion of state legislatures. We’ve helped states remain strong and independent by giving them the tools, information and resources to craft the best solutions to difficult problems. We’ve fought against unwarranted actions in Congress and saved states more than $1 billion. We’ve conducted workshops to sharpen the skills of lawmakers and legislative staff in every state. And we do it every day.

OUR MISSION

NCSL is committed to the success of all legislators and staff. Our mission is to

  • Improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures.
  • Promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures.
  • Ensure state legislatures a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system.

OUR STORY

U.S. Capitol domeIn 1974, three organizations represented the interests of legislators and staff, but their influence was diluted. So seven inventive legislative leaders and two staffers got together and envisioned a single national organization to support, defend and strengthen state legislatures.

After a survey of lawmakers and staff from around the country confirmed their idea was a good one, the three organizations dissolved, and on Jan. 1, 1975, the National Conference of State Legislatures was born.

HOW WE’RE GOVERNED

The strength of NCSL is our bipartisanship and commitment to serving both Republicans and Democrats. It is recognized in our comprehensive, unbiased research. NCSL serves both legislators and staff. This is reflected in the documents we’ve created to govern our organization and the organization of our Executive Committee:

 

THE STATES’ AGENDA

Lawmakers play a vital role in developing the States’ Agenda, the blueprint for NCSL’s advocacy work on Capitol Hill. Each year, legislators and staff from across the country who participate in NCSL’s eight Standing Committees adopt policies under our rules of procedure for consideration at the annual Business Meeting during the Legislative Summit.

If two-thirds of the states in attendance approve them, these policies become the backbone of NCSL’s efforts to fight unwarranted federal preemption of state laws, unfunded mandates and federal legislation that threatens state authority and autonomy. It’s important work, and NCSL takes its cue from the states. 

State Quarantine and Isolation Statutes

Updated August 2010

Public health quarantine and isolation are legal authorities that may be, but rarely are, implemented to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. Isolation may be used for ill people, to protect the public by preventing exposure to infected people.

Quarantine may be used to restrict the movement of well people who may have been exposed to a communicable disease until it can be determined if they are ill, for example, people who have a communicable disease but do not know it, or may have the disease but do not show symptoms.

The federal government, through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has authority to monitor and respond to the spread of communicable diseases across national or state borders.

By Executive Order of the president of the United States, federal isolation and quarantine are authorized for specific communicable diseases: cholera, diphtheria, infectious tuberculosis, plague, smallpox, yellow fever, viral hemorrhagic fevers, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), and flu that can cause a pandemic. 

The president can revise this list by Executive Order.   Further information on federal law quarantine authority can be found here. State and local governments have primary responsibility for controlling the spread of diseases within state borders.

The table below summarizes state law authority for quarantine and isolation within state borders, including authority to initiate quarantine and isolation, limitations on state quarantine powers, and penalties for violations.

Use of quarantine or isolation powers may create sensitive issues related to civil liberties. Individuals have rights to due process of law, and generally, isolation or quarantine must be carried out in the least restrictive setting necessary to maintain public health.

Moreover, exercising state or federal power for quarantine or isolation is rarely necessary. CDC reports that: large-scale isolation and quarantine was last enforced during the influenza (“Spanish Flu”) pandemic in 1918–1919. In recent history, only a few public health events have prompted federal isolation or quarantine orders:

  • In 1963, a passenger arriving into the United States was placed under a federal quarantine order as a suspected case of smallpox.
  • In 2007, a traveler with drug-resistant TB was placed in isolation.

During the 2003 outbreak of SARS, CDC did not issue isolation or quarantine orders. However, CDC did conduct active surveillance, visual screening of passengers, and handed out Travel Health Alert notices.

According to a survey conducted for the Trust for America’s Health in 2007, “nearly 9 out of 10 Americans say they would abide by a voluntary quarantine and stay home in the case of an outbreak of a pandemic flu. Willingness to accept this type of quarantine exists across the public at high levels.

Among the 10 percent who say they would not adhere to the government’s request of a voluntary quarantine, most indicate that they could not stay at home due to fears of losing needed income (64 percent) or losing their jobs altogether (39 percent).”

Resources: CDC Division of Global Migration and Quarantine | CDC Public Health Law 101 | Trust For America’s Health

2010 Legislation

 

Bill Info Bill Summary
AZ SB 1197
Did not pass
Would have required that a joint resolution be passed by the legislature, during a state of emergency or war in which there is an occurrence or the imminent threat of smallpox, plague, viral hemorrhagic fevers or a highly contagious and highly fatal disease with transmission characteristics similar to smallpox before orders could be issued to isolate and quarantine persons. It would have not allowed the department of health and its officers or representatives to remove a minor child from the care of their parent or legal guardian if the parent or legal guardian complied with quarantine laws or voluntarily agreed to treat the parent or guardian’s home as quarantine and keep the child isolated in the home.
CA AB 2541/
CA AB 2786
Pending
The department of health would be able to, from time to time, adopt and enforce regulations requiring strict or modified isolation, or quarantine, for any of the contagious, infectious, or communicable diseases, if in the opinion of the department the action is necessary for the protection of public health. The health officer could require strict or modified isolation, or quarantine, for any case of contagious, infectious, or communicable disease, when this action is necessary for the protection of the public health.
FL HB 1783
Enacted
Requires the Department of Health to develop a plan that exclusively uses private and non-state public hospitals to provide treatment to cure, hospitalize, and isolate persons with contagious cases of tuberculosis who pose a threat to the public.
GA HB 185
Did not pass
An individual or a class would have been able to challenge an order of isolation before any available judge of the superior courts in the county where the individual or a member of the class resides or in Fulton County. The Department of Community Health or any party would have been allowed to immediately appeal any order to the Supreme Court.
Would also have allowed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia to extend a public health emergency order declared by the Governor.
GA HB 228
Enacted
Changes the department that is responsible for quarantine and isolation from the Department of Human Resources to the Department of Community Health.
MA HB 2139
Pending
Relates to Methicillin-Resistant staphylococcus Aureus (“MRSA”). When MRSA is identified, a healthcare facility would have to notify the patient and establish necessary precautions as determined by the health department including, but not limited to, isolation of identified MRSA-colonized or MRSA-infected patients.
NJ SB 660
Pending
Relates to Methicillin-Resistant staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus (VRE). A health care facility would have to implement written infections prevention and control policy incorporating guidelines, including isolation of identified patients in an appropriate manner.
NY AB 4698/
NY AB 5909/
NY AB 8217/
NY SB 5361
Pending
Would Create the State Emergency Health Powers Act and the Public Health Authority. The Public Health Authority would be able to isolate or quarantine any person whose refusal of medical examination or testing results in uncertainty regarding whether he or she has been exposed to or infected with a contagious disease or poses a danger to public health. Authorities could also isolate or quarantine persons who are unable or unwilling to undergo vaccination against infectious disease. Isolation and quarantine would have to be the least restrictive means necessary to prevent the spread of a contagious disease. Would require the development of a comprehensive plan to provide a coordinated, appropriate response in the event of a public health emergency.
OK HB 2251/
OK HB 2465
Did not pass
Would have given the State Commissioner of Health authority to designate places of quarantine or isolation.
OK SB 968
Did not pass
Would have given the State Commissioner of Health authority to take measures deemed necessary to control or suppress, or to prevent the occurrence or spread of, any communicable, contagious or infectious disease, and provide for the segregation and isolation of persons having or suspected of having the disease. The Commissioner would have had the authority to designate places of quarantine or isolation.
PA HB 462
Pending
Would provide state policy and powers for the public health authority when a public health emergency exists. Emergency powers would include authority to: 1) establish and maintain places of isolation and quarantine and 2) require isolation or quarantine of any person by the least restrictive means necessary to protect the public health. All reasonable means would have to be taken to prevent the transmission of infection among the isolated or quarantined individuals. Isolation or quarantine would be terminated when the public health authority determines that such isolation or quarantine of such person is no longer necessary to protect the public health.
Due Process – Before isolating or quarantining a person, the public health authority would have to obtain a written, ex parte order from a court authorizing the action. A copy of the authorizing order would be given to the person isolated or quarantined, along with notification that the person has a right to a court hearing to contest the ex parte order within 72 hours upon request.
Penalties – A person who fails to comply with the provisions of quarantine and isolation would be considered to have committed a misdemeanor of the third degree.
SC SB 629
Did not pass
Relates to Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). A patient who tested positive for MRSA would have had to be isolated if possible.
WA SB 6171
Enacted
To protect public health, the state board of health is required to adopt rules for the imposition and use of isolation and quarantine.
WV HB 3069/
WV SB 157
Did not pass
The Commissioner of the Bureau for Public Health or his or her designated public health officer would have been able to temporarily suspend an exemption for a student who is not immunized and exclude the student from attending school during an outbreak or health emergency. The student would not have been able to return or be admitted to school until the outbreak or health emergency was resolved and the Commissioner of the Bureau for Public Health or his or her designee approved the return to school. When a public health emergency was declared relating to a communicable disease, citizens identified as being infected with the declared disease would have been subjected to humane quarantine using the least restrictive means possible, in order to prevent the spread of disease.

 


State Laws

Alabama | Alaska | Arizona | Arkansas | California | Colorado | Connecticut | DelawareFlorida | Georgia | Hawaii | Idaho | Illinois | Indiana | Iowa | Kansas | KentuckyLouisiana | Maine | Massachusetts | Maryland | Michigan | Minnesota | Mississippi | Missouri  | Nebraska | Nevada | New Hampshire | New Jersey | New Mexico | New YorkNorth Carolina | North Dakota | Ohio | Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode IslandSouth Carolina | South Dakota | TennesseeTexas | Utah | Vermont | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming | District of Columbia | Guam | Puerto Rico | U.S. Virgin Islands

State/Jurisdiction Statute Citation (Last Amend) Statute Summary
Alabama Ala. Code § 22.12.4 (1981)
Ala. Code § 22.2.2 (1965)
Ala. Code § 22.3.2 (1940)
Authority. The Governor or the State Board of Health may proclaim a quarantine, whenever deemed necessary. The Board of Health shall enforce it and adopt any necessary rules or regulations necessary to do so. They shall also supervise county boards.
Ala. Code § 22.12.9-29 (1940)
Ala. Code § 22.11A.6 (1987)
Penalties. Violation of a health or quarantine law is a misdemeanor unless otherwise noted and is typically subject to a fine of $50 to $500. Such punishment applies to individuals who violate quarantine orders, to those required to provide notification of notifiable diseases who willfully neglect to do so, to anyone who knowingly transports a person or thing in violation of a quarantine, or other such violations of quarantine regulations.
Ala. Code § 22.12.19-26 (1940)
Ala. Code § 22.11A.7 (1987)
Police Power and Limitations. An officer or guard carrying out a quarantine may arrest without warrant anyone who attempts to violate quarantine regulations and move them to the designated detention area or in front of an officer with jurisdiction over the offense. Officers can pass through quarantine lines and have free access to all means of public transportation as needed to perform their duties. Freight and mail can be rejected from a quarantined area. Those with notifiable disease must obey the instructions of state or county health officer.
Alaska Alaska Stat. § 26.23.020 (2004)
Alaska Stat. § 18.15.385 (2005)
Authority. The Governor can declare a disaster emergency, including in the event of a disease outbreak. He or she can control entry and exit of an area and movement of persons or occupancy of premises within the area. The Department of Health and Social Services can quarantine or isolate only if it is the least restrictive alternative to protect public health. An emergency administrative order from the state medical officer can impose quarantine or isolation pending the court order.
Alaska Stat. § 18.15.385 (2005) Penalties. Anyone who knowingly violates a regulation pertaining to quarantine or isolation is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. Anyone who intentionally violates such a regulation is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
Alaska Stat. § 18.15.385 (2005)
Alaska Stat. § 9.50.250 (2008)
Police Power and Limitations. The department must allow isolation in personal home if it would not jeopardize public health. If individuals do not consent to quarantine or isolation, a superior court order must be granted. The department should monitor those in quarantine or isolation and release them as soon as they no longer pose a substantial risk to public health. Improper application of quarantine or isolation, or negligent medical treatment therein, is an actionable claim against the state for compensation.
Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36.787-789 (2002) Authority. The Governor along with the state director of health services have primary authority in a state of emergency involving possible infectious disease. If investigation reveals a suspicion of a highly contagious disease to be accurate, the state or local health authority may declare a quarantine if it is the least intrusive means of protecting public health. A quarantine or isolation should be established by written court order unless there is an urgent threat to public health, in which case the Department of Health or local health authority can initiate a quarantine by written directive provided they file a petition for court order within ten days. The maximum court order for quarantine is thirty days before requiring a new order.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36.630, 737 (1982, 1997) Penalties. Knowingly or intentionally exposing others to infection or attempting to leave quarantine or isolation is a class 2 misdemeanor. Obstructing an investigation, making a false report, or knowingly assisting someone else in violating quarantine is a class 3 misdemeanor.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36.624,732 (2002, 1997) Police Power and Limitations. No treatment shall be provided against the will of an individual provided they cooperate with quarantine and sanitation orders. If an individual under quarantine is shown to no longer pose a public health risk, they may be released prior to end of court ordered period.
Arkansas Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 14-262-101 to 109 (2009)
Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 20-7-109 (1997)

Arkansas State Health Board Rules and Regulations, Communicable Diseases,
Section X (2002)Authority. The Director of the Department of Health has control over all quarantine measures. The State Health Board establishes rules and regulations regarding quarantine and isolation. County or district health departments have the power and duty to establish and enforce quarantine or isolation when it is necessary for public health. Cities can create health boards and appoint a health officer, with jurisdiction five miles beyond city limits in the event of a quarantine for an epidemic. Both county and city health authorities must assist state Department of Health and the Health Board. Only the state Director can implement a quarantine on movement between jurisdictions. Ark. Stat. Ann. Code § 20-15-710 (1963)Penalties. For those under mandated treatment for tuberculosis, disorderly conduct can be punished with confinement up to six months and those who leave or attempt to leave without being discharged are guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by confinement of six to twelve months. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 20-15-703 to 704 (1975)Police Power and Limitations. If a health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect an individual has an active or communicable form of tuberculosis who is not willing to undergo treatment, they may detain the individual for the necessary testing and establish suitable isolation. If suitable local isolation is unavailable, they can petition the court to move the individual to an appropriate state facility.CaliforniaCal. Health & Safety Code § 120175-120250 (1995)Authority. Health officers should take all necessary steps to prevent the spread of a contagious disease within their jurisdiction. Officers are required to enforce quarantine of state Department of Health and cannot enforce a quarantine against another jurisdiction without state approval. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120275-120305 (1995)Penalties. Anyone who violates or refuses a regulation or order of quarantine is guilty of a misdemeanor. A first offense is punishable by forced compliance with quarantine up to a year and two years probation with a repeat offense punishable by confinement of not more than a year. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 120175-120250 (1995)Police Power and Limitations. In the event of the outbreak of a communicable disease, a health official may have access to all supplies necessary from health providers that can either assist in responding to the outbreak or are implicated in the outbreak. If disinfection of goods or property would be unsafe, officers may destroy items, with proper compensation to owner.ColoradoColo. Rev. Stat. § 25-1-506 (2008)Authority. County, District or Regional Health Departments have the duty to establish and enforce quarantine or isolation and exercise control over property and people within their jurisdiction as is necessary to protect public health. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-4-509 (2008)Penalties. Anyone who violates or fails to comply with a quarantine order for tuberculosis is guilty of a misdemeanor and can be forced to comply.ConnecticutConn. Gen. Stat. § 368a-19a-131a (2003)
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 368e-19a-221 (2003)Authority. In the event of a state-wide or regional health emergency, the Governor my authorize the Public Health Commission to quarantine or isolate individuals reasonable suspected as being infected or exposed to a communicable disease. Any town, city, borough or district director of health can issue a quarantine or isolation order if necessary to protect public health Conn. Gen. Stat. § 368a-19a-131a (2003)Penalties. Anyone who violates the provisions of a quarantine order or obstructs those tasked with carrying it out shall be fined no more than $1000 and/or imprisoned for no more than a year. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 368a-19a-131 (b-c) (2003)Police Power and Limitations. Quarantine is only appropriate if it is the least restrictive option to protect public health, individuals in quarantine must be provided access to appropriate medical care and other basic needs. Individuals should be released from quarantine at such a point as they no longer pose a risk of contagion. Commissioners must write an order for quarantine. Those subject to quarantine can challenge this order in court. If an individual refuses to obey a quarantine order, they may be taken into custody and placed into quarantine.DelawareDel. Code Ann. tit. 16 §505 (2002)Authority. The Director of the Division of Public Health or a designee may regulate communicable diseases through isolation or quarantine. The public safety authority shall petition the Superior court for an order granting quarantine. If a physician determines immediate quarantine necessary for public health, petition should be filed within 24 hours. Del. Code Ann. tit. 20 §3136 (2002)Police Power and Limitations. An individual under quarantine or isolation order can request a court hearing to the continued necessity of the order. The burden of proof lies with the public safety authority.FloridaFla. Stat. § 381.0011 (2010)

Fla. Stat. § 381.00315 (2005)

Authority. The State Health Officer is responsible for declaring public health emergencies, under which an order can be given to quarantine individuals who pose a threat to public health. Requires the Department of Health to develop a plan that exclusively uses private and non-state public hospitals to provide treatment to cure, hospitalize, and isolate persons with contagious cases of tuberculosis who pose a threat to the public. Fla. Stat. § 381.0025 (1996)Penalties. Any person who violates quarantine rules or regulations is guilty of a second degree misdemeanor.GeorgiaGa. Code § 31-2-1 (2010)

Ga. Code § 31-2-1 (2009)
Ga. Code § 31-3-2.1 (2002)Authority. The Department of Community Health is empowered to isolate and treat individuals unwilling or unable to observe department rules or regulations for disease suppression and to establish quarantine, isolation or surveillance of people or animals exposed to a communicable disease that affects humans. A County Board of Health and Wellness has the authority to declare and enforce a quarantine. Ga. Code § 31-3-2.1 (2002)Penalties. Violation of rules or regulations related to quarantine powers shall be declared a nuisance or a misdemeanor, as determined by the county governing authority establishing the rule. Ga. Code § 38-3-51 (2009)Police Power and Limitations. Those ordered into quarantine or isolation shall have access to legal representation and can challenge that order in court.HawaiiHawaii Rev. Stat. § 128-8 (1986)
Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 325-8 (2002)
Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 325-32,34 (1993, 1998, 1985)Authority. The Governor, in the event of a civil defense emergency, may require the quarantine of persons affected with a disease that presents a public health risk. The Department of Health can petition the court for a quarantine order, or if necessary for the protection of public health, establish a quarantine, provided they submit a petition to the court. The Department of Health can require immunization against a communicable disease with exceptions based on medical risk and religious objection. Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 325-2 (1988)
Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 325-8 (2002)Penalties. Failure of required medical professionals to report presence of a communicable disease is punishable by fine up to $1,000 per violation. Failure to follow a quarantine order is a misdemeanor. Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 128-8 (1986)
Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 325-8 (2002)Police Power and Limitations. Public safety officials can isolate or close any building that is the source of contamination and provide for the destruction or cleansing of property that is acting as a public nuisance. The Governor can suspend any law which impedes the ability to respond to a civil defense emergency. Subjects of quarantine should have their dignity respected and be kept in the least restrictive environment dictated by public health requirements. They have the right to contest a quarantine order in court.IdahoIdaho Admin. Code § 16.02.10.065 (2008)
Idaho Code § 39-415 (1973)
Idaho Code § 50-304 (1967)
Idaho Code § 56-1003 (2000)Authority.  The state public health administrator has the power to quarantine an individual in the case of a communicable disease and to prevent entry or exit of a household or place by nonauthorized individuals, provided proper notification of the order and identification of least restrictive means of protecting public health. A district health board has identical powers as state officials within a health district. Cities may create a board of health and assign it powers and duties relevant to the control of communicable diseases, within five miles of the city. Idaho Code § 56-1003 (2000)Penalties. Any person who violates an order of isolation or quarantine shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Idaho Admin. Code § 16.02.10.065 (2008)Police Power and Limitations.  Department of health officials may enter property in order to administer or enforce communicable disease duties.IllinoisIll. Rev. Stat. ch. 20 § 2305/2 (2009)
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 55 § 5/5-20001 (1990)
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 65 § 5/7-4-1 (1961)
Ill. Admin. Code. 77 § 690.1000 (2008)Authority. The Department of Public Health has supreme authority over declaring new or modifying existing quarantines. A county board of health should be created with responsibility for control of contagious diseases including the use of quarantine for areas within the county not incorporated. Corporate authorities of municipalities have jurisdiction for quarantine extending one half mile beyond corporate limits. Local health authorities shall establish quarantine of contacts of someone suspected of carrying a disease which requires this action. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 20 § 2305/2 (2009)Penalties. Anyone who knowingly disseminates false information related to contagious disease or violates a quarantine order is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 20 § 2305/2 (2009)Police Power and Limitations. Persons who are or are about to be ordered to be isolated or quarantined and owners of places that are or are about to be closed and made off limits to the public shall have the right to counsel and shall be given written notice of the order. The Department may order physical examinations or tests, provided the tests pose no substantial risk of harm, and vaccinate or treat diseases. They may quarantine or isolate those who do not consent to testing to confirm suspected disease or treatment of identified disease.IndianaInd. Code § 16-19-3-9 (1993)Authority. The Department of Health may establish quarantine and do what is reasonable and necessary to prevent or suppress disease. When a public health emergency exists, the Department can enforce orders within local jurisdiction and exercise all powers of those local health authorities. Ind. Code Ann. § 16-41-9-1.5 (2007)Penalties. A person who knowingly or intentionally violates a condition of isolation or quarantine under this chapter commits violating quarantine or isolation, a Class A misdemeanor.

Ind. Code Ann. § 16-41-9-1.5 (2007)Police Power and Limitations. A local health authority can receive an emergency quarantine order lasting 72 hours if individual is likely to spread disease in time prior to proper notification and hearing for individual.IowaIowa Code § 136.3 (2008)
Iowa Admin. Code § 641-1.9(2) (2009)Authority. The state board of health is the policy making body for the Department of Public Health, and shall advise the Department on issues including quarantine and isolation. The state Department of Health and local boards of health are authorized to impose and enforce quarantine and isolation as the particular situation requires. Iowa Code § 139A.25 (2000)Penalties. A person who knowingly violates a quarantine or isolation rule or lawful order is guilty of a simple misdemeanor. A clinical laboratory that fails to file a mandated report shall be subject to a fine no greater than one thousand dollars per occurrence. Iowa Code § 139.4 (2006)Police Power and Limitations. Area quarantine or isolation must be imposed by the least restrictive means necessary to prevent the spread of disease. A person subject to forced quarantine or isolation may employ, at the person’s own expense, a health care professional of the person’s choice.KansasKan. Stat. Ann. § 14-307 (1923)
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-119, 126 (1979)Authority. If a county board of health or local health officer neglects to properly contain a disease, the Secretary of Health and Environment can quarantine any area where the disease threatens to become epidemic. A county or joint board of health shall exercise and maintain supervision over any incidence of communicable disease and enforce provisions pertaining to quarantine and isolation. It shall report existing conditions to the Secretary of Health and Environment. A mayor has jurisdiction, for the purpose of quarantine, extending five miles beyond the corporate limits. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-129 (1979)Penalties. Anyone who knowingly conceals a contagious disease or breaks quarantine or isolation is guilty of a class C misdemeanor. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-119 (1979)Police Power and Limitations. A county or joint board of health or local health officer can prohibit public gatherings when necessary to control infectious or contagious disease.KentuckyKy. Rev. Stat. § 212.370 (2005)
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 214.020 (2005)Authority. When the Cabinet of Health Services believes there is likely outbreak of an infectious disease, it shall adopt and enforce rules as necessary to prevent introduction or spread of disease including quarantine and isolation. City-county boards of health have exclusive control over enforcement of laws and regulations related to public health, including quarantine.LouisianaLa. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:5,7,15 (1999, 1976, 1976)Authority. The state health officer has exclusive authority to isolate or quarantine to prevent the spread of contagious disease. If a parish becomes infected with a disease to the degree that it threatens to spread to another parish, the state health officer can quarantine that parish. Parish health officers may establish quarantine only with permission of the state health officer and parish legislative body, and shall be supervised by the state health officer. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:6 (2008)Penalties. Whoever violates those provisions of the sanitary code dealing with the isolation or quarantine of communicable disease, or any person having such a communicable disease that may cause a severe health hazard to the community and who, after having been officially isolated or quarantined by any local health officer or by the state health officer or the duly authorized representative of either health officer, violates the provisions of the isolation or quarantine shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

MaineMaine Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 § 802(2) (2005)Authority. In the event of an actual or threatened epidemic or outbreak of a communicable or occupational disease, the department may declare that a health emergency exists and may adopt emergency rules for the protection of the
public health relating to procedures for the isolation and placement of infected persons for purposes of care and treatment or infection control and the establishment of temporary facilities for the care and treatment of infected
persons which shall be subject to the supervision and regulations of the department. Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 § 804 (2) (1989)
Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 § 825 (2005)Penalties. Any person, who neglects, violates or refuses to obey the rules or who willfully obstructs or hinders the execution of the rules, may be ordered by the department, in writing, to cease and desist. In the case of any person who refuses to obey a cease and desist order issued to enforce the rules adopted pursuant to section 802, the department may bring an action in District Court to obtain an injunction enforcing the cease and desist order or to request a civil fine not to exceed $500, or both.

Any person who knowingly and willfully fails to comply with reporting requirements for notifiable diseases or conditions commits a civil violation for which a fine of not more than $250 may be adjudged. Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 § 810 (1989)
Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 26 § 875 (2005)Police Power and Limitations. Upon the department’s submission of an affidavit showing by clear and convincing evidence that the person or property which is the subject of the petition requires immediate custody in order to avoid a clear and immediate public health threat, a judge of the District Court or justice of the Superior Court may grant temporary custody of the subject of the petition to the department and may order specific emergency care, treatment or evaluation.

An employer shall grant reasonable and necessary leave from work, with or without pay, for an employee for reasons related to an extreme public health emergency, with limited exceptions.MarylandMd. Ann. § Code 18-905 (2004)Authority. When the Secretary of Health determines that it is medically necessary and reasonable to prevent or reduce the spread of the disease or outbreak believed to have been caused by the exposure to a deadly agent, may order an individual or group of individuals to go to and remain in places of isolation or quarantine until the Secretary determines that the individual no longer poses a substantial risk of transmitting the disease or condition to the public. If a competent individual over the age of 18 refuses vaccination, medical examination, treatment, or testing under this paragraph, may require the individual to go to and remain in places of isolation or quarantine until the Secretary determines that the individual no longer poses a substantial risk of transmitting the disease or condition to the public. Md. Ann. § Code 18-907 (2002)Penalties. A person who knowingly and willfully fails to comply with any order, regulation, or directive is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $3,000 or both. If a health care facility fails to comply with an order, regulation, or directive the Secretary may impose a civil penalty not to exceed $3,000 for each offense. Md. Ann. § Code 18-906 (2009)Police Power and Limitations. Individuals should be informed of quarantine directive through best means available and have a hearing to contest the directive.

It shall be unlawful for any public or private employer to discharge an employee who is under an order of isolation or quarantine or because of such an order.MassachusettsMass. Gen. Laws ch. 111 § 95 (1907)Authority. If a disease dangerous to the public health breaks out in a town, or if a person is infected or lately has been infected therewith, the board of health shall immediately provide such hospital or place of reception and such nurses and other assistance and necessaries as is judged best for his accommodation and for the safety of the inhabitants, and the same shall be subject to the regulations of the board. The board may cause any sick or infected person to be removed to such hospital or place, if it can be done without danger to his health; otherwise the house or place in which he remains shall be considered as a hospital, and all persons residing in or in any way connected therewith shall be subject to the regulations of the board, and, if necessary, persons in the neighborhood may be removed. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111 § 105 (1902)Penalties. If a physician or other person who is in any of the hospitals or places of reception mentioned in section ninety-five, or who attends, approaches or is concerned with them, violates a regulation of the board of health relative thereto, he shall forfeit not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 111 § 94E, 94G, 95 (1974, 1956, 1907)Police Power and Limitations. When the board of health of a town shall deem it necessary, in the interest of the public health, to require a resident wage earner to remain within such house or place or otherwise to interfere with the following of his employment, he shall receive from such town during the period of his restraint compensation to the extent of three fourths of his regular wages; provided, that the amount so received shall not exceed two dollars for each working day.

The full financial responsibility for the care and treatment of patients hospitalized at the tuberculosis treatment center shall be on the commonwealth. The placing of such financial responsibility on the commonwealth for the patients shall in no way affect the residence or other matters concerning the family or dependents of the patients.

Any person hospitalized at the treatment center may petition the district court which committed him to release him therefrom.MichiganMich. Comp. Laws § 333.2453 (1978)
Mich. Admin. Code § 325.175 (1993)Authority. The local health officer may issue an emergency order to prohibit the gathering of people for any purpose and may establish procedures to be followed by persons, including a local governmental entity, during the epidemic to insure continuation of essential public health services and enforcement of health laws. Emergency procedures shall not be limited to this code.

A physician or other person who attends to a case of communicable disease shall arrange for appropriate barrier precautions, treatment, or isolation if needed to prevent the spread of infection to other household members, patients, or the community. Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.2453 (1978)
Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.5207 (1998)Police Power and Limitations. A local health department or the department may provide for the involuntary detention and treatment of individuals with hazardous communicable disease.

To protect the public health in an emergency, upon the filing of an affidavit by a department representative or a local health officer, the circuit court may order the department representative, local health officer, or a peace officer to take an individual whom the court has reasonable cause to believe is a carrier and is a health threat to others into custody and transport the individual to an appropriate emergency care or treatment facility for observation, examination, testing, diagnosis, or treatment and, if determined necessary by the court, temporary detention.MinnesotaMinn. Stat. §§ 144.12,14 (1987, 1977)
Minn. Rules § 4605.74 (2005)Authority. When necessary the commissioner of the Department of Health may establish and enforce a system of quarantine against the introduction into the state of any plague or other communicable disease by common carriers doing business across its borders.

The physician attending a case, suspected case, or carrier (or in the absence of a physician, the commissioner) shall make certain that isolation precautions are taken to prevent spread of disease to others. Minn. Stat. §§ 144.12,14 (1987, 1977)
Minn. Stat. §§ 144.419, 4195, 4196 (2009)Police Power and Limitations. The department’s agents may board any conveyance used by such carriers to inspect the same and, if such conveyance be found infected, may detain the same and isolate and quarantine any or all persons found thereon, with their luggage, until all danger of communication of disease therefrom is removed.

Isolation and quarantine must be by the least restrictive means necessary to prevent the spread of a communicable or potentially communicable disease to others and may include, but are not limited to, confinement to private homes or other private or public premises. Isolated and quarantined individuals must be immediately released when they pose no known risk of transmitting a communicable or potentially communicable disease to others.

Before isolating or quarantining a person or group of persons, the commissioner of health shall obtain a written, ex parte order authorizing the isolation or quarantine from the District Court of Ramsey County, the county where the person or group of persons is located, or a county adjoining the county where the person or group of persons is located.

An employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, or penalize a qualifying employee, or otherwise discriminate in the work terms, conditions, location, or privileges of the employee, because the employee has been in isolation or quarantine.MississippiMiss. Code Ann. § 41-23-5 (1983)
Miss. Code Ann. § 41-3-15 (2007, repealed in 2010)Authority. The state department of health shall have the authority to investigate and control the causes of epidemic, infectious and other disease affecting the public health, including the authority to establish, maintain and enforce isolation and quarantine, and in pursuance thereof, to exercise such physical control over property and individuals as the department may find necessary for the protection of the public health.

The State Board of Health shall have authority: To direct and control sanitary and quarantine measures for dealing with all diseases within the state possible to suppress same and prevent their spread. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-23-1, 2, 27 (2000, 1988, 1983)Penalties. Failure by a medical professional to report a communicable disease is grounds for loss of medical license. Any person who shall knowingly and willfully violate the lawful order of the county, district or state health officer where that person is afflicted with a life-threatening communicable disease or the causative agent thereof shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not more than five years, or by both.

Any person knowingly violating any rule or regulation promulgated by the state board of health, related to quarantine for sexually transmitted diseases, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by fine or imprisonment or both.MissouriMo. Rev. Stat. § 79.380 (1969)
Mo. 19 CSR 20-20.050 (2008)Authority. The City Council or Board of Alderman may make regulations and pass ordinances for the prevention of the introduction of contagious diseases in the city, and for the abatement of the same, and may make quarantine laws and enforce the same within five miles of the city.

The local health authority, the director of the Department of Health or the director’s designated representative shall require isolation of a patient or animal with a communicable disease, quarantine of contacts, concurrent and terminal disinfection, or modified forms of these procedures necessary for the protection of the public health. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 192.320 (1978)Penalties. Any person or persons who shall leave any isolation hospital or quarantined house or place without the consent of the health officer having jurisdiction, or who evades or breaks quarantine or knowingly conceals a case of contagious, infectious, or communicable disease, or who removes, destroys, obstructs from view, or tears down any quarantine card, cloth or notice posted by the attending physician or by the health officer, or by direction of a proper health officer, shall be deemed guilty of a class A misdemeanor.MontanaMont. Code Ann.  § 50-1-204 (2003)
Mont. Code Ann.  § 50-2-116, 118 (2007)
Mont. Code Ann.  § 50-18-107 (1989)Authority. The department may adopt and enforce quarantine measures against a state, county, or municipality to prevent the spread of communicable disease. If found necessary or desirable to protect public health, state and local health officers or their authorized deputies or agents shall isolate or quarantine persons who refuse examination or treatment. Local boards may quarantine persons who have communicable diseases. Local health officers or their authorized representatives shall establish and maintain quarantine and isolation measures as enacted by the local board of health. Mont. Code Ann.  § 50-1-204 (2003)Penalties. A person who does not comply with quarantine measures shall, on conviction, be fined not less than $10 or more than $100. Mont. Code Ann. § 50-17-105 (2001)Police Power and Limitations. The department or a local board may apply for an order from the district court if a person is reasonably suspected to have or to have been exposed to tuberculosis. The application must request that the person be ordered to:
(a) submit to an examination for tuberculosis and, if the person is found to have tuberculosis, to complete an approved course of treatment; or
(b) enter or return to a treatment location to complete an approved course of treatment.NebraskaNeb. Rev. Stat. § 14-219 (1976)
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-501 (2007)
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-601 (2007)Authority. The mayor shall have such jurisdiction over all places within three miles of the corporate limits of the city, for the enforcement of any health and quarantine ordinance or the regulations thereof.

The county boards of the counties shall make and enforce regulations to prevent the introduction and spread of contagious, infectious, and malignant diseases in their respective counties. To that end a board of health shall be created, consisting of three members. The sheriff shall be chairperson and quarantine officer.

The Department of Health and Human Services shall have general supervision and control over matters relating to public health and sanitation and shall have supervision over all matters of quarantine and quarantine regulations. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-506 (1994)Penalties. Any person violating any of the provisions of section 71-501 and 71-502 shall be guilty of a Class V misdemeanor for each offense.NevadaNev. Rev. Stat. § 439.360 (2003)
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 441A-160 (2003)Authority. The county board of health may establish and maintain an isolation hospital or quarantine station when necessary; restrain, quarantine and disinfect any person sick with or exposed to any contagious or infectious disease that is dangerous to the public health; and appoint quarantine officers when necessary to enforce a quarantine.

A health authority may issue an order requiring the isolation, quarantine or treatment of any person or group of persons if he believes that such action is necessary to protect the public health.

Most of the city charters contain a provision giving the city council the authority to establish rules on quarantine within their jurisdiction. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 441A-180 (1989)Penalties. A person who has a communicable disease in an infectious state shall not conduct himself in any manner likely to expose others to the disease or engage in any occupation in which it is likely that the disease will be transmitted to others. A person who violates the provisions after service upon him of a warning from a health authority is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 439.360 (2003)
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 441A-160 (2003)Police Power and Limitations. The county board of health shall provide whatever medicines, disinfectants and provisions which may be required, and shall arrange for the payment of all debts or charges so incurred from any funds available, but each patient shall, if he is able, pay for his food, medicine, clothes and medical attendance.

A health authority may enter private property at reasonable hours to investigate any case or suspected case of a communicable disease and order any person whom he reasonably suspects has a communicable disease in an infectious state to submit to any medical examination or test which he believes is necessary to verify the presence of the disease. The order must be in writing and specify the name of the person to be examined and the time and place of the examination and testing, and may include such terms and conditions as the health authority believes are necessary to protect the public health.New HampshireN.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 141-C:4, 5 (1995)Authority. The commissioner shall establish, maintain, and suspend isolation and quarantine to prevent the spread of communicable diseases and order persons who pose a threat to the life and health of the public to receive such treatment and care as necessary to eliminate the threat.

Health officers shall assist the commissioner, when requested to do so, in the establishment and maintenance of isolation and quarantine in their respective cities and towns, and enforce all rules adopted by the commissioner relative to isolation and quarantine. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 141-C:21 (1986)Penalties. Any person who shall violate, disobey, refuse, omit or neglect to comply with any of the provisions of RSA 141-C, or of the rules adopted pursuant to it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if a natural person, or guilty of a felony if any other person. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 141-C:11, 14, 15 (2002)Police Power and Limitations. Isolation or quarantine shall be by the least restrictive means necessary to protect the citizenry which, in the case of an individual, shall be at a place of his or her choosing unless the commissioner determines such place to be impractical or unlikely to adequately protect the public health. The commissioner may, in ordering isolation or quarantine of persons, require that treatment be obtained

Any person subject to an order for submission of a specimen, or for examination, immunization, treatment, isolation, quarantine, provision of information, or inspection of a building or conveyance may request a hearing in the superior court to contest such order.

The cost of treatment and care shall be a cost to the person, or his parent or guardian, or, if such person is indigent, from such public funds available for such purposes.New JerseyN.J. Stat. § 26:4-2 (2005)Authority. In order to prevent the spread of disease, the state department of health, and the local boards of health within their respective jurisdictions and subject to the state sanitary code, shall have power to maintain and enforce proper and sufficient quarantine, wherever deemed necessary. N.J. Stat. §§ 26:4-129 (1918)Penalties. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, a person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter, or fails to perform any duty imposed by this chapter at the time and in the manner provided, shall be liable  to a penalty of not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars for each  offense. N.J. Stat. §§ 26:4-3 (1893)Police Power and Limitations. Whenever the state department or a local board, in order to prevent the spread of communicable disease, destroys any goods, the state treasurer or local treasurer, as the case may be, shall pay to the owner of the goods, or his legal representatives, the sum so certified.New MexicoN.M. Stat. Ann. § 24-1-3
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-8Authority. The Department of Health has authority to establish, maintain and enforce isolation and quarantine. The department of health may establish or require isolation or quarantine of any animal, person, institution, community or region.

The secretary of health may isolate or quarantine a person as necessary during a public health emergency, using the procedures set forth in the Public Health Emergency Response Act. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-19 (2005)Penalties. The secretary of health, the secretary of public safety or the director may enforce the provisions of the Public Health Emergency Response Act by imposing a civil administrative penalty of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each violation of that act. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-8
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-16 (2003)Police Power and Limitations. Isolation or quarantine shall be by the least restrictive means necessary to protect against the spread of a threatening communicable disease or a potentially threatening communicable disease to others and may include confinement to a private home or other private or public premises.

A person isolated or quarantined pursuant to the provisions of the Public Health Emergency Response Act has the right to refuse medical treatment, testing, physical or mental examination, vaccination, specimen collections and preventive treatment programs.

An employer or an agent of an employer shall not discharge from employment a person who is placed in isolation or quarantine.New YorkN.Y. Public Health Law § 2100 (1953)Authority. Every local board of health and every health officer may provide for care and isolation of cases of communicable disease in a hospital or elsewhere when necessary for protection of the public health. N.Y. Public Health Law § 2122 (1953)Penalties. Any person who has  been  committed  to  a  hospital or institution pursuant to the provisions of section two  thousand one hundred twenty of this  chapter,  who  thereafter  willfully  violates  the  rules  and  regulations  of the institution or repeatedly  conducts himself in a disorderly manner may be taken before a magistrate  by the order of the chief medical officer of the institution. The chief medical officer of the institution may enter a  complaint  against  such  person for disorderly conduct and the magistrate, after a  hearing and upon sufficient evidence of  such  disorderly  conduct,  may  commit  such  person  for  a  period  not  to  exceed  six months to any  institution to which persons convicted of disorderly  conduct,  vagrancy  or similar violations are committed. N.Y. Public Health Law § 2120 (1953)Police Power and Limitations. The magistrate after due notice and a hearing,  if  satisfied  that  the  complaint  of  the  health  officer  is  well  founded and that the  afflicted person is a source of danger to others, may  commit  the  said  person  to  any  hospital  or  institution  established  for the care of  persons suffering from any such communicable disease  or  maintaining  a  room, ward or wards for such persons.North CarolinaN.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A-41, 45.5, 45.6, 145 (1999, 1997, 1997, 2004)Authority. The State Health Director and a local health director are empowered to exercise quarantine and isolation authority. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A-145 (2004)Police Power and Limitations. Quarantine or isolation can be imposed for 30 days. The individual so restricted can challenge the order in superior court. The period of restriction can be increased a further 30 days if still necessary for protection of public health by petition to the superior court.North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code § 23-07-06 (1989)
N.D. Cent. Code § 23-07.6-02 (1989)
N.D. Cent. Code § 23-35-12 (1999)Authority. The state health officer or any local health officer may order any person or group into confinement by a written directive if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person or group is infected with any communicable disease, the state health officer or local health officer determines that the person or group poses a substantial threat to the public health, and confinement is necessary and is the least restrictive alternative to protect or preserve the public health.

Whenever a local board of health knows that a case of a contagious or infectious disease exists within its jurisdiction, the board immediately shall examine the facts of the case and may adopt such quarantine and sanitary measures as in its judgment tend to prevent the spread of such disease. N.D. Cent. Code § 23-07.6-02 (1989)Penalties. Persons subject to isolation or quarantine shall obey the health officer’s rules and orders and must not go beyond the isolation or quarantine premises. Failure to obey these provisions is a class B misdemeanor.

A person, other than a person authorized by the state or local health officer, must not enter isolation or quarantine premises. Failure to obey this provision is a class B misdemeanor. N.D. Cent. Code § 23-07.6-03 (1989)Police Power and Limitations. The state or a local health officer, within that officer’s jurisdiction, may temporarily isolate or quarantine an individual or groups of individuals through a written directive if delay in imposing the isolation or quarantine would significantly jeopardize the health officer’s ability to prevent or limit the transmission of a contagious or possibly contagious disease to others.

At a hearing conducted under this chapter, the health officer who ordered confinement has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent is infected with a communicable disease, poses a substantial threat to the public health, and that confinement of the respondent is necessary and is the least restrictive alternative to protect or preserve the public health.OhioOhio R.C. § 3701.13 (2005)
Ohio R.C. §§ 3707.08, .15 (1953, 1999)Authority. The Department of Health shall have supervision of all matters relating to the preservation of the life and health of the people and have supreme authority in matters of quarantine, which it may declare and enforce, when none exists, and modify, relax, or abolish, when it has been established.

When a person known to have been exposed to a communicable disease declared quarantinable by the board of health of a city or general health district or the department of health is reported within its jurisdiction, the board shall at once restrict such person to his place of residence or other suitable place, prohibit entrance to or exit from such place without the board’s written permission in such manner as to prevent effective contact with individuals not so exposed, and enforce such restrictive measures as are prescribed by the department.

Any person that employs an alien who is not legally present in the United States and has a contagious or infectious disease contracted before or during employment shall pay to the municipal corporation, township, or county in which the alien is employed any expense caused by the contagious or infectious disease. Ohio R.C. §§ 3707.09, 31 (1953)Police Power and Limitations. The board of health of a city or general health district may employ as many persons as are necessary to execute its orders and properly guard any house or place containing any person affected with or exposed to a communicable disease declared quarantinable by the board or the department of health. The persons employed shall be sworn in as quarantine guards, shall have police powers, and may use all necessary means to enforce sections 3707.01 to 3707.53, inclusive, of the Revised Code, for the prevention of contagious or infectious disease, or the orders of any board made in pursuance thereof.

When great emergency exists, the board of health of a city or general health district may seize, occupy, and temporarily use for a quarantine hospital a suitable vacant house or building within its jurisdiction.OklahomaOkla. Stat. tit. 63 §§ 1-502, 504 (1963, 2008)Authority. The State Board of Health shall have authority to adopt such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with law, as it deems necessary to aid in the prevention and control of communicable disease.

Whenever a local health officer determines or suspects that a person has a communicable disease, he may impose a quarantine on the place or premises where such person usually stays, and notice thereof shall be given in accordance with the rules and regulations of the State Board of Health. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1195 (1910)Penalties. Every person who having been lawfully ordered by any health officer to be detained in quarantine and not having been discharged leaves the quarantine grounds or willfully violates any quarantine law or regulation is guilty of a misdemeanor.OregonOr. Rev. Stat. § 433.121 (2007)Authority. The Public Health Director or a local public health administrator may issue an emergency administrative order causing a person or group of persons to be placed in isolation or quarantine if the Public Health Director or the local public health administrator has probable cause to believe that a person or group of persons requires immediate detention in order to avoid a clear and immediate danger to others and that considerations of safety do not allow initiation of the petition process set out in ORS 433.123. Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 433.121, 140 (2007)Police Power and Limitations. Isolation or quarantine must be by the least restrictive means necessary to prevent the spread of a communicable disease or possibly communicable disease to others or to limit exposure to or contamination with a toxic substance by others, and may include, but is not limited to, confinement to private homes or other public or private premises.

The Department of Human Services may provide general assistance, including medical care for the person who is isolated or quarantined, on the basis of need, provided that no payment shall be made for the care of any such person in or under the care of any public institution or public agency or municipality.PennsylvaniaPa. Code tit. 28 § 27.60 (2002)Authority. The Department or local health authority shall direct isolation of a person or an animal with a communicable disease or infection; surveillance, segregation, quarantine or modified quarantine of contacts of a person or an animal with a communicable disease or infection; and any other disease control measure the Department or the local health authority considers to be appropriate for the surveillance of disease, when the disease control measure is necessary to protect the public from the spread of infectious agents.Rhode IslandR.I. Gen. Laws §§ 23-8-4,18, 21

(2003, 1956, 1956)Authority. If the state director of health, or his or her duly authorized agent, determines, upon investigation, that a threat to the public health exists because any person is suffering, or appears to be suffering, from a communicable disease, the director or his or her authorized agent may cause that person to be confined, in some proper place, for the purpose of isolation or quarantine, until the threat to the public health has abated.

The power to establish quarantine in this state shall also be vested in the governor; and whenever the governor shall deem it advisable for the preservation of public health and the prevention of the spread of infectious diseases, he or she may, by proclamation, place under quarantine the whole state or that portion of the state that he or she may deem necessary, and he or she shall authorize and empower the state director of health to take any action and make and enforce any rules and regulations that may be deemed necessary to prevent the introduction and to restrict the spread of infectious diseases in the state.

It shall be the duty of the several city and town councils to require their officers to enforce the rules and regulations mentioned and referred to in this section within their respective cities and towns. R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 23-8-7, 21 (1967, 1956)Penalties. Any person who is confined by the director or his or her authorized agent under the provision of § 23-8-4 and who violates that confinement shall be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) or by imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days, or both.

Any person knowingly violating any of those rules and regulations so made and established shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) or be imprisoned not more than two (2) years. R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 23-8-1.1, 4 (1990, 2003)Police Power and Limitations. Persons under eighteen (18) years of age may give legal consent for testing, examination, and/or treatment for any reportable communicable disease.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a person who is unable or unwilling for reasons of health, religion, or conscience to undergo immunization or treatment from choosing to submit to quarantine or isolation as an alternative to immunization or treatment.South CarolinaS.C. Code Ann. § 44-4-530 (2008)
S.C. Code Ann. § 44-1-80 (2002)Authority. During a public health emergency, DHEC may isolate or quarantine an individual or groups of individuals.

The Board of Health and Environmental Control or its designated agents shall investigate the reported causes of communicable or epidemic disease and shall enforce or prescribe such preventive measures as may be needed to suppress or prevent the spread of such diseases by proper quarantine or other measures of prevention, as may be necessary to protect the citizens of the State. All sheriffs and constables in the several counties of this State and police officers and health officers of cities and towns shall aid and assist the Director of the Department of Health and Environmental Control and shall carry out and obey his orders, or those of the Department of Health and Environmental Control, to enforce and carry out any and all restrictive measures and quarantine regulations that may be prescribed. S.C. Code Ann. § 44-4-530 (2008)Penalties. A person subject to isolation or quarantine must comply with DHEC’s rules and orders, and must not go beyond the isolation or quarantine premises. Failure to comply with these rules and orders constitutes a felony and, upon conviction, a person must be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 44-4-530, 540 (2008)Police Power and Limitations. An employer may not fire, demote, or otherwise discriminate against an employee complying with an isolation or quarantine order; however, nothing in this section prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to use annual or sick leave to comply with such an order.

DHEC may temporarily isolate or quarantine an individual or groups of individuals through an emergency order signed by the commissioner or his designee, if delay in imposing the isolation or quarantine would significantly jeopardize DHEC’s ability to prevent or limit the transmission of a contagious or possibly contagious disease to others. Within ten days after issuing the emergency order, DHEC must file a petition for a court order authorizing the continued isolation or quarantine of the isolated or quarantined individual or groups of individuals, for a maximum of thirty days per granted order.South DakotaS.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 34-1-17 (1995)Authority. The Department of Health may adopt and enforce orders and rules necessary to preserve and protect the public health and may regulate, control, and, in proper cases, prohibit and suppress: The treatment in hospitals and elsewhere of persons suffering from communicable diseases, the disinfection and quarantine of persons and places in case of such disease, and the reporting of sickness and deaths therefrom. S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §§ 34-22-5, 6, 18 (1977)Penalties. Every person who intentionally exposes himself or another person infected with any contagious disease in any public place or thoroughfare, except in his necessary removal in a manner not dangerous to the public health, is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

It is a Class 2 misdemeanor for any board, physician, or person to compel another by the use of physical force to submit to the operation of vaccination with smallpox or other virus.

Any person in the State of South Dakota reasonably suspected of being infected with tuberculosis shall accept necessary diagnosis or treatment, or both, and any person who intentionally refuses to accept such diagnosis or treatment, or both, or who fails to follow the reasonable and necessary directives of the State Department of Health issued for the protection of other persons, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.TennesseeTenn. Code Ann. § 68-1-201 (2006)
Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-2-609 (1985)
Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-9-204 (1977)Authority. The commissioner has the power to declare quarantine whenever, in the commissioner’s judgment, the welfare of the public requires it.

The county health officer is empowered to order the quarantine of any place or person if the county health officer finds that such control is necessary to protect the public health from an epidemic.

No one but the commissioner, a state, municipal, district or county health officer or such person’s duly authorized representative shall establish and terminate isolation or quarantine of persons with infectious tuberculosis. Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-1-203 (1989)Penalties. Any person who willfully disregards or evades quarantine, or violates any rule or regulation made in attempting to prevent the spread of any epidemic disease, commits a Class B misdemeanor.TexasTexas Health and Safety Code § 81.083 (2007)
Texas Health and Safety Code §§ 122.005, 006 (1989)Authority. If the department or a health authority has reasonable cause to believe that an individual is ill with, has been exposed to, or is the carrier of a communicable disease, the department or health authority may order the individual, or the individual’s parent, if the individual is a minor, to implement control measures that are reasonable and necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of the disease in this state.

The governing body of a Type A general-law municipality may take any action necessary or expedient to promote health or suppress disease, including actions to prevent the introduction of a communicable disease into the municipality, including quarantine rules, and may enforce those rules in the municipality and in any area within 10 miles of the municipality.

A home-rule municipality may adopt rules to protect the health of persons in the municipality, including quarantine rules to protect the residents against communicable disease. Texas Health and Safety Code § 81.085 (2003)Penalties. A person commits an offense if the person knowingly fails or refuses to obey a rule, order, or instruction of the department or an order or instruction of a health authority issued under a department rule and published during an area quarantine under this section. An offense under this subsection is a felony of the third degree. Texas Health and Safety Code § 81.083 (2007)Police Power and Limitations. The state, a county or a hospital district shall pay for medical expenses if individual is indigent and cannot pay and if that individual is not eligible for benefits under an insurance contract.UtahUtah Code Ann. § 26-6b-3 (2008)Authority. The department, or the local health department having jurisdiction over the location where an individual who is subject to supervision is found, may issue an order for the individual’s temporary involuntary treatment, quarantine, or isolation. Utah Code Ann. § 26-6b-3.3 (2008)Police Power and Limitations. In addition to the rights of an individual described in Subsections (1) and (2), an individual subject to an order of restriction may not be terminated from employment if the reason for termination is based solely on the fact that the individual is or was subject to an order of restriction.VermontVt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18 § 1004 (1979)
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18 § 1004a (1979)Authority. A physician who knows or suspects that a person whom he has been called to attend is sick or has died of a communicable disease dangerous to the public health shall immediately quarantine and report to the health officer the place where such case exists, but if the attending physician, at the time of his first visit, is unable to make a specific diagnosis, he may quarantine the premises temporarily and until a specific diagnosis is made, and post thereon a card upon which the word “quarantine” should be plainly written or printed. Such quarantine shall continue in force until the health officer examines and quarantines as is provided in this title.

The commissioner of health shall have the power to quarantine a person diagnosed or suspected of having a disease dangerous to the public health. Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 6 § 1060 (1973)Police Power and Limitations. Any person in compulsory medical management by order of the court who believes his physical condition is such as to warrant his discharge, if the discharge is refused by the commissioner of health, is entitled to a physical examination by a qualified physician of his own choice. If as a result of examination the physician feels that the continued compulsory medical management is no longer justified and the commissioner of health does not concur in that opinion, the person may appeal by petition to the court issuing the original order for his compulsory medical management.VirginiaVa. Code § 32.1-43 (2004)Authority. The State Health Commissioner shall have the authority to require quarantine, isolation, immunization, decontamination, or treatment of any individual or group of individuals when he determines any such measure to be necessary to control the spread of any disease of public health importance. Va. Code § 32.1-48.014 (2007)Penalties. Any person who does not comply with a validly issued order of quarantine or order of isolation issued or prepared pursuant to this article shall be subject to the penalties including, upon conviction, a Class 1 misdemeanor and payment of civil penalties. Va. Code § 32.1-48.04 (2004)Police Power and Limitations. Any order for isolation in the person’s home or another’s residence or an institution or other place shall be valid for no more than 120 days, or for a shorter period of time if the Commissioner or his designee, or the court upon petition, determines that the person no longer poses a substantial threat to the health of others. Orders for isolation in the person’s home or another’s residence may be enforced through the use of electronic devices.WashingtonWash. Rev. Code §43.20.050 (2010)

Wash. Rev. Code §70.28.031 (1996)Authority. The state board of health is required to adopt rules for the imposition and use of isolation and quarantine. Each health officer is hereby directed to use every available means to ascertain the existence of, and immediately to investigate, all reported or suspected cases of tuberculosis in the infectious stages within his or her jurisdiction and to ascertain the sources of such infections. In carrying out such investigations, each health officer is hereby invested with full powers of inspection, examination, treatment, and quarantine or isolation of all persons known to be infected with tuberculosis in an infectious stage or persons who have been previously diagnosed as having tuberculosis and who are under medical orders for treatment or periodic follow-up examinations. Wash. Rev. Code §70.28.033 (1996)Penalties. Inasmuch as the order provided for by RCW 70.28.031 is for the protection of the public health, any person who, after service upon him or her of an order of a health officer directing his or her treatment, isolation, or examination as provided for in RCW 70.28.031, violates or fails to comply with the same or any provision thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, in addition to any and all other penalties which may be imposed by law upon such conviction, may be ordered by the court confined until such order of such health officer shall have been fully complied with or terminated by such health officer, but not exceeding six months from the date of passing judgment upon such conviction. Wash. Rev. Code §70.28.032 (1996)Police Power and Limitations. The state board of health shall adopt rules establishing the requirements for due process standards for health officers exercising their authority to involuntarily detain, test, treat, or isolate persons with suspected or confirmed tuberculosis that provide for release from any involuntary detention, testing, treatment, or isolation as soon as the health officer determines the patient no longer represents a risk to the public’s health.West VirginiaW. Va. Code §§ 16-3-1, 2 (1977)Authority. The state director of health is empowered to establish and strictly maintain quarantine at such places as he may deem proper and forbid and prevent the assembling of the people in any place, when the state director of health or any county or municipal health officer deems that the public health and safety so demand.

The county board of health of any county may declare quarantine therein, or in any particular district or place therein, whenever in their judgment it is necessary to prevent the spread of any communicable or infectious disease prevalent therein, or to prevent the introduction of any communicable or infectious disease prevailing in any other state, county or place, and of any and all persons and things likely to spread such infection. W. Va. Code § 16-3-2 (1977)Penalties. Every person who shall fail or refuse to comply with any order made by such board under this section, and every person summoned as such guard who shall, without a lawful excuse, fail or refuse to obey the orders and directions of such board in enforcing said quarantine, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than twenty-five nor more than two hundred dollars. W. Va. Code § 16-3-1 (1977)Police Power and Limitations. The state director of health shall have power to enter into any town, city, factory, railroad train, steamboat or other place whatsoever, and enter upon and inspect private property for the purpose of investigating the sanitary and hygienic conditions and the presence of cases of infectious diseases, and may, at his discretion, take charge of any epidemic or endemic conditions, and enforce such regulations as the state board of health may prescribe. All expenses incurred in controlling any endemic or epidemic conditions shall be paid by the county or municipality in which such epidemic occurs.WisconsinWis. Stat. § 252.06 (1) (2003)Authority. The department or the local health officer acting on behalf of the department may require isolation of the patient, quarantine of contacts, concurrent and terminal disinfection, or modified forms of these procedures as may be necessary and which are determined by the department by rule. Wis. Stat. § 252.06(4)(b)2 (2003)Penalties. A violation of a quarantine order is subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 9 months, or both. Wis. Stat. § 252.06(10)(a) (2003)Police Power and Limitations. Expenses for necessary medical care, food and other articles needed for the care of the infected person shall be charged against the person or whoever is liable for the person’s support.WyomingWyo. Stat § 15-1-103 (2009)
Wyo. Stat § 35-1-240 (2008)
Wyo. Stat § 35-4-104 (1991)Authority. Powers and duties allow the local board of health to establish quarantine ordinances.

The department of health, through the state health officer, or under his direction and supervision, through the other employees of the department, shall have and exercise the following powers and duties to establish, maintain and enforce isolation and quarantine, and in pursuance thereof, and for such purpose only, to exercise such physical control over property and over the persons of the people within this state as the state health officer may find necessary for the protection of the public health.

In case of the existence of any infectious or contagious disease that is a menace to public health, or of any epidemic of any such disease, the state health officer may, if he deems proper, proceed to the locality where such disease exists, and make such investigation as is necessary to ascertain the cause thereof, and in case of quarantine established by the county health officer, the state health officer shall have power after close personal inspection, to modify or abrogate any or all quarantine regulations after the same have been established. Wyo. Stat § 35-4-105 (1997)Penalties. Any person or persons confined in any quarantine established in this state under the provisions of this act who shall escape therefrom or attempt to escape therefrom, without having been dismissed upon the certificate or authority of the county health officer may be charged with a crime. Upon conviction of a violation of this section, a person may be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or imprisonment for not more than one (1) year. Wyo. Stat §§ 35-4-102, 112 (1957, 2003)Police Power and Limitations. The respective counties of the state shall not be liable for the payment of any claim for service rendered by any physician in the treatment of contagious diseases, unless such treatment shall be for the care of indigent persons who are a public charge.

Any person who has been quarantined pursuant to this act may appeal to the district court at any time for release from the quarantine.District of ColumbiaD.C. Code Ann. § 7-2304 (2004)Authority. The mayor, upon declaring a state of emergency, may detain for medical reasons, those for whom there is probable cause of infection by communicable disease. D.C. Code Ann. § 7-2307 (1981)Penalties. Violation of an emergency executive order is punishable by a fine of no more than $1000.GuamGuam Code Ann. tit. 10 § 19602 (2000)Authority. The public health authority may isolate or quarantine any person whose refusal of medical examination or testing results in uncertainty regarding whether that person has been exposed to or is infected with a contagious or possibly contagious disease, or otherwise poses a danger to public health. Guam Code Ann. tit. 10 § 19604 (2000)Penalties. Persons subject to isolation or quarantine shall obey the public health authority’s rules and orders; and shall not go beyond the isolation or quarantine premises. Failure to obey these provisions shall constitute a misdemeanor.

No person, other than a person authorized by the public health authority, shall enter isolation or quarantine premises. Failure to obey this provision shall constitute a misdemeanor. Guam Code Ann. tit. 10 §§ 19604, 19605 (2000)Police Power and Limitations. Isolation and quarantine must be by the least restrictive means necessary to prevent the spread of a contagious or possibly contagious disease to others, and may include, but are not limited to, confinement to private homes or other private and public premises.

Within 10 days after issuing the written directive, the public health authority shall file a petition for a court order authorizing the continued isolation or quarantine of the isolated or quarantined individual or groups of individuals.Puerto RicoP.R. Laws tit. 24, chapter 21 § 351 (1912)Authority. That the Secretary of Health may cause to be removed to proper places designated by him any person sick with a quarantinable disease, or any other rapidly spreading, contagious or infectious disease, and shall have the control of public hospitals for the treatment of such cases. P.R. Laws tit. 33, chapter 105 § 1392 (1951)Penalties. Any person who violates the terms of any proclamation issued by the Governor, in accordance with law and in relation to public health, or who violates any quarantine, sanitary, or other regulations issued by the Secretary of Health or by any other person, body or board, always under authority of law, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished accordingly. P.R. Laws tit. 24, chapter 21 § 351 (1912)Police Power and Limitations. He may cause proper care and attention to be given to the sick persons removed to the hospitals, at the expense of the Commonwealth Government, as herein provided for, when it comes to his knowledge that such persons are too poor to defray the expenses of their attendance, or when it is necessary to take care of them in the interests of the public health. For the purpose of carrying out the duties prescribed by this section, the Secretary of Health, or any duly authorized physician employed in the Department of Health, may enter, at any time into private properties and dwellings for the inspection or examination of such premises.U.S. Virgin IslandsV.I Code tit. 19, chapter 1 §§ 1, 2Authority. The Commissioner of Health may by regulation declare any disease to be a communicable disease, and may prescribe the procedure which is to be followed by the patient or person suffering therefrom, the parents of the patient, the householder, the physician attending the patient, or any individual brought into contact with or responsible for the care or maintenance of the patient, in order that the transference of the disease to other individuals may be prevented. This includes quarantine or isolation of the patient, of any persons who have been exposed to the patient and therefore liable to have contracted the disease, or of any carrier of the disease. The regulations shall become effective upon approval by the Governor.

 

Sources: Trust for America’s Health, 2004; NCSL, 2010.


Arizona Facing New Medical Marijuana Legal Challenge

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/state-facing-new-medical-marijuana-legal-challenge/article_57453c0c-3005-11e4-b6c3-0019bb2963f4.html
PHOENIX — State health officials are facing a new legal challenge over a provision in the voter-approved Medical Marijuana Act that bars those who live within 25 miles of a dispensary from growing their own plants.

The lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court contends that giving some the right to grow but not to others is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

Billy B. Hayes, who is not at attorney but filed the legal papers on behalf of himself and others, also contends the system gives dispensary operators a monopoly in violation of state constitutional provisions.

Hayes, a resident of El Mirage, wants Judge Arthur Anderson to rule that all of the more than 50,000 medical marijuana patients in Arizona are eligible to grow their own plants without fear of prosecution. And recognizing the case could take months, if not longer, Hayes is asking Anderson to block state health officials from enforcing the no-grow provisions while the lawsuit is proceeding.

The 2010 voter-approved Arizona Medical Marijuana Act allows those with specified medical conditions and a doctor’s recommendation to obtain up to 2 1/2 ounces of the drug every two weeks. And the law required the state to set up a system of privately run but state regulated dispensaries to sell the drug.

But the law also says those not within 25 miles could grow up to 12 plants of their own. Initially, that meant all marijuana patients, as there were no dispensaries when the law was approved. But state health officials, in renewing the annual permits for users, have rescinded their growing privileges when a dispensary opened nearby.

Health Director Will Humble acknowledged the law does create a disparity between those who can continue to grow their own drugs and those forced to purchase what they need from a dispensary. But he said the argument is not with him or his department, but with the people who crafted the 2010 initiative — and the voters who decided they wanted a restrictive system limiting use for medical purposes.

“The voters were told that this is a dispensary-based system that has inventory controls to prevent diversion of marijuana to non-cardholders,” he said. “That the program we delivered.”

Humble said this lawsuit seeks to undermine that with more of a free-for-all approach.

“One of the fundamental things that you lose in that kind of a system are the inventory controls that prevent diversion of marijuana to non-cardholders,” he said.

“When somebody’s growing 12 of their own plants in their own house, they could share it with anybody, not legally,” Humble continued. “But for all practical purposes, the inventory controls are lost.’

Humble said he’s not a lawyer and cannot address the legal questions being raised.

“But I can tell you we’re going to go toe-to-toe with the plaintiffs on this case and defend the law that the voters approved,” he said.

This is not the first challenge to the 25-mile restriction.

Last year Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper rejected arguments by two men that the limit on growing marijuana violated a state constitutional provision which guarantees patients the right to decide their own health care. She also said nothing in the law forces them into any compulsory program.

But Cooper may have provided the roadmap for this lawsuit.

“The 25-mile provision does appear to create two groups of Arizona Medical Marijuana Act participants based on residence,” she wrote. But Cooper said the two men never raised that issue and she would not rule “in a vacuum as to its validity.”

No date has been set for a hearing.

 

***Note from Anna: Arizona voters you have been flat-out betrayed. Don’t get mad, get even. Vote out the traitors.

8/14 Colorado Marijuana Workshop for State and Local Public Health- Recording and Materials

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/marijuana-workshop-state-and-local-public-health

Elyse Contreras Retail Marijuana Program & Medical Marijuana Research Grant Program

Programs Coordinator
P 303.692.6455 | F 303.782.0904
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, CO 80246
elyse.contreras@state.co.us
We hosted the Marijuana Workshop for State and Local Public Health on Aug. 14, 2014. 
 

Agenda

Presentations:

 

Medical Marijuana Registry – Natalie Riggins

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/CHEIS-Natalie%20Riggins%20presentation.pdf

Medical Marijuana Research Grants Program – Ken Gershman

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/CHEIS-Ken%20Gershman%20presentation.pdf

Retail Marijuana: Health Effects Surveillance – Tista Ghosh

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/CHEIS-Tista%20Ghosh%20presentation.pdf

Retail Marijuana Public Helath Advisory Committee & Occupational Health and Safety Work Group – Mike Van Dyke

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/CHEIS-Mike%20VanDyke%20presentationV2.pdf

WIC Surveillance – Jill Bonczynski, Tri-County Health Department

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/CHEIS-Jill%20Bonczynski%20Presentation.pdf

Laboratory Contaminant Testing – Laura Gillim-Ross

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/CHEIS-Laura%20Gillim-Ross%20presentation.pdf

Perspective of a marijuana insider handouts – Max Montrose

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/CHEIS-Max%20Montrose%20Handout.pdf

Perspective of a marijuana insider PowerPoint presentation – Max Montrose

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/CHEIS-Max%20Montrose%20presentation.pdf

Perspectives of a recommending physician – Joe Cohen

Office of Behavioral Health Community Prevention Programs and Statewide Efforts – Stan Paprocki, Colorado Department of Human Services

 

Public Health Prevention Services – Ali Maffey, CDPHE and Heath Harmon, Boulder County Public Health

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/CHEIS-ALI-MAFFEY-PRESENTATION.pdf

 

***Note from Anna. Please take the time to read this information.

Reschedule DEA Medical Marijuana as Class Five

http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml

 

“The Drug Enforcement Administration was created by President Richard Nixon through an Executive Order in July 1973 in order to establish a single unified command to combat “an all-out global war on the drug menace.” At its outset, DEA had 1,470 Special Agents and a budget of less than $75 million. Today, the DEA has nearly 5,000 Special Agents and a budget of $2.02 billion.”

http://www.justice.gov/dea/about/history.shtml

DEA Drug Schedules

Drugs, substances, and certain chemicals used to make drugs are classified into five (5) distinct categories or schedules depending upon the drug’s acceptable medical use and the drug’s abuse or dependency potential.

The abuse rate is a determinate factor in the scheduling of the drug; for example, Schedule I drugs are considered the most dangerous class of drugs with a high potential for abuse and potentially severe psychological and/or physical dependence.

As the drug schedule changes– Schedule II, Schedule III, etc., so does the abuse potential– Schedule V drugs represents the least potential for abuse. A Listing of drugs and their schedule are located at Controlled Substance Act (CSA) Scheduling or CSA Scheduling by Alphabetical Order.

These lists describes the basic or parent chemical and do not necessarily describe the salts, isomers and salts of isomers, esters, ethers and derivatives which may also be classified as controlled substances. These lists are intended as general references and are not comprehensive listings of all controlled substances.

Please note that a substance need not be listed as a controlled substance to be treated as a Schedule I substance for criminal prosecution. A controlled substance analogue is a substance which is intended for human consumption and is structurally or pharmacologically substantially similar to or is represented as being similar to a Schedule I or Schedule II substance and is not an approved medication in the United States. (See 21 U.S.C. §802(32)(A) for the definition of a controlled substance analogue and 21 U.S.C. §813 for the schedule.)

Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

Schedule II

Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, less abuse potential than Schedule I drugs, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:

cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin

Schedule III

Schedule III drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. Schedule III drugs abuse potential is less than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs but more than Schedule IV. Some examples of Schedule III drugs are:

Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), Products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dosage unit (Tylenol with codeine), ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone

Schedule IV

Schedule IV drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence. Some examples of Schedule IV drugs are:

Xanax, Soma, Darvon, Darvocet, Valium, Ativan, Talwin, Ambien

Schedule V

Schedule V drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with lower potential for abuse than Schedule IV and consist of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. Schedule V drugs are generally used for antidiarrheal, antitussive, and analgesic purposes. Some examples of Schedule V drugs are:

cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine or per 100 milliliters (Robitussin AC), Lomotil, Motofen, Lyrica, Parepectolin

 

***Note from Anna: Reclassify medical marijuana on the DEA class schedule, allow it’s use for home grows, and tax it in reasonable fashion for retail. End the black market. Impeach, recall,or fire any cop or politician on the city, state, and federal levels who doesn’t agree.

Washington State Liquor Control Board FAQs on Taxes

http://www.liq.wa.gov/marijuana/faqs-on-taxes

What are my Marijuana Excise Tax Obligations?
Per RCW 69.50.535 and WAC 314-55-089, all licensees are required to remit to the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) an excise tax of 25 percent on all taxable sales of marijuana, marijuana concentrates, useable marijuana, and marijuana-infused products. This tax is specific to marijuana sales and does not include transportation costs or retail sales tax amounts.

Exemptions to the above where the 25 percent excise tax is not applied:

  • Transfers from licensed producers to licensed processors when they are the same entity. For example, Producer A is also Processor A. The transfer from production to processing is not a sale because it is the same entity.
  • Processor to processor sales, regardless of entity. House Bill 2304 authorized processor to processor sales but did not include any taxation.

When can I pay my excise tax?
The reporting period closes on the last day of the calendar month. You can confirm and pay your excise tax obligation any time after that.

When is my excise tax due?
Confirmation and payment of excise taxes are due no later than the 20th day of each month for the previous month’s activity. (For example: taxes for the July reporting period are due no later than August 20th.)

How do I pay my excise tax?
WSLCB will accept cash, check, cashier’s check, or money order as payment of your excise tax obligation. Cash payments will be accepted in person by appointment only at our Olympia HQ location. Please call 360-664-1789 to schedule a payment appointment.

Can I pay at Department of Revenue?
No. The Department of Revenue will not accept payments for marijuana excise tax at this time.

What should I do if I have a discrepancy in sales data or excise tax amount due?
Contact the WSLCB Marijuana Tax Unit at marijuanataxes@lcb.wa.gov or 360-664-1789. We are here to assist you with any discrepancies or irregularities.

What happens if I do not pay my taxes by the required deadline?
Per WAC 314-55-092, a penalty of 2 percent per month will be assessed on any past due payments. Failure to make a report and/or pay the license taxes and/or penalties in the manner and dates outlined in WAC 314-55-089 will be sufficient grounds for the board to suspend or revoke a marijuana license.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=314-55-092

What if a marijuana licensee fails to report or pay, or reports or pays late?

(1) If a marijuana licensee does not submit its monthly reports and payment(s) to the board as required in WAC 314-55-089: The licensee is subject to penalties.
Penalties: A penalty of two percent per month will be assessed on any payments postmarked after the twentieth day of the month following the month of sale. When the twentieth day of the month falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, the filing must be postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service no later than the next postal business day.
Absent a postmark, the date received at the liquor control board or authorized designee, will be used to assess the penalty of two percent per month on payments received after the twentieth day of the month following the month of sale.
(2) Failure to make a report and/or pay the license taxes and/or penalties in the manner and dates outlined in WAC 314-55-089 will be sufficient grounds for the board to suspend or revoke a marijuana license.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 69.50.342 and 69.50.345. WSR 14-10-044, § 314-55-092, filed 4/30/14, effective 5/31/14. Statutory Authority: RCW 69.50.325, 69.50.331, 69.50.342, 69.50.345. WSR 13-21-104, § 314-55-092, filed 10/21/13, effective 11/21/13.]

Can I charge the purchaser for the excise tax?
The excise tax is the obligation of the seller. Any of this tax obligation intended to be passed on to the purchaser should be included in the sale price of the product.

http://dor.wa.gov/Content/FindTaxesAndRates/marijuana/Default.aspx

Taxes due on recreational marijuana

Do you hold a producer, processor or retailer marijuana business license issued by the Liquor Control Board? If so, you will also owe taxes to the Washington State Department of Revenue.

Applicable taxes

Business and occupation (B&O) tax applies to your business’s gross receipts. You also must collect and remit to Revenue the sales tax on your retail transactions. The fact sheets at right explain your obligations.

How to file and pay your taxes

Log on to Revenue’s My Account to file your monthly returns. You must file each month. If you have no business activity to report, you still must file a “no business” return.

You can also pay your taxes through My Account.

Businesses that cannot pay electronically must apply for a waiver and, in the meantime, pay their taxes by check, money order or cash.

Mail checks to:

Washington State Department of Revenue
PO Box 47464
Olympia WA 98504-7464

Cash payments – where to pay

To make an appointment to pay your taxes in cash, choose a field office location. Appointments are necessary for tax payments of $20,000 or more.

Please schedule your appointment before the due date. We encourage early payments (before the 25th) if using cash. Penalties may apply if you don’t pay your taxes by the 25th. 

Excise taxes (25 percent) paid to Liquor Control Board

Revenue is NOT accepting tax payments for the Liquor Control Board. Excise taxes due to the Liquor Control Board must be paid to them electronically or at their office in Olympia.

http://dor.wa.gov/Content/FindTaxesAndRates/marijuana/Default.aspx

Special Notice WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

http://dor.wa.gov/Docs/Pubs/SpecialNotices/2014/sn_14_SB6505.pdf

PO BOX 47478 |OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504-7478 | 1-800-647-7706 |

DOR.WA.GOV

Special Notice

 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Recreational and Medical Marijuana – Repeal and Clarification
of Excise Tax Deductions, Exemptions, and Preferential Rates
Effective June 12, 2014, recreational and medical marijuana producers, processors, retailers, and businesses that provide services to marijuana businesses are excluded from certain business and occupation (B&O) tax deductions, exemptions, and preferential rates; retail sales and use tax exemptions; and other excise tax exemptions and deductions.
In addition, sales of marijuana to consumers are not eligible for any retail sales tax or use tax exemptions. (See Senate Bill (SB)6505 [Chapter 140, Laws of 2014].)Property Tax Exemptions:
For information about property tax exemptions affected by SB 6505, please see our Property Tax Special Notice – 2014 Legislative Updates: Current
Use, Marijuana, and Designated Forest Land Legislation
Note:
For purposes of this notice the term “marijuana” is used to refer to marijuana, useable marijuana, and marijuana-infused products, including marijuana concentrates, as those terms are defined under RCW 69.50.101and Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 2304 (Chapter 192, Laws of 2014)
.
Do Any Excise Tax Deductions, Exemptions, or Preferential Rates Apply to Marijuana Before June 12, 2014?
Before June 12, 2014, businesses producing, processing, and selling marijuana and businesses that provide services to marijuana businesses may qualify for tax deductions and exemptions discussed below, if a business otherwise meets the specific requirements of that deduction or exemption.
SB 6505 also clarified that marijuana did not qualify for certain tax deductions, exemptions, or preferential rates before June 12, 2014. This special notice will specifically state when a tax deduction, exemption, or preferential rate listed in this notice does not apply before June 12, 2014.
Quick Reference Table:
At the end of this notice is a table that lists the excise tax
deductions, exemptions, and preferential rates in this notice by RCW and states if they applied before June 12, 2014.
ISSUED JUNE 12, 2014
****Note from Anna:
Are sales of “Medical Cannabis” subject to sales tax?

 

In the state of Washington, sales of medical cannabis are retail sales. As such, the selling price is subject to retail sales tax. In addition, the seller is subject to the business and occupation (B&O) tax under the retailing classification. This is true even if it is sold by a medical cannabis dispensary.

 

Sales of medical cannabis are not eligible for the retail sales tax exemption provided for prescription drugs. RCW 82.08.0281 provides an exemption from retail sales tax for certain drugs, but only when prescribed as authorized by the laws of this state. However, cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance and cannot be prescribed under either federal or state law in Washington.

 

Chapter 69.51A RCW addresses medical cannabis, but does not authorize the prescription of medical cannabis. This chapter specifically avoids authorization of a prescription by referring to “valid documentation”, which does not equate with a prescription as defined in RCW 82.08.0281(4)(a), or as provided in RCW 69.50.308 (Prescriptions). Chapter 69.51A provides that it is only intended to protect qualifying patients, designated providers, and physicians from liability, prosecution, or criminal guilt when cannabis is possessed, used, provided or authorized.

In addition, sales of cannabis-infused products (edibles, liquids, etc.) are not eligible for the retail sales tax exemption provided for food and food ingredients under RCW 82.08.0293 as these products are not “food or food ingredients.” Therefore retail sales tax applies on sales of cannabis-infused products.

 

See our Special Notice – Sales of Medical Cannabis Remain Subject to Sales Tax (pdf)

 

Note:
Senate Bill (SB) 6505 [Chapter 140, Laws of 2014] clarified that marijuana, useable marijuana, and marijuana infused-products, including marijuana concentrates are not drugs for purposes of the sales tax exemption under RCW 82.08.0281 for prescription drugs.

 

SB 6505 also clarified that marijuana, useable marijuana, and marijuana infused-products, including marijuana concentrates are not food or food ingredients for purposes of the sales tax exemption under RCW 82.08.0293 for food and food ingredients.

These clarifications do not change how sales of medical cannabis (marijuana) are taxed. Whether sold for recreational or medical purposes, all sales of cannabis are subject to retail sales tax. For more information on these clarifications, see our Special Notice: Recreational and Medical Marijuana – Repeal and Clarification of Excise Tax Deductions, Exemptions, and Preferential Rates.

Washington State Legislature SB 6505

Colorado Marijuana Tax Fifth Amendment Hearing on Friday August 22 2014

For immediate release: August 21, 2014

*Please COPY and REDISTRIBUTE*

{Denver} — There will be a preliminary injunction hearing in Denver
District Court on Friday in a lawsuit brought by marijuana civil rights
activists seeking to protect their Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination. Plaintiffs will argue in front of The Honorable Judge
John Madden IV that payment of marijuana taxes violates a citizen’s Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination, since marijuana remains illegal
under federal law.

*THE PUBLIC IS ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND THIS HEARING*

Date: Friday, August 22, 2014
Time: 9am to 12noon
Location: Denver District Court (Old Building)
1437 Bannock St.
Denver, Colorado
Courtroom #203: The Honorable Judge John Madden IV

Note: Please dress nicely and maintain quiet in the courtroom. Bring a
photo ID with, as you may have to show it to get through courthouse
security.

*BACKGROUND*
Attorney Robert J. Corry, Jr. filed the lawsuit on June 9, 2014 seeking to
permanently end Colorado’s marijuana taxes, on the grounds that payment of
the taxes forces citizens to incriminate themselves as criminals under
federal law.

The complaint was filed on behalf of an unnamed licensed medical and retail
marijuana center, the “No Over Taxation” issue committee (which campaigned
against Proposition AA, the marijuana tax issue approved by Colorado voters
in 2013) and several individuals, including Kathleen Chippi, Larisa
Bolivar, Miguel Lopez and William Chengelis.

Corry is seeking unspecified damages and a refund of all tax monies
collected by the state.

If successful, Corry’s lawsuit could be the basis for overturning ALL
regulations regarding marijuana licensing and registration in Colorado on
the same grounds.

As long as marijuana remains illegal under federal law,
states cannot require people to give any information about themselves in
order to distribute or purchase marijuana. ANY and ALL requirements to
identify oneself would result in a “real and appreciable” risk of
self-incrimination, and would require a citizen to implicate himself in
federal crimes.

As witnesses, the State of Colorado has called attorneys Brian Vicente and
Christian Sederberg, two self-proclaimed “marijuana lawyers” who helped
campaign for Amendment 64, to provide testimony to support the State’s
assertion that payment of these taxes is not incriminating.

Read more about the Fifth Amendment here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Corry cites a 1973 Colorado Supreme Court case (People vs. Duleff) that
overturned a man’s conviction for “selling marijuana without a license”
because compliance with the licensing requirement would have required that
person to violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination and
reveal a violation of federal law. Corry writes, “The Colorado Supreme
Court held specifically that the Fifth Amendment prohibits state licensing
requirements that force a person to reveal a violation of federal law.”

From the Duleff decision, Corry quotes the Colo. Sup. Ct.:
“The Fifth Amendment prohibits licensing requirements from being used as a
means of discovering past or present criminal activity which is subject to
prosecution by calling attention to the licensee and his
activities….There is no doubt that the information which Duleff would
have been required to disclose would have been useful to the investigation
of his activities, would have substantially increased the risk of
prosecution, and may well have been a direct admission of guilt under
federal law. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from such compulsory,
incriminating disclosures and provides a complete defense to prosecution.”
– Colorado Supreme Court (1973)

Corry also cites a 1969 US Supreme Court case (Timothy Leary v. United
States) in which the highest court in the country overturned Leary’s
marijuana possession conviction and ruled that the federal Marihuana Tax
Act of 1937 was illegal, due to the fact that a person seeking a tax stamp
and complying with the law would be forced to incriminate himself, in
violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Corry writes, “Marijuana-specific taxes require plaintiffs and any other
person paying said taxes to incriminate themselves as committing multiple
violations of federal law, including but not limited to, participating in,
aiding and abetting, or conspiring to commit a ‘continuing criminal
enterprise’ and ‘money laundering.’ These illegally-collected taxes are
ultimately laundered by the State of Colorado through J.P. Morgan Chase
Bank, which also participates knowingly in the continuing criminal
enterprise.” Item 67, Corry complaint filed 6/9/14.

Corry concludes, “It is illegal for government to retain tax monies
illegally collected in violation of the constitution, so all amounts must
be returned, and all records related to previous tax payments, destroyed.”

Corry asks the Court to:
“Enter a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and/or
permanent injunction ordering the Defendants, and all those acting in
concert with them, to cease and desist from enforcement of the marijuana
tax statutes, to cease and desist from any further collection, deposit, or
laundering of the marijuana taxes, for a full refund of marijuana tax
monies paid by any person or entity, and for destruction of all tax records
and identifying information after full refunds are made.”

“The state can’t have it both ways. If it’s illegal under federal law, you
cannot collect taxes on it,” says Kathleen Chippi, a plaintiff and member
of the Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project. “We have another
case pending in the Colorado Supreme Court now, Coats v. Dish Network,
where Colorado Attorney General John Suthers argues that medical marijuana
patients can be fired from their jobs for using medical marijuana off-duty,
even though it is legal under state law. Suthers argues in the Coats case
that, since marijuana is still illegal under federal law, patients have no
rights.”

“Yet Suthers and Hickenlooper, as kingpins in their continuing criminal
enterprise, happily collect and spend the marijuana taxes, even though they
were collected in spite of multiple clear violations of federal law,”
Chippi concludes.

Read Boulder Weekly article on Federal Preemption issues and the Coats v.
Dish Lawsuit (5/22/14):
http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-12900-local-attorney-argues-fed-laws-donrst-apply-to-mmj.html

*FOR MORE INFORMATION*

Click here to read the complaint
No Over Taxation, et al, v. Hickenlooper, et al
http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute.com/legal/colorado/propaa.complaint.corry.pdf

People v. Duleff (Colorado Supreme Court case)
http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute.com/legal/colorado/people.v.duleff.html

US v. Leary (US Supreme Court case)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/6/

Read more about the Fifth Amendment here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project
*DONATE ONLINE*
http://www.cannabislawsuits.com/

Denver 420 Rally
http://420rally.org/

Law Firm of Robert J. Corry, Jr.
http://www.robcorry.com/

*PRESS CONTACTS*

Contact: Robert J. Corry, Jr.: (303) 634-2244
Kathleen Chippi: 888-EAT-HEMP (888-328-4367)

Provided as a Public Service by the:
Cannabis Therapy Institute
Phone: 877-420-4205
Web: http://www.CannabisTherapyInstitute.com/
Email: info@cannabistherapyinstitute.com

 

***Note from Anna: Fight for your right to cannabis or lose it. The politicians have made it very,very clear that all marijuana cultivation is going into the full control of the Federal government, no matter what the state governors think. Dispensaries, activists, and patients had better pay 100 percent attention to this case.  Every state in America is looking at Colorado for direction with setting,or eliminating, cannabis legalization laws.

If the Colorado activists lose, patients in all of the marijuana states can expect mediocre mass-produced GMO’d, barely effective weed for the little people and high-quality organic cannabis for the rich.That is if it isn’t banned altogether due to quality control, supply and demand, or greed issues by the people in control of it’s cultivation.

If citizens refuse to participate in making sure cannabis is legal then definitely learn to grow your own, but don’t be surprised if home grows of any size are met with full police/FBI/DEA response. Rich people will not allow for the poor people to prosper financially with cannabis because it means THEY lose money and the citizens would be united to vote out ALL of the politicians who betrayed them.

Time is running out until the big money fake activists and lobbyists, hell-bent on locking up cannabis for the friends, politicians, and big businesses who pay them, betray the MMJ patients. The lobbyists and politicians will absolutely betray their constituents for Election 2016 profits. Voter abuses have happened before, and they will happen again if the citizens do not very closely monitor the actions of their politicians.

 

CDPHE Meeting on Retail Marijuana Surveillance – Thursday 8/14/2014-Patients and Press *Not* Invited

For immediate release: Aug. 13, 2014

Cannabis Press Association
http://www.cannabispressassociation.com/

Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project
http://www.cannabislawsuits.com/
888-EAT-HEMP

{Denver} — The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE) will be holding an all-day meeting on Thursday, Aug. 14, concerning
their expanding roles in “retail marijuana surveillance” and other areas.

*PHYSICAL LOCATION OF MEETING*
Courtyard Marriott Cherry Creek
Skyline Ballroom
1475 South Colorado Blvd.
Denver, CO 80222
Workshop begins at 8:30 am

The CDPHE had previously only regulated medical marijuana. Their new roles in retail marijuana involve at least 6 different departments within the CDPHE. (See page 10 of “Marijuana and CDPHE” presentation below.)

The meeting will be held at the Courtyard Marriott in Denver, but there
will also be a live webinar available (See below for details.)

According to the CDPHE, “no media” will be allowed to attend the meeting,
and the agenda shows that “no patients” have been invited to share their
views in any manner, even though the subject matter directly concerns them.

The Cannabis Press Association (CPA), working with the Patient and
Caregivers Rights Litigation Project (PCRLP), discovered the meeting, after
several patients received an email invitation asking them to register for
the meeting, which was apparently sent accidentally by the CDPHE to the
wrong email distribution list.

In the email, Elyse Contreras, Programs Coordinator for the Retail
Marijuana Program & Medical Marijuana Research Grant Program at the CDPHE,
stated that the purpose of the Aug. 14 meeting is “to update our local
partners on latest information regarding marijuana surveillance, prevention
efforts, medical research, lab regulations, infused product safety and
more!”

Contreras’ invitation stated that “no media” would be allowed to attend.

When the CDPHE discovered they had sent the email invitation to patients in
error, they immediately removed the online registration form from their
website.

The Cannabis Press Association filed a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA)
request last week, asking for the location and webinar login information
for the meeting, as well as a request for the list of invitees to the
meeting.

The CDPHE ignored the CORA requests. However, CPA was able to obtain the
information from reliable sources. (See below.)

*SURVEILLANCE OF PREGNANT WOMEN*
Many topics will be covered at the all-day meeting. A primary focus will be
how the CDPHE will be performing “surveillance” on pregnant women to
determine whether cannabis used during pregnancy is harmful to children.

According to a “Marijuana and Pregnancy” presentation on the CDPHE website,
one of the new CDPHE programs includes “Birth Registry Surveillance”, which
is defined as “surveillance to determine if marijuana could be a factor in
the development of adverse birth outcomes” and includes a “thorough review
of maternal medical records” (See page 9 of “Marijuana and Pregnancy”
presentation below.)

Kathleen Chippi of the Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project sees
this as another attack on patients. “This secret meeting is just another
attack on medical marijuana patients. They want to screen all birth mothers
for cannabis? The CDPHE doesn’t test new moms for GMOs, pesticides,
fracking fluids, caffeine, sugar, or pharmaceutical chemicals, so why focus
on THC, which has been used safely by humans for over 10,000 years?
Cannabis was actually prescribed commonly to ease pregnancy and the
birthing process before it was made illegal in 1937. Natural cannabinoids
(endocannabinoids) are actually abundant in all breast milk and research
has shown that they are essential to a newborn’s development.”

See: Cannabinoids, like those found in marijuana, occur naturally in human
breast milk
http://www.naturalnews.com/036526_cannabinoids_breast_milk_THC.html#ixzz3AKr2v8PH

===================================================================

*MEETING AGENDA*
Click here for agenda for the Aug. 14, 2014 CDPHE/DOR meeting:
http://cannabispressassociation.com/docs/CDPHE.Agenda.for.State.Local.Workshop-8.14.14.pdf

NOTE: The CDPHE claims that this is not a public meeting, but have refused
to provide a list of the official invitees. If you want to attend in
person, it is recommended to arrive early to try to cajole a seat out of
your public officials.

===================================================================
*WEBINAR LOGIN INFORMATION*
From: “Contreras – CDPHE, Elyse” <elyse.contreras@state.co.us>
Date: August 13, 2014 10:51:24 AM MDT
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: 8/14 Marijuana Webinar Details
Marijuana Workshop for State and Local Public Health

Follow the directions below to join the webinar beginning at 8:30 am
Thursday, August 14th. This is an all day work shop, the agenda is
attached.

This meeting is intended to allow local public health agency
representatives the opportunity to learn more abut marijuana regulation in Colorado.  No public comment or questions will be taken as the meeting is not considered an open meeting as defined in the Colorado Open Meetings Law, Section 24-6-401 et seq. 

Questions on the topics discussed can be
sent to medical.marijuana@state.co.us.

To join the meeting:
https://cdphe.adobeconnect.com/r6e3dlu1pg2/
—————-
If you have never attended an Adobe Connect meeting before:

Test your connection:
https://cdphe.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm

Get a quick overview: http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html

Elyse Contreras
Programs Coordinator
Retail Marijuana Program & Medical Marijuana Research Grant Program
P 303.692.6455  |  F 303.782.0904
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, CO 80246
elyse.contreras@state.co.us
===================================================================

*RELATED CDPHE PRESENTATIONS*
“Marijuana and CDPHE” presentation
http://cannabispressassociation.com/docs/CDPHE.Marijuana.and.CDPHE.Presentation.CORA4.pdf

“Marijuana and Pregnancy” presentation
http://cannabispressassociation.com/docs/CDPHE.Marijuana.Pregnancy.Presentation.pdf

===================================================================
NOTE: This information was obtained as a public service by volunteers
working with the Cannabis Press Association (CPA), working with the Patient
and Caregivers Rights Litigation Project (PCRLP). Please be generous and
make a donation today.

===================================================================

For immediate release: Aug. 13, 2014

Cannabis Press Association
http://www.cannabispressassociation.com/

Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project
http://www.cannabislawsuits.com/
888-EAT-HEMP


Provided as a Public Service by the:
Cannabis Press Association
“Fighting over 77 years of lies and mis-information
with over 10,000 years of history and fact.”
Web: http://www.cannabispressassociation.com/
Email: info@cannabispressassociation.com

***Note from Anna: I wish the DEA officers went after legal (and illegal) methamphetamine,steroid, and Prozac abusers with the same intensity used for illegally profiling legal medical marijuana patients.

Colorado has sold out to big pharmaceutical companies and their petty political lobbyists. It’s disturbing to watch how easy it is for judges and cops to abuse the weakest among them while running like their asses are on fire away from violent offenders on legally-distributed methamphetamines.

Stats on Meth in Colorado:

http://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs4/4300/meth.htm

National Drug Intelligence Center
Colorado Drug Threat Assessment
May 2003

“…Methamphetamine abuse is increasingly prevalent in Colorado. The number of methamphetamine-related treatment admissions to publicly funded facilities in the state increased from 1,748 in 1997 to 2,037 in 2001, according to data from ADAD. (See Table 1 in Overview section.) Since 1999 treatment admissions for methamphetamine abuse have increased each year, while admissions for cocaine, heroin, and marijuana have declined. According to ADAD, more than 83 percent of patients treated for methamphetamine abuse in 2001 were Caucasian, 54 percent were male, and nearly 33 percent were 35 or older. Nearly 43 percent of methamphetamine abusers treated during 2001 smoked the drug, 32 percent injected it, 19 percent snorted it, and 6 percent used some other method or multiple methods of administration.”

http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/colorado-drug-addiction.html

From Narconon International:

“…Colorado is crossed by eight Interstates: I-15, I-25, I-70, I-76, I-80, I-84, I-90 and I-94. The central location and high ethnic population of Denver and its suburbs makes it a perfect distribution center for drugs coming into the U.S. across the Canadian border, or for drugs being trafficked north from the Southwest border. Fifteen Ports of Entry (POE) from Canada exist in Montana, and Interstates 15 and 90 link these POEs with Denver and Salt Lake City, both major drug distribution points.

…The most dangerous aspect of the drug scene in Colorado and its cities is that drug trafficking and use is on the increase. The biggest threat is the highly addictive and physically damaging ice methamphetamine. Recent supplies of meth have been more pure and lower cost than earlier supplies.”

From Johnny Green at the Weed Blog April 3, 2013:

http://www.theweedblog.com/marijuana-patents-us-patents-on-medical-procedures-involving-cannabinoids/

Spain Study Confirms Hemp Oil Cures Cancer
http://www.endalldisease.com/spain-st…

Federal Government Reports that Marijuana Kills Cancer Cells
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51148243/ns…

US Patent 4837228
Cannabichromene (CBC)
http://www.google.com/patents/US4837228

US Patent 4189491
Glaucoma Treatment
http://www.google.com/patents/US4189491

US Patent 5631297
Anandamide Compounds
http://www.google.com/patents/US5631297

US Patent 6132762
Pain, inflammation and arthritis
http://www.google.com/patents/US6132762

US Patent 6410588
Cannabidiol and inflammatory diseases
http://www.google.com/patents/US6410588

US Patent 6974568
Treatment for coughs
http://www.google.com/patents/US6974568

US Patent 6630507
Inflammatory and autoimmune diseases
Strokes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s
http://www.google.com/patents/US6630507

US Patent 7741365
Novel polycyclic cannabinoid analogs
http://www.google.com/patents/US7741365

US Patent 7597910
Prostate cancer and prostatitis
http://www.google.com/patents/US7597910

US Patent 7977107
Detecting traces of cannabinoids
http://www.google.com/patents/US7977107

US Patent 8071641
Diabetes and insulitis
http://www.google.com/patents/US8071641

US Patent 8242178
Cannabidiol and autoimmune hepatitis
http://www.google.com/patents/US8242178

US Patent 8034843
Nausea, vomiting and motion sickness
http://www.google.com/patents/US8034843

US Patent Application 20100292345
Cannabigerol (CBG)
http://www.google.com/patents/US20100…

US Patent Application 20080181942
Multiple sclerosis and MS relapse
http://www.google.com/patents/US20080…

US Patent Application 20090197941
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
http://www.google.com/patents/US20090…

US Patent Application 20100204312
Treating cell proliferation and cancers
http://www.google.com/patents/US20100…

US Patent Application 20080262099
Inhibition of tumour cell migration
http://www.google.com/patents/US20080…

US Patent Application 20100222437
Gastrointestinal inflammatory and cancers
http://www.google.com/patents/US20100…

Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research Studies…

Scientific Proof Cannabinoids Kill Cancer Cells :

http://youtu.be/mFBBTnv5Xbs

http://redd.it/18qiwn
http://phoenixtears.ca
http://www.phoenixtearsfoundation.com…

Copy and paste links into address bar (one at a time) :

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19638490
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22776349
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16682966
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12648025
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19914218
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16893424
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15361550
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19889794
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19015962
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19608284
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17237277
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11586361
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14692532
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16571653
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18286801
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16250836
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17934890
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12052046
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189054
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18354058
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19047095
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10913156
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9653194
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18088200
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16909207
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17342320
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19059457
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12723496
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442536
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16728591
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539619
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16500647
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19189659
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14617682
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18938775
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11106791
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19394652
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20336665
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442435
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15451022
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18197164
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16835997
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11903061
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17675107
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17202146
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19425170
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18454173
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17065222
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10700234
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16787257
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15958274
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16139274
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16624285
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16616335
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11269508
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19690545
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12511587
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20307616
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818634
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952650
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818650
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596790
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15638794
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15275820
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12133838
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339876
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9771884
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10570948
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12182964
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19229996

 

Oil Companies Fracking Into Drinking Water Sources, New Research Shows

Energy companies are fracking for oil and gas at far shallower depths than widely believed, sometimes through underground sources of drinking water, according to research released Tuesday by Stanford University scientists.

Though researchers cautioned their study of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, employed at two Wyoming geological formations showed no direct evidence of water-supply contamination, their work is certain to roil the public health debate over the risks of the controversial oil and gas production process.

Fracking involves high-pressure injection of millions of gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals to crack geological formations and tap previously unreachable oil and gas reserves. Fracking fluids contain a host of chemicals, including known carcinogens and neurotoxins.

Fears about possible water contamination and air pollution have fed resistance in communities around the country, threatening to slow the oil and gas boom made possible by fracking.

Fracking into underground drinking water sources is not prohibited by the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which exempted the practice from key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. But the industry has long held that it does not hydraulically fracture into underground sources of drinking water because oil and gas deposits sit far deeper than aquifers.

The study, however, found that energy companies used acid stimulation, a production method, and hydraulic fracturing in the Wind River and Fort Union geological formations that make up the Pavillion gas field and that contain both natural gas and sources of drinking water.

“Thousands of gallons of diesel fuel and millions of gallons of fluids containing numerous inorganic and organic additives were injected directly into these two formations during hundreds of stimulation events,” concluded Dominic DiGiulio and Robert Jackson of Stanford’s School of Earth Sciences in a presentation Tuesday at the American Chemical Society conference in San Francisco.

The scientists cautioned that their research, which is ongoing and has yet to be peer-reviewed, “does not say that drinking water has been contaminated by hydraulic fracturing.”

Rather, they point out that there is no way of knowing the effects of fracking into groundwater resources because regulators have not assessed the scope and impact of the activity.

“The extent and consequences of these activities are poorly documented, hindering assessments of potential resource damage and human exposure,” DiGiulio wrote.

Underground sources of drinking water, or USDWs, are a category of aquifers under the Safe Drinking Water Act that could provide water for human consumption.

“If the water isn’t being used now, it doesn’t mean it can’t be used in the future,” said DiGiulio, a Stanford research associate who recently retired from the Environmental Protection Agency. “That was the intent of identifying underground sources of drinking water: to safeguard them.”

The EPA documented in 2004 that fracking into drinking water sources had occurred when companies extracted natural gas from coal seams. But industry officials have long denied that the current oil and gas boom has resulted in fracking into drinking water sources because the hydrocarbon deposits are located in deeper geological formations.

“Thankfully, the formations where hydraulic fracturing actually is occurring…are isolated from USDWs by multiple layers and often billions of tons of impenetrable rock,” said Steve Everley, a spokesman for Energy in Depth, an industry group.

Industry officials had not seen the Stanford research.

DiGiulio and Jackson plotted the depths of fracked wells, as well as domestic drinking water wells in the Pavillion area. They found that companies used acid stimulation and hydraulic fracturing at depths of the deepest water wells near the Pavillion gas field, at 700 to 750 feet, far shallower than fracking was previously thought to occur in the area.

“It’s true that fracking often occurs miles below the surface,” said Jackson, professor of environment and energy at Stanford. “People don’t realize, though, that it’s sometimes happening less than a thousand feet underground in sources of drinking water.”

Companies say that fracking has never contaminated drinking water. The EPA launched three investigations over the last six years into possible drinking water contamination by oil and gas activity in Dimock, Pa.; Parker County, Texas; and Pavillion, Wyo. After initially finding evidence of contamination at the three sites, the EPA shelved the investigations amid allegations by environmentalists and local residents that the regulator succumbed to political pressure.

Jackson said the Stanford study’s findings underscore the need for better monitoring of fracking at shallower depths. “You can’t test the consequences of an activity if you don’t know how common it is,” he said. “We think that any fracking within a thousand feet of the surface should be more clearly documented and face greater scrutiny.”

The Stanford study focuses on Pavillion, in part because of DiGiulio’s familiarity with the area when he served as an EPA researcher in the latter stages of the Pavillion water study. Industry and the state of Wyoming questioned the EPA’s methodology after its 2011 draft report found the presence of chemicals associated with gas production in residents’ well water. In June 2013, the EPA turned over the study to Wyoming regulators, whose work is being funded by EnCana, the company accused of polluting the water in Pavillion.

The EPA study looked at whether chemicals migrated upward from fracked geological zones into people’s well water. The Stanford research does not explore the possibility of migration, focusing instead on the injection of fracking chemicals directly into geological formations that contain groundwater.

The EPA does not keep track of whether underground sources of drinking water have been hydraulically fractured as part of oil and gas development, said Alisha Johnson, a spokeswoman. “EPA does not maintain a database of all the wells being hydraulically fractured across the country,” she said in an email.

In their presentation, DiGiulio and Jackson noted that the EPA considers the Wind River formation and the Fort Union stratum below it to be underground sources of drinking water. The conventional image of tight geological formations where fracking occurs is that they are monolithic stretches of rock. But the scientists say the geology of the two formations is mostly sandstone of varying permeability and water.

“People think these formations are impermeable, and so they wonder, ‘Why are you worrying about water?’” DiGiulio said. “But it is an extremely heterogeneous environment, with areas of low and high permeability mixed together and with many lenses conducting water.”

Follow @neelaeast for energy and environmental news.

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times

***Note from Anna; Big pharma wastes combined with nuke storage wastes combined with Monsanto wastes equals a full-on disaster to the environment, keeps the citizens trapped in a toxic economy, and will create a public health hazard nightmare by Winter 2015.The U.S. budget is not stable. Obamacare is not stable. Fracking causes immune system disorders.

From By | Jan 31, 2014 at Medical Daily:

…According to a recent study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, babies born near fracking sites are 30 percent more likely to have birth defects.”

http://www.medicaldaily.com/birth-defects-result-fracking-natural-gas-wells-put-fetus-risk-congenital-heart-neural-tube-problems

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/122/1/ehp.1306722.pdf

Fracking is absolutely unnecessary. There is an entirely new generation of scientists emerging that can better handle the challenges associated with sustainable energy creation. They are much better suited to effectively managing multicultural global infrastructure issues than their predecessors.