Medical Marijuana Featured News Articles

Idaho authorities bust a dozen head shops

Sun, 13 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

While neighboring states Washington and likely Oregon will be deciding whether marijuana should be legal for all adults, my birth state of Idaho is still trying to put people in cages for selling pieces of glass.

District of Idaho U.S. Attorney Wendy Olson said she was not sure how much Spice was seized from shops that sell tobacco and smoking paraphernalia in Boise, Kuna, and Nampa Thursday but did say additional state or federal drug charges are possible against the 16 people indicted on paraphernalia charges.

Olson said the Boise-area “headshops” were selling drug paraphernalia to drug users and traffickers under the guise of tobacco products, which allowed a federal grand jury to return the felony charges of conspiracy to sell, offer for sale and transport drug paraphernalia; offering drug paraphernalia for sale; and sale of drug paraphernalia. Those crime are punishable by up to three years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Olson said at least nine of the 13 shops were openly selling Spice, and several of those stores sold the synthetic marijuana to undercover officers.

Idaho has some of the toughest statutes in the nation regarding paraphernalia and simple pot smoking. Merely being in a place where people smoke pot is a misdemeanor worth 3 months in jail. If you are found to be stoned in public, you can get 6 months in jail. Being caught with a pot pipe (with no pot) can get you a year in prison. If you’re caught with some pot, there’s another year in prison. If you do any of this around a child, the crimes rise to a felony with 5 years in prison. Selling pipes, bongs, grinders, and kief boxes in Idaho is a felony worthy of nine years in prison and a $30,000 fine.

But what happens if you don’t smoke pot and instead impregnate your underage girlfriend and then abuse your infant so severely it dies at the age of three months from blunt force trauma?

RUPERT • The father of an infant who died in 2008 from multiple injuries was sentenced Monday to serve 3 1/2 years in prison for felony injury to a child.

Three-month-old Nivea Lopez died Dec. 19, 2008, in a Pocatello hospital after receiving injuries that included skull fractures and healed rib fractures.

Monday’s sentence will run concurrent with a two- to 10-year prison term Lopez received for violating his probation on a rape conviction, stemming from the statutory nature of his relationship with Martinez.

Got that? Beat your baby to death = 3.5 years. Smoke pot around your baby = 5 years. Sell someone a bong = 9 years.

Happy Mother’s Day, Mom… but I hope you understand why I don’t visit often.

Full C-SPAN Coverage of House Debate to Defund DEA Raids in Medical Marijuana States

Thu, 10 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

The final vote tally was 163-262.

US Representatives Debate Defunding DEA’s Ability to Raid Medical Marijuana States

Thu, 10 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

UPDATE: Full C-SPAN video of the entire debate below –”R”R

[Update: Like previous vote totals for spending amendments to stop the federal government from spending tax dollars harassing state-sanctioned cannabisbusinesses and patients, unfortunately this vote too lost by virtually the same margins, 262-163, with 135 Democrats and 28 Republicans supporting the amendment.]

One of my favorite things about hosting NORML SHOW LIVE is the ability to break in with live coverage of events that are important to the cannabis community. Thanks to a timely tweet from SSDP, our associate producer Kaliko Castille tracked down the live C-SPAN coverage of a debate in the US House over an amendment that would defund the DEA from being able to prosecute raids in medical marijuana states. We interrupted our replay of a video interview with Dr. Donald Tashkin to cover the news.

I wish we would have broken in earlier to hear the remarks from Rep. Nadler and the other representatives who spoke on the issue. Full coverage of the debate should be up on C-SPAN’s website soon. For now, enjoy the remarks of Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO). Then recoil back to reality with Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) comparing medical marijuana to sex trafficking and a voice vote dominated by bellowing Republicans to kill the amendment.

Mitt Romney says medical marijuana gay marriage are “state issues right aren’t they really?”

Thu, 10 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

(Hat tip to Huffington Post on the initial report…)

Mitt Romney was interviewing with a reporter from Colorado who asked a series of questions, including his opinions on civil unions or marriage equality for gay people, in-state tuition for children of undocumented immigrants, and Colorado’s state recognition of medical marijuana. Frustrated by the questions not leading to his preferred talking points, Gov. Romney, exasperated, asks “Aren’t there issues of significance you’d like to talk about? The economy?…”

Funny, it seems like just a couple of election cycles ago that Republicans couldn’t stop talking about “gay marriage”, “anchor babies”, and “Cheech & Chong medicine”. Now that those wedge social issues lose votes for the GOP among the rapidly-growing Hispanic population and the growing acceptance of equal rights for gay people and support for the medicinal use of marijuana, it looks like the GOP has retreated to the Clinton-era “It’s the Economy, Stupid” talking points.

But did you catch that part at the end of the interview where Gov. Romney jokes about the inclusion of those topics, dismissing them as “states issues, right, aren’t they, really?” Did we just hear the presumptive GOP nominee express that medical marijuana is an issue that states should be allowed to decide?

Enjoy this 60-sec PSA on the issue – feel free to download and share.

Download audio file (Mitt-Romneys-Issues-of-Significance.mp3)

Colorado per se DUID bill killed by opponents of gay civil unions

Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

(Denver Post) A bill making it easier to convict people of driving high on marijuana was among the more than two dozen bills sacrificed in the Colorado House Tuesday night during a gridlocked debate over civil unions.

Earlier in the day, the controversial bill surmounted its final legislative committee, when the state House Appropriations Committee approved it 9-4.

The proposal would have made it illegal to drive with more than a certain amount of THC — the psychoactive chemical in marijuana — in your system. The limit of 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood that the bill proposed would have been similar to the .08 blood-alcohol standard for drunk driving.

Wow. A bill proposed and passed by ignorant people who are intolerant of marijuana consumers was left to die because ignorant people who are intolerant of homosexuality had to kill a bill to recognize even a second-class marriage right for gay people.

I guess reactionary Colorado legislators are more afraid of gays than stoners. (Shhh… don’t tell them there are plenty of gay stoners!)

The Oregonian: Medical Marijuana is Big Business

Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Voters in Oregon have twice (2004, 2010) struck down attempts to create dispensaries – a legal, regulated, tax-paying industry to supply medical marijuana to sick and disabled patients. So the law of supply and demand, being the unimpeachable reality that it is, has led to “patient clubs” and “farmers markets” and “cooperatives”, all euphemisms for “money walks in, marijuana walks out”, or what most of us would call “dispensaries”.

See, Oregon’s medical marijuana law allows patients and caregivers to freely exchange medicine and plants. So, in one novel interpretation of the law, caregivers are merely “donating” their medicine and plants to a patient. Then, in a completely separate and uncoordinated transaction, the patient, out of the goodness of his or her heart, merely “donates” some cash to the caregiver, which randomly happens to always be $10/gram or $200/ounce. It’s kind of like now under Citizens United, Super PACs can run attack ads for a candidate, but they are completely separate and uncoordinated activities (*wink*).

In another creative reading of the statutes, some places charge a “membership fee” or an “entry fee” to enter a club designed for patients to medicate within. It’s explained that shut-in patients need a place to recreate where they can medicate. Never mind that anyone with a card can come in: patients, caregivers, and growers, and nobody bothers to determine which of those cards are held by the people smoking the bongs and hitting the vaporizers. Inside, one can visit the various growers who pay a “vendor fee” to rent a cubicle there within the club.

The growers in the club, as well as growers throughout the state, make use of another flexible part of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Law that states a patient can reimburse a caregiver/grower for the expenses incurred in growing marijuana, but not for labor. The key words there are “a patient” and “a grower”, which is notably not “the patient” and “the grower”. The latter (“the”) would mean the patient could only reimburse the person they had specifically designated to be their grower when they filled out their Oregon Medical Marijuana Program paperwork. The former (“a”) means any patient can reimburse any grower. So the electricity, soil, lights, ballasts, water, nutrients, etc. incurred during this harvest are all tallied up by the grower, then that figure is divided by the total yield, and the patient reimburses the grower that amount based on how much weight of medicine is dispensed… or, at least, that’s how you’d think the law’s dictates would force you to figure reimbursement.

Yet whether you grow two plants hydroponically under a single 600W lamp in Portland, or you grow 24 plants under massive indoor soil grows with thousands of watts of lights in Eugene, or you grow 96 plants outdoors in the ideal weather of Medford, somehow everybody’s expense reimbursements with no labor costs always tally up to $10 / gram and $200 / ounce. And nobody bothers to check any grower’s power or water bills or garden supply receipts. Weird, huh? Where in the world do people like Dwight Holton get off calling this program a “train wreck”? How in the world do opponents of medical marijuana come up with this meme of “abuse”?

So the dispensaries voters shot down twice are here, as we all knew they would be eventually, because you cannot have 60,000 legal consumers and 0 legal retail suppliers. The voters mistakenly thought it was a vote between “dispensaries” or “no dispensaries”; in reality it was a vote between “regulated taxpaying dispensaries” and “unregulated gray-market dispensaries” and we chose the latter. It would be nice if the “Mother Teresa” model worked and every patient could be matched with an altruistic caregiver and grower, but it just ain’t so. So people who have always made money growing and selling marijuana continue to do so and the state continues to miss out on huge economic opportunities. A state, by the way, with no sales tax and brutal property taxes to make up for it, where revenues are short, and there is one growing (pardon the pun) industry begging to be legal and taxed.

Sativex (pharmaceutical marijuana) approved in ten more European countries

Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

You want medical marijuana? Big Pharma is more than willing to sell it to you…

International expansion of UK firm GW Pharma’s cannabis-based spray Sativex is well underway after a further 10 European countries recommended approval of the drug for multiple sclerosis patients.

Health Authorities in Belgium, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Slovakia have now given the go-ahead for Sativex (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol), completing its Mutual Recognition Procedure in Europe.

This means that Sativex can be marketed in these countries as an add-on therapy for the treatment of moderate to severe spasticity due to MS in patients who have not responded adequately to other medication, and launches are expected from the end of this year onwards.

Sativex has already been approved in the UK, Spain, and Germany and other European countries:

GW says marketing partner Almirall expects to introduce the drug in the German market in July and before the end of 2011 in Denmark and Sweden. Sativex is scheduled to be launched in Italy, Czech Republic and Austria in 2012.

In case you don’t know, Sativex is a whole-plant extract of cannabis. So it’s not like Marinol, the synthetic THC-only pill that many cancer and MS patients dislike because of extreme psychoactivity and difficulty in dosing (it’s hard to swallow a pill when you’re wretching from chemo and it takes 45 minutes of digestion before you know if you took the right amount.)

Nope, this is the real thing, the whole plant, with all the THC, CBD, terpenoids, flavinoids, reduced to an spray. It goes under the tongue, where your mucous membranes absorb the cannabis medicine quickly, almost like smoking or vaporizing plant cannabis, so there are no issues with swallowing difficulty or delayed effect like Marinol. It comes in guaranteed dosage, potency, and purity. It may be more expensive than growing pot, but insurance companies will likely cover the cost of the drug for cancer and MS patients.

And it’s coming to a medical marijuana state near you:

(CBS/AP) A marijuana-based mouth spray may get FDA approval as soon as 2013 – at least that’s what British manufactuer GW Pharma hopes. The company is in advanced clinical trials on the world’s first pharmaceutical developed from raw marijuana plants.

Other marijuana-based drugs currently on the market use synthetic equivalents of pot, but this stuff’s made from the real deal. Its makers want to market the drug in the U.S. as a treatment for cancer pain.

The spray, called Sativex, contains marijuana’s two best known components – delta 9-THC and cannabidiol. The medication has already been approved in Canada, New Zealand and eight European countries for relieving muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis.

This is nothing new. A decade ago, US firms were investigating an inhaler delivery device to combat the swallowing/delayed-effect issue with Marinol:

The makers of the synthetic THC capsule Marinol – the only legal cannabinoid drug available in the United States – are developing a metered dose inhaler so that patients may consume the drug in ways other than oral administration, according to a Business Wire report released this week. Many doctors and patients criticize the effectiveness of Marinol because the drug doesn’t take effect until two to four hours after administration. Patients also complain that they have difficulty self-regulating Marinol and that the drug’s psychoactivity is enhanced when it is swallowed.

Now I have nothing against Sativex or other cannabinoid pharmaceuticals. For the truly sick and disabled, any advance that makes the medicine more reliable, easier to use, and more effective gets a thumbs up from me.

But if your strategy to legalize the use of plant cannabis by all people for any reason is to preach “All use is medical/wellness”, cannabinoid pharmaceuticals is where you’ll end up. There exists a paradigm for the medical / wellness use of substances, and it lies in the realm of doctors and pharmacists and prescriptions and manufactured drugs. However, there also exists a paradigm for the recreational use of substances, and it lies in the realm of taverns and bartenders and DUI laws and ID checks and home brewing.

In which paradigm do you think marijuana fits better?

Will Obama’s medical marijuana crackdown lose him swing state electoral votes?

Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Huffington Post analyzes the 2012 electoral vote race between President Obama and presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney:

The push against the Colorado businesses and the patients they serve is just the latest in the Obama administration’s bizarre action against a plant that was at one point a cultural flash point, but which now religious leader Pat Robertson says should be legal.

The timing is also curious given the upcoming November election. Colorado’s nine electoral college votes are up for grabs, and Obama’s path to reelection gets very steep without the state in his corner. The legalization amendment on the ballot in November could drive otherwise complacent voters to the polls, but they may not end up backing Obama. Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson is not ashamed to tout his support of pot legalization, threatening to syphon protest votes that otherwise would have gone to Obama.

Looking at that map, I can only imagine that President Obama’s campaign strategists are happy that medical marijuana states California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, New Mexico, Michigan, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware are solidly in his camp. However, I’m guessing that Democratic strategists for the other races on the ballot aren’t happy that Obama’s anti-medical marijuana stance may depress voter turnout among some disillusioned Dems (who are likely disillusioned over more than just medical pot). Gary Johnson and Jim Gray are probably happy that Dems in those states can lodge a protest vote for the anti-drug-war Libertarian ticket, knowing that vote won’t cost Obama their states.

But I wonder how the Obama strategists feel about medical marijuana states Arizona and Montana? Any chance Obama might have at swinging Arizona seemed remote with the immigration debate that tears apart that state; now add to that a nascent medical marijuana movement that sees Justice Department threats all over their state that have stymied the voter approved dispensaries. And Montana, one of the few too-close-to-call states, is likely to swing back hard to the GOP by at least the 20,000 votes of sick people who used to be legit medical marijuana patients, forced out of the program by the draconian SB 423, a medical marijuana repeal that could have been written by Obama’s DoJ.

Connecticut Will Be 17th State To Legalize Medical Marijuana

Sat, 05 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

After a raucous debate last night that lasted longer than anticipated, the Connecticut senate passed a medical cannabis bill approved by the House earlier in the session that will now head to Governor Dannel Malloy’s willing pen for signature.

With Connecticut passing a medical cannabis bill, approximately one third of the US population now resides in a state that has decided to act in favor of it’s citizens’ will, as compared to the remarkably recalcitrant federal government, which, moronically, still insists cannabis is a dangerous ‘narcotic’ and has no accepted medical value what so ever.

Congratulations to Connecticut NORML and it’s coordinator Erik Williams for leading the charge to write and pass this important and affirming legislation (Erik and company had previously worked the legislature hard in 2011 to pass cannabis decriminalization laws)!

"Today is a day of hope, compassion and dignity and I thank all of the legislators who worked hard on this legislation and who voted to pass this bill," said Erik Williams, Executive Director of Connecticut NORML. "I am so happy for all the patients who will have another medicinal option to discuss with their doctor and for all of those currently suffering with debilitating conditions who will no longer suffer the indignity of being sick and a criminal."

The statewide efforts of Connecticut NORML resulted in tens of thousands of phone calls, emails, patient and legislator meetings, and letters to legislators. "Patients and doctors told their stories and asked legislators to tell them ‘No, you haven’t suffered enough,’" said Williams. "Many others stressed that this bill did medical marijuana the correct way and that Connecticut had an opportunity to be a leader in America on this issue. Our strategy and dedication has obviously paid off."

Connecticut’s bill creates guidelines and regulations for cultivation centers and dispensaries.

Read more about Connecticut’s new medical cannabis law here.

The New England clean sweep may happen this year with the New Hampshire legislature possibly overriding the Governor’s oft veto of their medical cannabis bills next week. In Massachusetts, this November voters are expected to approve by a large margin a medical cannabis legalization initiative (in 2008 Massachusetts voters approved a decriminalization initiative by a whopping sixty five percent).

From west to east, the states with legal protections for lawful medical cannabis patients are: Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, Colorado, Michigan, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont and Maine (as well as the District of Columbia).

Help us reform the marijuana laws in your state by making a donation to NORML today! Together we WILL legalize cannabis.

NORML to Protest D.E.A. Imprisonment Starvation of UCSD Student

Fri, 04 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Contact: Michael Cindrich (619) 262-2500 | Lance Rogers (619) 333-6882

Please be advised that on Monday, May 7, 2012 at 4:20 p.m., the local chapter of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) will protest the Drug Enforcement Administration’s detention of UCSD Engineering student Daniel Chong for five days without food and water. The protest will take place outside of the DEA office compound at 4560 Viewridge Avenue in San Diego. If you can’t be in San Diego, show your solidarity by joining the protest live online at live.norml.org.

According to news reports, Chong was arrested for smoking marijuana at a 4/20 party with other UCSD students. He was transported to a DEA holding cell and then forgotten about. During his five days in the federal cell, Chong had no access to food, water, or access to the outside world. He was forced to drink his own urine to stay alive. At one point, Chong broke his glasses with his teeth and used the glass shards to attempt suicide. He attempted to carve the words "Sorry Mom" into his arm. According to Chong, he "pretty much lost (his) mind" during the ordeal.

NORML advocates for the full legalization of marijuana so that innocent users such as Daniel Chong are not subjected to torture at the hands of the DEA. Over 20 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana offenses since 1965. NORML believes that the time has come to amend criminal prohibition and replace it with a system of legalization, regulation, and education.

More information can be found at San Diego NORML’s Facebook page.

Time: What Is President Obama’s Problem With Medical Marijuana?

Thu, 03 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Michael Sherer at Time Magazine has posted online today a particularly astute examination of the Obama administration’s flip-flop on marijuana policy. Below are some key excerpts. Michael’s full article appears in the newsstand edition of Time.

What Is President Obama’s Problem With Medical Marijuana?
via Time.com

[T]he Obama Administration is cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries and growers just as harshly as the Administration of George W. Bush did. In 2011, the Department of Justice revised its guidance to U.S. Attorneys, allowing them to target any medical marijuana activity except for ill patients and their immediate caregivers. The Drug Enforcement Administration has made it clear that “medical marijuana is not medicine,” and even called it a “mortal danger.” … In many states, U.S. Attorneys have advised state and local officials to back away from plans to create rules and regulations that would codify the medical pot industry, in some cases raising the possibility that lawmakers could be prosecuted for promoting drug use that is legal under state law.

… Over the last few weeks, I have talked with nearly a dozen people in the medical marijuana business, three U.S. Attorneys, White House officials and local officials who oppose the federal crackdown for a story that will appear in this week’s newsstand issue of TIME. The answer on the ground is, predictably, far more complicated than either medical marijuana advocates or the Obama Administration is willing to describe. And it all comes down to this: Despite Obama’s promises during the 2008 campaign, federal prosecutors have lost faith in the ability of state and local officials to control a booming commercial industry for a drug that is still illegal to grow, possess or sell under federal law. As a result, a once broad exemption from prosecution for medical marijuana providers in state where it’s legal has been narrowed to a tiny one. … [T]he nation is left with an uneasy status quo: The federal government is not trying to eliminate medical marijuana altogether, but it has decided that it cannot stand for the commercialization or large scale production of marijuana for the stated purpose of helping the sick, even when that production is technically within the bounds of state law.

…[I]n a different world, the federal government might work with state and local officials to more tightly regulate the growing of marijuana for medical purposes. But since pot is illegal under all circumstances under federal law, the opposite has been happening. Attempts, particularly in California, to more tightly regulate and thereby provide greater legal protection for the drug, have been shut down by the federal government.

And so, medical marijuana is left in a no man’s land. Individual sick users are safe from prosecution, but they are likely to find it harder in the coming months to get the drug. Growers and dispensers are not protected by state law from federal prosecution, especially if they become large enough to get noticed by federal investigators. And the likely result is that more of the medical marijuana industry will be pushed underground in the coming years, making it more difficult for local officials to track the business. This arguably will only increase some criminal activity, as large amounts of money and a very profitable commodity move through the system by way of small-time dealers working without sophisticated security systems.

…“What this really screams for a cohesive national policy.”

But there is no such policy on the horizon. Obama has shown little interest in elevating the issue. Some in federal law enforcement–and at the Office of National Drug Control Policy–hope that the advent of new pharmaceutical replacements for grown medical marijuana, like the Canadian drug Sativex, [Editor's note: Sativex is a British drug, not a Canadian manufactured product -- though it is legal by prescription in Canada.] will make the entire issue moot in the coming decade. But that looks unlikely in the short term, given the lack of concern among the general public with medical marijuana. A 2010 poll by the Pew Center for the People and the Press found that 73% say they favor “their state allowing the sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes if it is prescribed by a doctor.”

In other words, don’t hold your breath for clarity anytime soon. The haze is here to stay.

This Week in Weed: April 29th – May 5th

Thu, 03 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Click here to subscribe to NORMLtv and receive alerts whenever new content is added.

The latest installment of “This Week in Weed” is now streaming on NORMLtv.

This week: A new poll shows an overwhelming number of Americans are against prison for marijuana possession and two New England states move towards medical marijuana.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Be sure to tune in to NORMLtv every week to catch up on the latest marijuana news. Subscribe to NORMLtv or follow us on Twitter to be notified as soon as new content is added.

Citizen Advocacy 101 For Marijuana Legalization: Speak Your Mind

Wed, 02 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

It is very hard to imagine that Cannabis Prohibition could have ever lasted as long as it has–75 years in America–if there were:

1) The Internet…and it’s ability to allow citizens to directly communicate, sometimes en mass, at lightening speed and at little-to-no-cost (as compared to say the pre-Internet era where the capital start up costs and regulatory entanglements to reach the masses for TV, radio and newspapers were prohibitively high except for the most well-to-do).

2) Brave and forward-looking citizens like Frank Mattioli, from western New York, posting personal videos to major media outlets like CNN, articulately and passionately advocating for major changes in America’s failed Cannabis Prohibition.

As there is far, far more cannabis smoke in Americans’ closets these days than sex (including gay sex), the easy analogy to the gay rights movement’s success of ‘coming out of the closet’ should not be loss at all by the cannabis law reform movement.

Currently, 50% of the US population favor legalizing cannabis (75% support medical access). These days one of the major questions asked repeatedly of NORML by reporters, columnists and editorial boards is ‘not if, but when will cannabis finally become legal in America?’

Nate Silver at the New York Times estimates that the politically crucible number of sixty percent public support for legalizing cannabis will likely occur in the next ten years.

I don’t see how this is not possible, certainly if more and more cannabis consumers and lovers of freedom, like Frank Mattioli, continue to speak their mind and vote their conscience.

A Mother’s Day Declaration: “The Drug War Hurts Our Families”

Tue, 01 May 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Mother’s Day: How the Drug War Hurts Families

NORML Women’s Alliance, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and other Reform Organizations Team Up for: “Cops & Moms Week of Action”

Washington DC – Mothers from around the country will join with law enforcement and students at the National Press Club on May 2nd in honor of Mother’s Day. The press conference will launch a new coalition of national organizations that will represent mothers, police and students that seek to finally end the disastrous drug war. The NORML Women’s Alliance, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Student for Sensible Drug Policy and others will share powerful stories of losing loved ones to the criminal justice system, and the social repercussions of prohibition. The coalition will highlight a series of activities around the country timed to Mother’s Day.

Sabrina Fendrick, Coordinator for the NORML Women’s Alliance gave the following statement:

“‘Mother’s Day’ was derived out of an intensely political effort to organize women on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line against the Civil War. The reason mothers were made the vehicle was because they were the ones whose children were dying in that war. Women were also largely responsible for ending alcohol prohibition. This is more than just a ‘greeting-card holiday,’ this is the beginning of an institutional change in our society. The government’s war on drugs is unacceptable. For our children’s sake, the concerned mothers of the world are being called on to demand the implementation of a rational, responsible, reality-based drug and marijuana policy.”

Leaders of the campaign who will be speaking at the press conference include former Maryland narcotics cop and Executive Director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), Neill Franklin; Vice-Chair of the NORML Women’s Alliance and proud mother, Diane Fornbacher; Aaron Houston, Executive Director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Kathie Kane-Willis a Chicago social worker whose son died from an overdose two years ago; Joy Strickland, CEO of Mothers Against Teen Violence, Nina Graves (Delaware), a mother and former assistant chief of police and others. Moms United to End the Drug War will also be unveiling a “Moms Bill of Rights.”

Event Details:

What: Mother’s Day press conference announcing coalition between moms, cops and students against the war on drugs. Followed by a nationwide “Cops & Moms Week of Action”.
When: May 2, 2012 at 10 a.m.
Where: National Press Club – Washington, D.C.
Who: NORML Women’s Alliance, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Moms United to End the Drug War, and the Drug Policy Alliance.

Berkeley Patients Group closes its doors for good

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

(East Bay Express) Medical marijuana industry leader Berkeley Patients Group of Berkeley will close its doors at the end of its business day today — and not re-open them. A receptionist there just confirmed the contents of an email sent to collective members this morning, stating: “Today is our last day.”

The total closure of the Berkeley institution would be the among the biggest, most significant blows to the California medical marijuana industry since the crackdown started last October. BPG is widely considered a model dispensary in a town that led the charge to regulate such businesses.

It also marks the federal evisceration of another thriving East Bay business that directly employed dozens of people, served tens of thousands of patients, and generated major tax revenue for local, and state coffers. Activists are going to be livid and the average person confused as to how this happened, given that medical marijuana is legal in California and BPG has a business license to operate in Berkeley.

First the IRS nearly shuts down Harborside Health Center. Then it raids and decimates Oaksterdam University. Now Berkeley Patients Group is no more.

The message from the Obama Administration couldn’t be clearer. They absolutely will not go after the doctors who are recommending and the patients who are using medical marijuana. However, if anybody tries to set up a professional, secure, regulated, non-profit, tax-paying enterprise to grow and supply cannabis to those patients or teach them to grow it themselves, Obama’s executive branch agencies, including ATF, CIA, DEA, FBI, HHS, ICE, IRS, and ONDCP, will be mobilized on every front to put them out of business.

For if there is one thing President Obama cannot have, it is well-run dispensaries putting lie to the notion that there is anything dangerous about retail cannabis access. Heaven forbid that jobs are created, taxes are paid, neighborhoods are revitalized, and thousands of sick and disabled people are provided a non-toxic, non-addictive, therapeutically-effective herb. People might actually start to believe such a system would work for healthy people as well!

Nope, in President Obama’s world, doctors and patients are free to use cannabis, so long as they get it from the Weed Fairy. Because he couldn’t possibly be expecting them to buy it from teenage drug dealers in the park or street corner, indoor personal growers of questionable skill and ethics, or the murderous Mexican drug gangs, right?

The Drug Czar Knows Even Less About Hemp Than He Knows About Marijuana

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

America’s top drug cop is clearly not an expert in agriculture. So why is Obama’s Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske claiming to be one?

Drug Czar Reiterates Government’s Opposition To Domestic Hemp Production
via NORML’s weekly news

Washington, DC: The federal government continues to oppose allowing licensed farmers the opportunity to cultivate industrial hemp for fiber and other agricultural purposes, according to statements posted last week by Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske on the whitehouse.gov website.

Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa that contains only minute (typically less than .03 percent) amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana. According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, “The United States is the only developed nation in which industrial hemp is not an established crop.” Farmers in Canada and the European Union grow hemp commercially for fiber, seed, and oil for use in a variety of industrial and consumer products, including food.

Stated Kerlikowske on the White House’s ‘We the People‘ website: “Federal law prohibits human consumption, distribution, and possession of Schedule I controlled substances. … While most of the THC in cannabis plants is concentrated in the marijuana, all parts of the plant, including hemp, can contain THC, a Schedule I controlled substance. The Administration will continue looking for innovative ways to support farmers across the country while balancing the need to protect public health and safety.”

A white paper published by the North American Industrial Hemp Council counters: “The THC levels in industrial hemp are so low that no one could get high from smoking it. Moreover, hemp contains a relatively high percentage of another cannabinoid, CBD, that actually blocks the marijuana high. Hemp, it turns out, not only (isn’t) marijuana; it could be called ‘anti-marijuana.’”

In recent years, lawmakers in several states – including North Dakota, Montana, and Vermont – have enacted legislation seeking to allow state-licensed farmers the opportunity to grow hemp crops. However, according to the CRS, “The US Drug Enforcement Administration has been unwilling to grant licenses for growing small plots of hemp for research purposes,” even when such research is authorized by state law, because the agency believes that doing so would “send the wrong message to the American public concerning the government’s position on drugs.”

In 2007, 2009, and again in 2011, federal lawmakers have introduced in Congress, “The Industrial Hemp Farming Act,” to exclude low potency varieties of cannabis from federal prohibition. If approved, this measure would grant state legislatures the authority to license and regulate the commercial production of hemp as an industrial and agricultural commodity. The present version of this Act, House Bill 1831, has 33 co-sponsors, but has yet to receive a Congressional hearing. The measure is before the US House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

During World War II, the US Department of Agriculture actively promoted the domestic cultivation of hemp during a campaign known as ‘Hemp for Victory.’

Thank you Jimmy Kimmel for confronting President Obama on the marijuana crackdown

Sun, 29 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

“Marijuana is something that real people care about.” — Jimmy Kimmel (forward to 21:50 or click here)

Late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel performed at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and took a moment to confront President Obama on his marijuana crackdown.

I do have one real question for you, Mr. President. What’s with the marijuana crackdown? I mean, seriously, what’s the concern, we will deplete the nation’s Funyun supply?

You know, pot smokers vote, too. Sometimes a week after the election, but they vote.

Let’s take a quick poll. I would like everyone in this room to raise your hand if you’ve never smoked pot.

[Very few hands go up.] Heh heh. There you go. Look at Brit Hume – he’s high right now. He’s on his fourth almond macaroon.

Mr. President, I hope you don’t think I’m out of line here, but marijuana is something that real people care about. The fact that you believe Speaker Boehner when he tells you he still has control of his party leads me to believe that you must be smoking some crazy great weed yourself.

Woody Harrelson just woke up.

Thank you, Jimmy Kimmel, for exemplifying how a cannabis consumer can be polite yet direct in calling on the president to explain a policy that is no longer supported by a majority of Americans. Half of this country supports outright legalization of marijuana and three-quarters think marijuana punishments, if any, should be no more than ticketable offenses, not crimes.

Jimmy Kimmel Confronts President Obama Over Marijuana Legalization

Sun, 29 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

“Marijuana is something that real people care about.” — Jimmy Kimmel (forward to 21:50 or click here)

Late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel performed at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and took a moment to confront President Obama on his marijuana crackdown.

I do have one real question for you, Mr. President. What’s with the marijuana crackdown? I mean, seriously, what’s the concern, we will deplete the nation’s Funyun supply?

You know, pot smokers vote, too. Sometimes a week after the election, but they vote.

Let’s take a quick poll. I would like everyone in this room to raise your hand if you’ve never smoked pot.

[Very few hands go up.] Heh heh. There you go. Look at Brit Hume – he’s high right now. He’s on his fourth almond macaroon.

Mr. President, I hope you don’t think I’m out of line here, but marijuana is something that real people care about. The fact that you believe Speaker Boehner when he tells you he still has control of his party leads me to believe that you must be smoking some crazy great weed yourself.

Woody Harrelson just woke up.

Day One from the 7th Patients Out of Time Conference

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

If you wanted to know how the endocannabinoid system affects glaucoma, addiction, pain, and everything else in your body, then Day One of the Patients Out of Time Conference in Tucson was made just for you!

NOTE: Edited videos with slides and close-ups will be available through Patients Out of Time’s Website.

Listen to the entire day’s events (minus three presentations I missed or suffered a stream crash) at the bottom of the post or just watch the presentations you choose by clicking links below:

Overview of the Endocannabinoid System - Vincenzo DiMarzo, PhD

Care and Feeding of the Endocannabinoid System - John McPartland, DO

INTERVIEW: Oregon’s Jim Klahr for State Representative

The Endocannibinoid System and Neuropathic Pain - Andrea Hohmann, PhD

The Ocular Endocannabinoid System - Melanie Kelly, PhD

The Use of Cannabis with Glaucoma - Gary Storck (glaucoma patient & Elvy Musikka (federal medical cannabis patient)

The Senior Tour – Robert Platshorn

Raw Cannabis: A Dietary Essential Optimized Through Individualized Phytogenetics - William Courtney, MD

The Role of the Endocanabinoid System in the Regulation of Stress, Mood and Anxiety - Matthew Hill, PhD

INTERVIEW: Nurse Ed Glick on ACNA (Nurses & MedMJ)

The Endocannabinoid System and Addiction - Greg Gerdeman, PhD

Cannabis as an Exit Drug - Amanda Reiman, PhD, MSW

Research and Education on Cannabinoids: Update from Canada - Mark Ware, MD

Question & Answer from the Faculty

North American British super-majorities agree: No Jail For Marijuana!

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

The latest poll from Angus-Reid, which has previously found that majorities (52%, 55%) in America support legalization of marijuana, shows that Americans, Canadians, and Britons do not believe we should use jail and prison to deal with marijuana smoking:

At least seven-in-ten Britons (70%), Americans (74%) and Canadians (78%) believe personal marijuana use should be dealt with through alternative penalties [such as fines, probation or community service—rather than prison for non-violent offenders.]

So given four Americans, we’re likely to find two who think marijuana use ought to be legalized (or at most ticketed), one who thinks use ought to be ticketed and fined, and one who thinks use ought to lead to prison.

Some other interesting data from the poll that I believe show impact of the War on Drugs:

45% of Americans are most worried about the economy, followed by unemployment (Hemp Jobs! Marijuana Tax Revenue! Billions for the Economy!)
Only half (51%) of Americans “believe the criminal courts in their respective countries do a good job in determining whether or not an accused person is guilty”
A little over a quarter (28%) of Americans “believe that their justice system treats every person fairly”
Less than one-fifth (18%) of Americans “believing that [the prison system] does a good job in helping prisoners become law-abiding”
Around only a quarter of Americans place a high level of confidence in the DEA (28%) and state criminal courts (25% – with a drop to just 17% in the West)

Dutch Judge Paves Way To Turn Coffeeshops Into Private Clubs For Dutch Only

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

While Amsterdam coffeeshop owners hope to be able to work out a political compromise to remain open for non-Dutch, it looks like the rest of The Netherlands will quickly move to embrace these court-ordered changes to their business model.

Let’s hope that this past High Times Cannabis Cup Awards will not be the last!

From the Huffington Post –

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Long famous for “coffee shops” where joints and cappuchinos share the menu, the Netherlands’ famed tolerance for drugs could be going up in smoke.

A judge on Friday upheld a government plan to ban non-Dutch residents from buying marijuana by introducing a “weed pass” available only to residents.

The new regulation reins in one of the country’s most cherished symbols of tolerance – its laissez-faire attitude to soft drugs – and reflects the drift away from a long-held view of the Netherlands as a free-wheeling utopia.

For many tourists visiting Amsterdam the image endures – and smoking a joint in a canalside coffee shop ranks high on their to-do lists along with visiting cultural highlights like the Van Gogh Museum.

The city’s left-leaning Mayor Eberhard van der Laan is hoping to hammer out a compromise with the national government.

Coffee shops also have not given up the fight. A week ago they mustered a few hundred patrons for a “smoke-in” in downtown Amsterdam to protest the new restrictions.

A lawyer for owners, Maurice Veldman, said he would file an appeal against the ruling by a judge at The Hague District court, which clears the way for the weed pass to be introduced in southern provinces on May 1.

Read more here…

This Week in Weed: April 22nd-28th

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Click here to subscribe to NORMLtv and receive alerts whenever new content is added.

The latest installment of “This Week in Weed” is now streaming on NORMLtv.

A week of federal officials with their heads buried in the sand. President Obama clarifies his stance on medical marijuana and the drug czar reiterates the administration’s opposition to industrial hemp.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Be sure to tune in to NORMLtv every week to catch up on the latest marijuana news. Subscribe to NORMLtv or follow us on Twitter to be notified as soon as new content is added.

Obama’s Slippery Double-Speak on Medical Marijuana Part II

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

(Hat tip to commenter Alan on the NORML Blog)

President Obama on Medical Marijuana Laws:

“What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it’s against federal law. I can’t nullify congressional law,” Obama said.

President Obama on the Economy:

Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: “If Congress refuses to act, I’ve said that I’ll continue to do everything in my power to act without them.”

All in all, the White House’s agenda is clear. “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer,” Obama professed in a speech carried out earlier this year. “When Congress refuses to act and — as a result — hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

President Obama on Medical Marijuana Law:

“I can’t ask the Justice Department to say, ‘Ignore completely a federal law that’s on the books.’ What I can say is, ‘Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.’ As a consequence, there haven’t been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes,” Obama said.

President Obama on the Federal Defense of Marriage Act:

The Obama administration started down this path soon after Republicans took over the House of Representatives last year. In February 2011, Mr. Obama directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, against constitutional challenges.

Look, it’s perfectly clear. If the president wants to create jobs for veterans, prevent drug shortages, raise fuel economy standards, curb domestic violence, nominate various “czars”, cut refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages, ignore the Defense of Marriage Act*, curb greenhouse gas emissions, give states waivers from federal mandates if they agree to education overhauls, grant relief to some illegal immigrants brought to the country as children, ease terms on student loans, overrule stronger antismog rules, continue to allow discrimination by federal contractors based on sexual orientation, and wage war in the Middle East, he doesn’t need to heed federal law and can just ignore Congress and do as he wishes.

But if it is not running roughshod over the states that have legalized medical marijuana, his hands are tied.

* Which, by the way, I’m glad he’s doing… I’m just saying if he can ignore federal law that allows states to discriminate against married gays from legal gay marriage states, then he can ignore federal law that allows US Attorneys to persecute medical marijuana providers from legal medical marijuana states.

Was It The Odor Or Posted Photo On Instagram? Regardless Wiz Khalifa Busted In Music City

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

The Tennessean reported last night that popular musician Wiz Khalifa and a friend were busted in Nashville after police received complaints of the strong odor of cannabis apparently emanating from Wiz’s hotel room (I’m shocked!). After unsuccessfully trying to ditch a blunt out a window upon police entry, the pair were busted.

Every 38 seconds in America, another cannabis consumer is busted on ganja charges (850,000 per year), and with a pro-cannabis profile as high as Wiz’s (heck, hours before he was busted he posted a photo to Instagram depicting his branded rolling papers next to what looks like some excellent cannabis!) whether it was his super stinky stash or Wiz’s number as a cannabis consumer simply came up to become yet another tragic statistic in the 74-year old failed Cannabis Prohibition.

If Wiz needs legal help in Nashville or wants to perform a benefit concert for Tennessee NORML when he has to soon return to deal with their criminal justice system…NORML is here!

City of Miami Beach Settles False Arrest Case with Marijuana Rights Activist

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

A staple joke from late night comedians, going back to George Carlin in the 1970s, is about how cannabis law reformers are too stoned to gather signatures and turn them in, when, ironically, or not, it is usually agents of the government who more often than not interfere with the democratic process of citizens gathering signatures in public to petition their government for grievance.

A case example from a local effort in Miami Beach to reform the city’s cannabis laws has resulted in NORML-affiliated lawyers procuring a monetary settlement with the city, that now, almost karmically, will help fund a cannabis reformer’s further advocacy.

From the law firm of NORML board member Norman Kent of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida:

The City of Miami Beach has agreed to pay a monetary settlement to marijuana rights activist, C.D. Flash, for damages he suffered during a false arrest in October, 2010. The settlement was paid as Mr. Flash was preparing to file suit claiming that his arrest was a direct violation of his First Amendment right to engage in political petitioning in public spaces.

Mr. Flash was collecting signatures for a marijuana decriminalization petition on the Lincoln Road mall when he was stopped by Miami Beach Code Enforcement and Police officers, who incorrectly informed him that he needed a permit to collect signatures.

When Mr. Flash asserted that he had the constitutional right to collect signatures in public, he was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct. Mr. Flash maintains that he was never disorderly and complied with the requests of the police, but that he insisted upon exercising his right to remain and gather petition signatures.

Mr. Flash was jailed for 24 hours a result of his arrest and was required to face the charges in court. On January 12, 2011, Mr. Flash appeared in court with his attorney, Russell Cormican, only to have the State dismiss all charges moments before the case was called for trial. The prosecutor indicated that the arresting officer, John Pereira, no longer had any recollection of the arrest, despite the fact that it had occurred less than 90 days earlier. Officer Pereira has a long history of disciplinary issues, with numerous internal affairs complaints, including one filed by the sister of singer, Beyonce Knowles.

“Mr. Flash was clearly targeted for arrest based on the fact that his political beliefs were unpopular with police officers” said Mr. Cormican, attorney for Mr. Flash. ”It is very encouraging to see the City of Miami Beach offering to quickly settle this case and acknowledge the right of individuals to engage in peaceful political expression, no matter what their viewpoint is.”

Mr. Flash was working in conjunction with the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy (CSMP) and was gathering petition signatures for a ballot initiative that seeks to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana. The initiative would allow police officers to give offenders a citation in lieu arresting them if the possession was for less than 20 grams. The violation could then be satisfied with the payment of a $100.00 fine. Mr. Flash intends to utilize the proceeds from his settlement to continue working for the reform of marijuana laws.

* * * * *

Mr. Cormican, and his law partner, Norm Kent, have set up CAFA, Citizens Against False Arrest, to redress grievances of citizens who are illegally prosecuted or arrested while exercising their constitutional rights of free speech.

NEW POLL: 74% of Americans Support Alternative Penalties for Marijuana

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

A new poll, published today by Angus Reid Public Opinion, looks at the changing attitudes towards marijuana possession penalties in the UK, Canada, and the United States. The poll surveyed 1,011 Americans, 2,015 Britons, and 1,005 Canadians during March of this year. The results show that an overwhelming majority of citizens in these countries no longer believe marijuana possession should result in jail time.

From Angus Reid:

Majorities of respondents in the three countries (Britain 56%, Canada 68%, United States 74%) welcome the concept of using alternative penalties—such as fines, probation or community service—rather than prison for non-violent offenders. At least seven-in-ten Britons (70%), Americans (74%) and Canadians (78%) believe personal marijuana use should be dealt with through alternative penalties. Support for similar guidelines for credit card fraud, drunk driving and arson is decidedly lower.

View the full report here.

Florida Governor’s plan to drug test state workers ruled unconstitutional

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

(AP) MIAMI – A Miami federal judge has declared that Gov. Rick Scott’s order requiring drug testing for state workers is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro ruled Thursday that blanket testing of some 85,000 workers violates the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The ruling could eventually have an impact on a new state law also permitting random worker drug testing.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/26/2768890/judge-fla-worker-drug-testing.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

That’s right! You can’t just order drug tests for everybody, that’s unconstitutional! Drug tests can only be ordered in very specific circumstances, like applying for private sector jobs, having a private sector job and being randomly selected, having any job that is considered “safety-related” or “high-risk”, having a job with sensitive security clearances, getting into an accident or becoming injured on the job, being pulled over on the roads for suspicion of impairment, pursuing athletics as your profession, pursuing athletics as an amateur, pursuing athletics at an educational institution, being suspected of having drugs at an educational institution, joining service organizations at an educational institution, pursuing art, music, or drama at an educational institution, joining chess club, 4-H, or Honor Society at an educational institution, applying for food assistance, housing assistance, utilities assistance, or unemployment assistance in some states, and upon the order of the president declaring you an “enemy combatant” (under which declaration a drug test is the least of your problems).

The lawyer for Florida had the gall to say that workers who object to drug tests could just “find employment elsewhere”. Hey, that’s great! How ’bout we just require workers to be strip-searched before shift, just to be sure they’re not smuggling any drugs into the workplace? If they don’t like it, they can quit and find work elsewhere! How ’bout we require workers to reveal their Facebook usernames and passwords so we can know whether they’re using drugs on their spare time? Workers are free to quit, after all, if they don’t like.

Every case about drug testing that comes up requiring state workers to pee in a cup gets squashed because the Fourth Amendment applies to the government trying to violate our privacy. But when it comes to the private sector, the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply, because we the workers are just engaging in a voluntary employment relationship with our corporate overlords. Gosh, if you don’t like it, you can just work elsewhere, except that every place you could work with your particular skill requires a pee test. After all, jobs are plentiful and easy to find and you always have the freedom to just be homeless.

I don’t think that was the intent of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The history of the Fourth Amendment traces back to writs of assistance and general warrants that had been abused by the king against the colonial subjects in America. I offer that the “right of the people to be secure” depends not on that which they are to be secure from, any more than the Second Amendment right to bear arms depends on being a part of a well-regulated militia. The precedent was that the government, the monarchy and its agents, would be that which unreasonably searched and seized things from the citizens. The only reason the Founders wouldn’t tack on “by any agency public or private” to the Fourth Amendment is that it was incomprehensible that there would be such a thing as a global corporate economy that could exercise such power*.

In other words, how can something done by a government be an affront to our rights to privacy, but the same thing done by a corporation is not?

* Kind of like how they could never have imagined the need to recognize the right to sow seeds and harvest personal crops… a bunch of hemp farmers could never have predicted the crop that was of “first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country” could get them serious prison time.

President Obama’s Slippery Double Speak on Medical Marijuana

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

And now, 2008 Barack Obama vs. 2012 Barack Obama on medical marijuana!

2008 Obama:

My attitude is that if it’s an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. … I think the basic concept that using medical marijuana in the same way, with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that’s entirely appropriate. I would not punish doctors if it’s prescribed in a way that is appropriate.

2008 – A doctor who prescribed marijuana as treatment for her own breast cancer and then for others’ is busted by the DEA. She and her husband, a lawyer who suffers from hemophilia, tended a small medical marijuana garden, completely within compliance of California’s Prop 215 (aka “state law”). They were open and up-front about what they were doing and drew praise from the local leaders for their compassionate operation. The sheriffs who had been verifying their compliance with state law turned the data over to DEA, who then used their plant counts over the course of the three year statute of limitations to top 100, the magic number needed to secure a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.

But Obama wants to parse it like Clinton – notice “prescribe” and “same controls as other drugs” that medical marijuana can’t claim. Plus, I’m sure he’d note that Dr. Mollie Fry was busted for growing and selling, not “prescribing”.

2012 Obama:

What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. … As a consequence, there haven’t been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes.

No, but there have been prosecutions of the people who supply and grow marijuana for users of marijuana for medical purposes. So, technically, you can’t say he lied. Sure, there have been 170 raids on medical marijuana providers, threatening letters to landlords of medical marijuana providers, revocation of banking accounts for medical marijuana providers, tax liens using drug kingpin statutes against medical marijuana providers, but true to his word, Obama has not busted a patient who was simply smoking a bowl. It’s just that the patient has to get his medicine from the Weed Fairy.

But as Obama tries to triangulate a position on medical marijuana that maintains Big Pharma’s wishes without alienating his progressive base too much, he has to get past the other part of his 2008 campaign promises:

2008 Obama:

I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom and pop shops because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate…. What I’m not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue…

2012 Obama:

I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it’s against federal law. I can’t nullify congressional law. I can’t ask the Justice Department to say, “Ignore completely a federal law that’s on the books.” What I can say is, “Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.”

It’s interesting how President Obama can’t overlook the federal law on cultivation and distribution. Yet he can overlook the use of medical marijuana by patients and its “appropriate” prescription by doctors, which also flouts federal law. Also, California, Colorado, and Montana had all sorts of state laws on the issue that were circumvented by his raids, but New Mexico’s state laws haven’t seemed to arouse his attention. It is also interesting that the president is able to ignore completely other federal laws (the Defense of Marriage Act comes to mind, maybe Congressional Declaration of War, a few of our Bill of Rights…) on the books, but that one about planting and selling cannabis is sacrosanct.

So let’s tackle this “prioritization”. Apparently, the priority is to attack the supply side of medical marijuana and overlook the demand side. Somehow, it is the thousands of dispensaries and growers that are “really doing folks damage”, but the millions of people consuming their product aren’t being damaged? So it’s not really the weed that is doing the damage, but the business of weed, in the president’s estimation.

Now when you attack the supply side, the compassionate and, sure, entrepreneurial folks who want to grow marijuana and supply patients legally, in spite of contradictory and vague statutes in medical marijuana states, when you shut the people who want to follow the rules down, you don’t eliminate the demand side. In fact, you’ve emboldened the demand side by reassuring them that the medicinal users of marijuana are not “really doing folks damage” and are not “prioritized”.

So somebody steps up to supply them, and since you’re squashing the “people [who] grow their own” and the “mom and pop shops”, that somebody is an unregulated pot slinger of dubious ethics and the profits he generates eventually enrich a murderous drug lord in Mexico. By not going after the patients, you’ve allowed for 1.25 million potential customers for drug kingpins instead of allowing states to regulate the business and reap the tax revenues.

And you talk of the “things that are really doing folks damage” without the ironic realization that when it comes to medical marijuana, you are that thing. Unless by “folks” you mean “people” and by “people” you mean “corporations”. In that case, I can see how natural people building an industry around a cheap medicinal herb is “really doing folks damage”.

Obama To Rolling Stone: We’re Not Going To Legalize Weed Anytime Soon

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

From Politico:

President Obama clarified his position on medical marijuana in an interview with Rolling Stone, telling publisher Jann Wenner that he can’t “nullify congressional law.”

“What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it’s against federal law. I can’t nullify congressional law,” Obama said.

“I can’t ask the Justice Department to say, ‘Ignore completely a federal law that’s on the books.’ What I can say is, ‘Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.’ As a consequence, there haven’t been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes,” Obama said.

Obama also said in a late night TV appearance Tuesday on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, that he didn’t expect Congress to change that law: ”We’re not going to be legalizing weed … anytime soon.”

NORML’s Weekly Legislative Round Up

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Marijuana law reform legislation still remains pending in several this 2012 legislative session. Is your state among them? Find out here.

More importantly, have you taken the time to call or write your state elected officials this year and urged them to support these pending reforms? If not, NORML has provided you with all of the tools to do so via our capwiz ‘Take Action Center’ here.

Below is this week’s edition of NORML’s Weekly Legislative Round Up — where we spotlight specific examples of pending marijuana law reform legislation from around the country.

CALIFORNIA: State lawmakers have taken action in recent days on a number of important marijuana law reform measures. Below are some highlights:

1. Assemblywoman Nora Campos has withdrawn legislation, AB 2465, which sought to mandate that state-qualified medicinal marijuana patients obtain a state-issued identification card. Under present law, patients may voluntarily obtain county-issued identification cards, but no such mandate exists in the language of Prop. 215. California NORML, among other groups, objected to AB 2465 on the basis that it infringed upon patients privacy and was likely unconstitutional.

2. On Thursday, April 19, Assemblywoman Norma Torres amended AB 2552 to remove language that initially sought to expose marijuana consumers to enhanced DUI penalties based solely upon the presence of THC in their blood. Assemblywoman Torres struck this language after NORML and others roundly criticized the legislation as being discriminatory toward cannabis consumers, including those who use the substance therapeutically in compliance with state law. NORML argued that AB 2552 was unnecessary, unscientific, and would have exposed cannabis consumers to wrongful convictions. NORML wishes to thank those of you who took the time to contact your member of the Assembly to help us successfully derail AB 2552.

3. Last week, the Senate Public Safety Committee approved Sen. Mark Leno’s bill (SB 1506) to defelonize cases involving the simple possession of drugs (including hashish) to a misdemeanor offense. (Marijuana possession is already decriminalized under state law to a non-criminal infraction.) This measure is sponsored by the Drug Policy Alliance and the ACLU, and is supported by California NORML.

4. Finally, two separate bills seeking to clarify the production and distribution of medicinal cannabis under state law are moving forward in the legislature. On Tuesday, April 17, members of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety voted 4-2 in favor of AB 2312. The bill now awaits action from the Assembly Appropriations Committee. AB 2312 seeks to establish a state regulatory system for medical cannabis under the Department of Consumer Affairs. Under this proposal, medicinal cannabis dispensaries would become state-licensed. It would also require cities and counties to allow at least one marijuana dispensary for every 50,000 residents – unless local voters specifically approve a ban or tighter restrictions.

Separate legislation in the state Senate, SB 1182, was heard and approved by the Senate Committee on Public Safety on Tuesday, April 24. SB 1182 seeks to bar from state prosecution those establishments that operate within the state Attorney General’s 2008 written guidelines for marijuana cooperatives and collectives. It further states, “This bill would exempt those entities and persons from criminal prosecution or punishment solely on the basis of the fact that they receive compensation for actual expenses incurred in carrying out activities that are in compliance with those guidelines.”

Supporters of these measures believe they will provide California dispensaries, the public, and law enforcement with needed clarity regarding how and where such facilities may operate. Doing so may also limit the federal government’s ongoing interference in California’s medical marijuana operations.

You can read more about AB 2312 and SB 1182 via NORML’s ‘Take Action Center’ here or by contacting California NORML.

CONNECTICUT: Lawmakers in a pair of Committees in recent days voted in favor of Raised Bill 5389, which allows for the limited legalization of medical marijuana by qualified patients. The full House of Representatives is expected to vote on the measure imminently. If you live in Connecticut and wish to receive future e-mail updates on the progress of this legislation and what you can do to assure its passage, please contact Erik Williams, Connecticut NORML Executive Director at: ewilliams@campaignswon.org.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: On Wednesday, April 25, members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly 236 to 96 in favor of Senate Bill 409, which would allow for the limited legalization and cultivation of medical marijuana. The super-majority approval came following renewed veto threats by Democrat Gov. John Lynch.

SB 409 allows qualified patients to possess up to four cannabis plants and/or six ounces of marijuana for therapeutic purposes.

According to an MPP legislative update, the bill is expected to be referred to a second House committee for further consideration before returning to the Senate for a concurrence vote.

The Senate concurrence vote is pivotal. In March, member of the Republican-led New Hampshire State Senate voted 13-11 in favor of Senate Bill 409. (You can watch lawmakers reaction to the vote here.) Support from three additional senators will be necessary to override the Governor’s expected veto. Please check NORML’s ‘Take Action Center’ for updates or visit NH Compassion here.

If Connecticut and New Hampshire both enact medical marijuana legislation this year, they will become the 17th and 18th states to do so since 1996.

Cannabis News: Comment on Lawmakers In 5 States Tell Feds To Back Off by rico: all the state law makers have to do is refuse to... http://t.co/0qDDQjhR

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Highlights of HIGH TIMES Medical Cannabis Cup in Denver 2012

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

What a great event we just had in Denver, Colorado, the Cannabis Capital of America. The 2nd Annual HIGH TIMES Medical Cannabis Cup was a big success at the Exdo Center, featuring a huge vendor area, a nice and cool seated presentation area, outside food vendors, and another vendor section in the “medication area”.

I was there specifically as the guest of Michael Kennedy, the longtime legal counsel and current Chair of HIGH TIMES Magazine. He was impressed by my “Box Canyon” presentation at the 2010 NORML Conference, so much so that he required all the HIGH TIMES staff to watch it. He paid my way to come out to Denver to update that presentation for the current political climate. The HIGH TIMES staff have also seemed to take me in as “one of theirs” and I think you will be seeing a lot more of my writing in the magazine’s future.

Click here to view the embedded video.

There was a bit of tension in the air, however. Months back there was a very public falling-out between we here at National NORML and an attorney who used to head our Colorado NORML chapter. He resigned and the chapter went dormant. Turns out, his firm was handling the Cannabis Cup for HIGH TIMES (awkward!)

The situation that went down led to some parts of the Colorado cannabis community taking offense to our points-of-view that, yes, there are some unscrupulous individuals who make up a fraction of the cannabusiness community who take advantage of patients and scam the medical marijuana system. I had one couple passive-aggressively “thanking” me and NORML for “throwing patients under the bus”. I engaged them in polite conversation that eventually led to the lady saying that medical marijuana recommendations are between a doctor and patient, and if a doctor was giving out recs to someone who didn’t qualify, that’s a “doctor problem.” ”Oh,” I pounced, “so you do agree with us that there are some actors in medical marijuana who are acting fraudulently and scamming the system?”

Later that first day, the most anticipated panel, “To Dab or Not to Dab”, was held, covering the quickly-evolving world of cannabis concentrates like hash and hash oil.

Click here to view the embedded video.

That evening I had a fine dinner with Keith Stroup, with whom I shared a hotel room at the Warwick, It has a nice balcony just for us to enjoy a joint and some conversation. Garret Overstreet and another activist had driven down from Tulsa for 4/20, so we invited them up as well and just enjoyed the discussions. Garret mentioned how Tulsa and Denver may be 12 hours drive apart, but might as well be in different galaxies when it comes to marijuana. The Cup’s VIP party was going on that night, but after a day that began with two hours of sleep in San Antonio, a two-hour flight, and a whole day smoking and dabbing at the Cup, I was in for good.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The next day was even more interesting. GraayWolf and our other volunteers did a fine job manning the NORML booth, but we had run out of t-shirts and most other goods to sell by the first day. We are definitely going to have to upgrade our booth and vending materials for these events!

Click here to view the embedded video.

The highlight of my day was being approached by a woman named Kathleen Chippi (pronounced “Chip Eye”, I learned). If you’ve read my blog, you know she’s a Denver activist whom I’ve called out on a number of occasions, most notably that she said “[the Colorado legalization initiative that has made the ballot] will be like Prop 19 all over again and we will kill it with smiles on our faces.” She wanted to know why I called her a prohibitionist; I told her that when you lobby against legalization, you’re lobbying for prohibition.

And then I spent about thirty minutes of my life engaged in one of the most fascinating discussions ever, if by “fascinating” you mean it in the sense of trying to determine the difference between flawed circular logic with non-sequiturs and true mental illness. It got quite heated, with us both raising our voices enough to attract attention. The take-away from this encounter was asking her why all the dire predictions she had for legalizing one ounce and six plants for healthy people didn’t seem to be an issue in 2000 when she was voting on legalizing two ounces and six plants for sick people? Then she dropped the bombshell that she opposed Amendment 20 (the Colorado medical marijuana law). ”Really,” I asked, “if you could have convinced enough people to vote like you, against medical marijuana, do you think the patients would be better off today?” and she agreed that yes, they would, because nobody was really getting busted before Amendment 20, which has now over-regulated the market and put a target on patients for law enforcement. That’s when I told her our conversation was over because that was a ridiculous statement in the context of the cannabis freedom we were enjoying right that minute at the Cup!

This encounter, by the way, was an hour before the panel I was on to demonstrate the “Box Canyon” hypothesis, so I was good and riled up for that. Unfortunately, I had only one laptop – I failed to pack the power cord for the “good” one – and I didn’t get to record that panel. I will find a copy from someone. The panel was wonderful, but sure enough, Kathleen Chippi was there to heckle me. I had to forcefully tell her to stop being rude, which drew applause from the audience. After the panel, I got a steady stream of compliments from people who told me I clearly explained what the whole NORML position on medical marijuana is and it was nothing like the demonization they’d been hearing third-hand from some disgruntled activists.

The event concluded with the awarding of the prizes in the Cannabis Cup. I was drafted to present the awards for Best Concentrates, an ironic nod to my current HIGH TIMES article on “The Dawn of the Dabs”. Ganja Jon manned the stream for this part of the show from beneath DJ Selekta Nikka T’s platform. The DJ had been pumping so much bass in the room that the winner’s medals were vibrating off the stage!

The evening concluded with a trip to the HIGH TIMES House and the after-party. I’d write more if I could remember it.

Click here to view the embedded video.

San Antonio NORML Fweedom Fest 2012

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Big thanks to Karli Duran and all the people at San Antonio NORML who worked so hard to put together the 4/20 Fweedom Fest. I knew it was going to be a good time when I get to the hotel and they have me booked in Room #420. My good friend Chief Greenbud was in Room #421 across the hall.

So we couldn’t resist the opportunity to perform Chief Greenbud’s “It’s 4:20 Somewhere” at 4:20 on 4/20 in Room #420!

Click here to view the embedded video.

After that we headed out to Chunky’s Burgers, which had been featured on the Travel Channel series “Man vs. Food”. Its signature dish is the “Four Horsemen Burger”. The burger itself is one of those monstrosities that is the diameter of a 45rpm record (kids: Google it) and the four horsemen are the jalapeño, serrano, habanero, and naga jolokia (ghost peppers) on the burgers. You sign a waiver and if you can eat the burger, you get your picture on the wall. I’m smart enough to know better, but while we were there some college kid wasn’t and ended up vomiting after a few bites and his face melting.

Then it was time to head out to the Fweedom Fest. The event was held at the basement of the Revolution Room, this enormous bar complex with four different lounges upstairs as well. Though “revolution” may be an ironic name for a place that wouldn’t even let us go out to the dark parking lot to smoke weed… on 4/20! Professor Bluntston rightly called it “some bullshit” after he and Dean Shwag had made the 2 hour drive to come visit.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I got my time to speak, although I was introduced by the comedian / emcee as “Rick Russ”. Hmm. First, “Radical” Rick, now Rick Russ. Maybe I have an evil twin named Rick somewhere. The sad part of my trip is that I failed to pack the power cord for the big, powerful laptop and had to stream everything on the little netbook, so the frame rate is not good at all.

But the highlight of my trip to San Antonio has to be singing harmony vocals for Chief Greenbud’s acoustic set. His third album is ready for release, so check out ChiefGreenbud.com for the latest info.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Politico Reports On Obama’s Medical Cannabis Conundrum

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

The most widely read political website, Politico.com, covers the now clear controversy the Obama Administration has found itself in regarding it’s semi-articulated medical cannabis policy position post hundreds of law enforcement closures of medical cannabis dispensaries since the fall of 2011.

Beyond bringing this political quandary regarding medical cannabis to a well informed readership, what is notable about the reportage is that buried in the piece is an apparent recent confrontation between cannabis law reform proponent Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and President Obama at a swank fundraiser directly across the street from NORML’s offices at the St. Regis Hotel where Frank confronted the President about the disparity between his rhetoric in favor of medical cannabis and the recent law enforcement actions of his Justice Department.

Frustratingly, the President claims that he does not know what is going on in states like California, Washington, Montana and Colorado regarding DOJ’s efforts to seriously retard patient access to medical cannabis.

Obama sees his history on medical marijuana enforcement differently. The president was again asked about the Justice Department medical marijuana policy at a high-dollar fundraiser at Washington’s St. Regis Hotel filled with liberal mega-donors who paid $35,800 a plate to attend. According to a source with knowledge of the event, which was closed to reporters, Obama reportedly said that the DOJ was raiding purely on a case-by-case basis.

Frank says he got a frustrating response when he buttonholed Obama to complain that this wasn’t true: Obama told the Massachusetts Democrat that, to the best of his knowledge, the 2009 hands-off policy remained in place.

Frank told POLITICO that he’s preparing to send the president press clippings to demonstrate that raids continue across the country.

The tide has turned on the issue — beyond medical marijuana, there’s growing support for full legalization — Frank said, and there’s no reason the president should be lagging behind.

“Obama now lags Pat Robertson in a sensible approach to marijuana,” said Frank, referring to the conservative evangelical leader’s recent criticism of the drug war.

Obama’s pot promise a pipe dream?
By: Byron Tau
April 21, 2012

President Barack Obama has turned out to be a real buzzkill.

Back when he was running in 2008, Obama said he supported the “basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs” and that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws.” He didn’t go farther. But he also didn’t do anything to dissuade speculation among medical marijuana proponents who took this as a sign that the man headed to the Oval Office was on their side.

Four years later, the raids on drug dispensaries have kept up — despite a Justice Department memo formalizing low-enforcement priority instructions from Attorney General Eric Holder, who announced in a March 2009 press conference that the raids would stop on distributors who were in compliance with state and local law. Obama never said anything about supporting legalization or decriminalization, but his medical marijuana statements were enough to get him heralded by some in the larger pro-pot community as the best hope for chipping away at the decades-long drug war.

But the hopes that Obama would be a kinder, gentler, more tolerant drug warrior have gone up in smoke.

“I’m very disappointed,” Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a longtime supporter of marijuana legalization and medical marijuana, told POLITICO. “They look more like the Bush administration than the Clinton administration.”

The dejected medical marijuana supporters are hardly alone. For many in 2008, candidate Obama was like a political Rorschach test: They projected strong progressive positions about everything from legalizing gay marriage to ending all military involvement onto a candidate who never said he agreed with them — but also never explicitly said he didn’t.

Now they’re looking at four years into the Obama administration and wondering where they went wrong.

Read the rest at Politico

Can Fully Informed Juries Help Cannabis Prohibition?

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Of the many numerous peaceful means employed for decades by which cannabis law reformers have been to try to bring about about an end to Cannabis Prohibition laws, one of the most benign, yet most powerful arrows in the activist’s quiver is jury nullification–whereby jurors are educated and informed about their right to vote not guilty in cases where they morally question the underlying law itself (and not just to cast a verdict ‘for’ or ‘against’ individuals the government has charged with ‘crimes’).

For almost 20 years NORML supporter and former Penn State Chemistry professor Julien Heicklen has been publicly advocating that jurors can’t be punished for voting their conscience, notably in cannabis-related cases, where, despite the evidence marshaled and the pleas for conviction and punishment by the government, jurors vote ‘not guilty’ in cases where the underlying law is in great dispute and/or are no longer supported by society in large (case in point here approximately 75% of the American public supports medical access to cannabis; 50% support ending Cannabis Prohibition outright).

Last year Dr. Heicklen was arrested in front of a federal court house in New York City for providing educational pamphlets to people passing by, including perspective jurors, that informed them of America’s long history with jury nullification (i.e. the trial of Peter Zenger during the colonial period) and that the practice is still important today in a functional democracy.

Thankfully, the charges of jury tampering against Dr. Heicklen were dismissed last week and there is now an even greater legal precedent to cite for both citizens accused of cannabis-related crimes (approximately 850,000 annually in America) and citizens asked to sit on juries to keep upholding antiquated Cannabis Prohibition laws.

To learn more about jury nullification and its likely historical importance in helping to end Cannabis Prohibition, please checkout the Fully Informed Jury Association (a.k.a. FIJA) @ fija.org

From New York Times

Jury Statute not Violated by Protester, Judge Rules

April 19, 2012

By BENJAMIN WEISER

The next time the 80-year-old retired chemistry professor takes his protest to the plaza outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan, he may make it home without being locked up.

A federal judge on Thursday ordered the dismissal of an indictment against the professor, Julian P. Heicklen, who had been charged with jury tampering for advocating the controversial position known as jury nullification while outside the courthouse.

Mr. Heicklen had repeatedly stood with a “Jury Info” sign and handed out brochures supporting nullification, the view that jurors who disagree with a law may ignore their oaths and vote to acquit a defendant accused of violating it.

Prosecutors said such advocacy, “directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.”

But the judge, Kimba M. Wood of Federal District Court, wrote that a person violated the jury tampering statute only when he or she knowingly tried to influence a juror’s decision through a written communication “made in relation to a specific case pending before that juror.”

Judge Wood added that she would not “stretch the interpretation” of the statute to cover speech that was “not meant to influence” a juror’s actions in a specific case.

Mr. Heicklen expressed pleasure at the ruling. “Not just for me,” he said. “I think it’s a major decision for the country.”

He added: “This is better than having them throw me in jail.”

Mr. Heicklen had contended that he did not try to influence specific jurors; rather, he handed out brochures to anyone who passed by, hoping jurors were among them.

Mr. Heicklen, who acted as his own lawyer, was assisted by two lawyers, Sabrina Shroff and Steven M. Statsinger of the federal defender’s office.

Ms. Shroff said she was pleased by the ruling. “The right to speech is just so fundamental,” she said.

Prosecutors declined to comment on the ruling. In a hearing last month, a prosecutor called Mr. Heicklen’s advocacy “a significant and important threat to our judicial system.”

Judge Wood made it clear that the indictment could be dismissed merely on a reading of the plain language of the statute, which refers to trying to influence a juror through “written communication” in relation to an “issue or matter pending” before the juror.

By taking that approach, the judge avoided First Amendment questions raised in the case, said Rachel E. Barkow, a law professor at New York University, who has written about nullification.

“I don’t think sensible prosecutors should have even brought this case,” Ms. Barkow said, adding that Judge Wood had rejected “the government’s broader reading because it would arguably chill protected speech.”

Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the ruling freed Mr. Heicklen to resume his activities outside the courthouse, at 500 Pearl Street.

“But it has a much broader impact,” he said, “because there are people all around the country who do exactly what he was doing, and under this ruling they will no longer face the threat of prosecution.”

Officer Arrested In Connection With Marijuana Growing Operation

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 04:03:54 GMT

NORML’s 2012 4/20 Salutations and Celebrations

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Dear NORML Supporters from far and wide,

[Update: Today's media coverage of '4/20' is both wide and extensive: The otherwise staid and anti-cannabis Washington Post has 4/20 entertainment recommendations for the DC area; the Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of record for business and finance, has a well written piece on the growing cultural and commercial acceptance of 4/20; Politico gives a nod to 4/20 by citing examples of what pols say about pot; the University of Colorado is trying to stop a traditional 4/20 'smoke out' by wasting funding on fencing, fish fertilizer strewn across the campus and an alternative concert featuring Wyclef Jean (who has been told by university officials that he can't mention 'marijuana' or '4/20') and the city of Austin is honoring America's most beloved cannabis consumer and advocate Willie Nelson @ 4:20 today by unveiling a new 'Willie Nelson' statue in the downtown area. Lastly, the Huffington Post informs readers today about 4/20 and their #1 suggestion on how to change America's cannabis laws: "Stand with NORML!" ]

Despite nearly three quarters of a century of government-imposed Cannabis Prohibition, it is, again, that oh so magical day that cannabis consumers celebrate … and prohibitionists loathe:

A day (and a time of day) that signifies the ever increasing cultural and commercial acceptance in America (and internationally) of millions of consumers’ and medical patients’ want and need for Cannabis Prohibition to end.

As in the previous twenty years, there is a fast growing acknowledgement that on April 20 … all things in America are cannabis-related in that major newspapers like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times now provide major coverage to this day’s significance; radio networks like National Public Radio deign to point their mics toward the issue of Cannabis Prohibition; and even major TV networks such as G4, SpikeTV, Comedy Central and Showtime will all devote blocks of time to ’4/20′ programming with the rebroadcast of ‘stoner movies’, comedy specials and documentaries.

Can you just imagine what the good folk at the DEA and the Drug Czar’s office think of this clear cultural defeat annually? One can almost be sympathetic on this day to them for their championing such a lost cause. Well, maybe for a nanosecond.

This year, NORML is focusing on four 4/20 related projects for cannabis consumers and patients:

Join and support NORML during this 4/20 weekend for these special prices and donor premiums:

$4.20 (receive two NORML stickers)
$42 (receive the new DVD ‘It’s a NORML Life’ autographed by NORML founder Keith Stroup)
$420 (receive an odorless backpack from Stealth Products, which will have included inside both a NORML nug jar and NORML emblazed crystal glass astray)

4/20 from San Antonio’s Fweedom Fest, beginning at 4pm Eastern and running all night long. We’re celebrating 4/20 at 4:20 in every American Time Zone with correspondents in New York, Atlanta, San Antonio, Des Moines, Denver, Boise, Portland, Los Angeles, and Honolulu. Fweedom Fest coverage includes performances by Chief Greenbud and “Radical” Russ.

Filmmaker E.J Vaughn and writer Steve Wishnia contacted NORML asking for help soliciting videos from cannabis consumers and patients about why they use cannabis and why they want the laws reformed as soon as possible. They will use some of these user-generated videos in their upcoming documentary production. While there is much to celebrate about regarding cannabis (as well as to lament about the failed prohibition) on April 20 at 4:20, this project is forward-looking regarding the further normalization of responsible cannabis use by adults.

NORML’s longtime online apparel partner CafePress has a ’4/20′ special running this weekend for some newly designed products that let the world know what your three favorite numbers are. Use the promo code: 20OFF420 to receive 20% off shirts and gear from the NORML Store on CafePress. Some restrictions apply.

I have to admit that I’m already getting excited at the prospects for next year’s 4/20 celebrations, that, for the first time in years, will be occurring on a Saturday!

From everyone at NORML, please have a safe and very hempy 4/20!

Cannabem liberemus,

Allen St. Pierre
Executive Director
director@norml.org

Oklahoma Mom Sentenced to 12 Years In Prison For $30 Worth Of Weed May Get Parole!

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

“A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history” -Gandhi

Patricia Spottedcrow, a mother and first time offender from Oklahoma, was originally sentenced to 12 years behind bars for selling $30 worth of marijuana. For months, the NORML Women’s Alliance, and other organizations have been bringing attention to one of the most egregious cases of the war on drugs in recent history. After several outreach campaigns to local law enforcement and elected officials, and especially a strong grassroots effort spearheading my outraged mothers and reformers alike, the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board have recommended early parole for Spottedcrow. While this is a small victory in the battle against marijuana prohibition, it is significant in showing that grassroots efforts trult can make a significant difference in the lives of those adversely impacted by the government’s war on drugs.

OKLAHOMA CITY – Grassroots support may evolve into early parole for a Kingfisher mother who was handed a strict prison sentence for a first-time offense of selling $31 worth of marijuana.

After her story was published in the Tulsa World’s series on Women in Prison in 2011, a groundswell of support emerged. In October, a Kingfisher County judge reduced her sentence by four years.

Spottedcrow’s advocates expressed concern for possible racial bias, disparate sentences for drug crimes, Oklahoma’s No. 1 female incarceration rate per capita and the effects on children growing up with incarcerated parents.

Because children were in Spottedcrow’s home when she was arrested, a charge of possession of a dangerous substance in the presence of a minor was added. Her mother, Delita Starr, was also charged with the crime but was given a 30-year suspended sentence so she could care for Spottedcrow’s four children while their mother was incarcerated.

Board member Marc Dreyer, senior pastor at Tulsa’s Memorial Baptist Church, was instrumental in getting Spottedcrow’s case early consideration.

He said he requested to meet Spottedcrow while visiting Eddie Warrior Correctional Center in Taft a few months ago, after reading about her case in the Tulsa World.

“Based on quantity of drugs involved and the desperation of her situation at the time, it was my view that she ought to have consideration by the board for parole, as there were some extenuating circumstances,” Dreyer said. He requested that her case be moved to the board’s April hearing.

Click here for more information.

The NORML Women’s Alliance would like to thank everyone who took the time to make their voice heard against this injustice. Together, we will prevail. Support the NORML Women’s Alliance with a donation by clicking the link below:

Supreme Court Makes It Even Worse To Be A Cannabis Consumer Under Prohibition

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Supreme Court Authorizes Strip Searches for Any Criminal Offense

By Kellen Russoniello, George Washington University Law School and NORML legal intern

If you are sent to jail, be prepared to get naked, squat, and cough.

In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, a 5-4 decision drawn on party lines released on April 2, the Supreme Court upheld the practice of forcing detainees who would be entering the general jail population to undergo strip searches. The Court noted that they “must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or un-justified response to problems of jail security.” Despite the dissent’s assertions that the massive affront to human dignity that strip searches cause is not outweighed by the scant evidence that these procedures actually produce discovery of more contraband, the Court ruled that jails can force detainees to undergo an extremely close inspection while unclothed.

The rationale for the decision is that corrections officers should have deference to deal with the serious problems faced by admitted new people to the general jail population. These dangers include: introducing contagious diseases or lice; the possibility that the detainee may have open wounds; the fact that a detainee may have gang tattoos, which could lead to violence within the jail; or the chance that the person may be carrying contraband (weapons or drugs) in places that are not visible from a general visual search. Additionally, jails are often more dangerous than prisons because little is known about the admitted offender.

As if the breadth of the ruling was not striking enough, the case becomes more shocking when the facts are recounted. The case arose from the 2005 arrest of Albert Florence, a middle-aged African-American man. When Florence’s wife was pulled over for speeding, a records search revealed that Florence, who was in the passenger’s seat, had an outstanding warrant for failure to appear at an enforcement hearing as a result of unpaid fines from two years prior. In fact, the fine had been paid a few days after the issuance of the warrant, but the warrant was never taking off the system.

Additionally, anticipating potential confusion and/or conflict with police during any future traffic stop or like encounter, Florence presented photocopies to arresting police of the paid receipts. To no avail, he was arrested on the spot.

Florence was held for six days in Burlington County jail and then transferred to Essex County jail where he was held for an additional day. At each facility, detention officers forced Florence to strip naked while they examined him for tattoos, scars, and contraband. In the second jail, Florence had to lift his genitals, turnaround, squat, and then cough. After his release, Florence sued the government under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.

This ruling built on precedent set in Bell v. Wolfish, which held that prisoners detained in any correctional facility run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons could be forced to undergo a strip search after every contact visit with a person from outside the facility. Additionally, the Court cites favorably the decision of Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, which held that a person can be arrested and held in detention no matter how minor the criminal offense is (in that case, a woman was arrested for not wearing her seatbelt). Taken together, this means that a person can be detained for any criminal offense, and therefore forced to undergo a strip search for any criminal offense.

Justice Breyer in dissent points out the absurdity of this approach. Under this ruling, minor offenses such as driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal, riding a bicycle without an audible bell, or walking your dog without a leash, could subject the arrestee to a strip search.

Breyer also notes that other procedures used by jails, including the jails in which Florence was detained, have not shown to be any less effective in finding contraband, gang tattoos, or removing lice than the strip search procedure. For example, both jails performed pat-down searches, made detainees go through metal detectors, made inmates shower with de-lousing shampoo, and searched the inmate’s clothing.

Furthermore, a New York Times article summarizes the trend that states have taken so far regarding strip searches for newly admitted persons to jails:

The procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal authorities. According to a supporting brief filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties also ban the procedures . . . . Monday’s decision endorsed a recent trend, from appeals courts in Atlanta, San Francisco and Philadelphia, allowing strip-searches of everyone admitted to a jail’s general population. At least seven other appeals courts, on the other hand, had ruled that such searches were proper only if there was a reasonable suspicion that the arrested person had contraband.

Although Justice Breyer argues that people who commit minor offenses should not be subject to strip searches unless there is reasonable suspicion to believe that they possess drugs or other contraband, he agrees that all people detained for drug offenses can be forced to undergo one. As you may know, there were over 850,000 arrests made in 2010 for marijuana offenses alone. Although not all of these result in jail time, a significant proportion does, meaning that non-violent marijuana users could be subjected to strip searches. Even in states that have decriminalized to a certain extent, people could still be sent to jail while it is determined whether or not charges will be brought against them. The Court specifically pointed to this possibility in both this ruling and the Atwater case.

As Justice Kennedy points out in his majority opinion, 13 million people are jailed annually. This means that 4% of Americans could be subject to these humiliating procedures under this ruling every year. Pointedly, for cannabis consumers and patients, with 850,000 cannabis-related arrests annually in America–90% for possession only–many hundreds of thousands can now be readily exposed to multiple strip searches emanating from a single encounter with law enforcement that begin over an adult possessing no more than a single joint.

Perhaps it is time to try and stop people, instead of contraband, from entering jails.

Over 300 Economists Agree: It’s Time to Legalize Marijuana

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Over 300 economists have signed on to an open letter to the President, Congress, Governors, and State Legislators asking them to allow this “country to commence an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition.” The petition states that the undersigned “believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods.”

Notably, three of the economists who have already signed on are Nobel Laureates. Three hundred plus additional economic scholars have already signed on, you can view the list and more details here. Full text of the petition letter is below:

We, the undersigned, call your attention to the attached report by Professor Jeffrey A. Miron, The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition. The report shows that marijuana legalization — replacing prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation — would save $7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods. If, however, marijuana were taxed similarly to alcohol or tobacco, it might generate as much as $6.2 billion annually.

The fact that marijuana prohibition has these budgetary impacts does not by itself mean prohibition is bad policy. Existing evidence, however, suggests prohibition has minimal benefits and may itself cause substantial harm.

We therefore urge the country to commence an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition. We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods. At a minimum, this debate will force advocates of current policy to show that prohibition has benefits sufficient to justify the cost to taxpayers, foregone tax revenues, and numerous ancillary consequences that result from marijuana prohibition.

You can view media coverage of this effort here.

Cannabis News: Comment on Pot Groups See Obama 2012 Flip-Flop On MMJ by MATTHEW LAWYER: i know the reason for all of this is to... http://t.co/b2i5KA0h

Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

This Week in Weed: April 8th-15th

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Click here to subscribe to NORMLtv and receive alerts whenever new content is added.

The latest installment of “This Week in Weed” is now streaming on NORMLtv.

In this episode: NORML attorneys file a lawsuit in NJ, DC announces 6 marijuana cultivation centers, a new poll shows growing support for legalization, and more.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Be sure to tune in to NORMLtv every week to catch up on the latest marijuana news. Subscribe to NORMLtv or follow us on Twitter to be notified as soon as new content is added.

New Study: THC Seldom Detected In Injured Dutch Drivers

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

[Editor's note: This post is excerpted from today's NORML weekly media advisory. To have NORML's news alerts and legislative advisories delivered straight to your in-box, sign up here.]

Belgian drivers injured in traffic accidents are far more likely to possess drugs and alcohol in their systems than are Dutch drivers, according to data to be published in the journal Forensic Science International.

Investigators from Belgium and the Netherlands compared the prevalence of alcohol, licit and illicit drugs in the blood of seriously injured drivers over 18 years of age. A total of 535 drivers – 348 from Belgium and 187 from the Netherlands – were assessed in the study.

Researchers reported, “In Belgium, more drivers were found positive for alcohol and drugs than in the Netherlands. … Alcohol was the most prevalent substance among the injured drivers in Belgium (42.5 percent) and the Netherlands (29.6 percent). … In Belgium there were … more positives for THC (8 percent). … In the Netherlands, almost no positive findings for cannabis were recorded (0.5 percent).”

THC tends to have a relatively short half-life in the blood of moderate consumers, but may be present at trace levels in the blood of more chronic users for up to 24 hours or longer.

Investigators declared the findings “remarkable” because “the sample of drivers in the Netherlands (was) younger and included more men than in Belgium.” They also noted that cannabis use was far more popular among the Dutch general driving population (2.1 percent) compared to that of the Belgian population (0.49 percent).

They concluded: “The lower prevalence of alcohol in the Netherlands is associated with a much lower number of crashes and killed and injured drivers. … Despite the high prevalence of THC found in the general driving population, surprisingly almost no THC was found in the Dutch injured driver population.”

The abstract of the study, “Prevalence of alcohol and other psychoactive substances in injured drivers: Comparison between Belgium and the Netherlands,” appears online here. NORML’s white paper, “Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review,” is available online here.

Estimate: Worldwide Population Of Lawful Medical Marijuana Patients

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

From the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines
IACM-Bulletin of 8 April 2012

World: Increasing numbers of patients use cannabis for medicinal purposes

An increasing number of patients in the world are using cannabis for therapeutic reasons, with available data from countries, which have installed programs for their citizens. Good data are available for Israel, Canada, the Netherlands and many states of the US with medicinal cannabis laws and registries. In several more countries only a few patients are allowed to use cannabis for medicinal purposes, including Germany, Norway, Finland and Italy. In many other countries such as Spain and some states of the US without a registry such as California the number of medicinal users is estimated to be high, but no detailed data are available.

The numbers in California with hundreds of cannabis dispensaries and clinics that issue medical cannabis recommendations are unclear, since the state does not require residents to register as patients (see below**)
Most of the 16 states that allow the medicinal use of cannabis require a registration. Recently the press agency Associated Press published data on registered patients in different states of the USA based on state agencies responsible for maintaining patient registries:

State: Number of registered patients (per 1,000 of the whole population) –
Colorado: 82,089 (16.3)
Oregon: 57,386 (15.0)
Montana: 14,364 (14.5)
Michigan: 131,483 (13.3)
Hawaii: 11,695 (8.6)
Rhode Island: 4,466 (4.2)
Arizona: 22,037 (3.5)
New Mexico: 4,310 (2.1)
Maine: 2,708 (2.0)
Nevada: 3,388 (1.3)
Vermont: 505 (0.8)
Alaska: 538 (0.8)
Patient registration is mandatory in Delaware, New Jersey and the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.), but their registries are not yet up and running. Washington State has neither voluntary nor mandatory registration.

Data from Israel show that in August 2011 6,000 patients got medicinal cannabis (0.8 patients in 1,000). It is estimated that the number increases to 40,000 in 2016 (5.2 patients in 1,000 citizens).

In Canada 12,116 patients were allowed to use cannabis on 30 September 2011 (0.35 patients in 1,000 citizens).

Numbers of patients using cannabis from the pharmacies in the Netherlands were estimated to be 1,300 in 2010 (0.08 patients in 1,000 citizens). However, many patients in the Netherlands use cannabis from the coffee shops or grow their own.

In Germany about 60 patients are currently allowed to use cannabis for medicinal purposes.

(Sources: Associated Press of 24 March 2012, website of the Israeli Prime Minister of 7 August 2011, UPI of 31 October 2011, Pharmaceutisch Weekblad No. 20, 2011)

**[Editor's note: CA NORML published a white paper last May estimating that California has 750,000 - 1,125,000 citizens who possess a physician's recommendation to use cannabis medicinally.]

While NFL cracks down on marijuana players are using as much as “a thousand Vicodins a month”

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

We’ve reported on various NFL players who have been fined and suspended for their marijuana use. The latest player to be punished is Detroit Lions’ running back Mikel Leshoure:

The Detroit Lions running back, who missed his entire 2011 rookie season with a torn Achilles tendon, was arrested twice in less than a month on charges of marijuana possession in Michigan this offseason. In the latest incident, Leshoure failed to show for arraignment on Monday. Police reports indicate he tried to eat the marijuana he had on him during a traffic stop.

But Leshoure has been in trouble for marijuana use before. As the NFP’s Dan Pompei reported a year ago, Leshoure was suspended for a game at Illinois in 2009 after he tested positive for marijuana. Then Illini coach Ron Zook suspended Leshoure for the 2009 season opener against Illinois State. Hat tip to Philip Zaroo of MLive.com for not letting this sneak by.

Of course, Leshoure is just one of three 2011 draft picks for the Lions to be caught with marijuana this offseason. First-round draft pick Nick Fairley was arrested on Tuesday in Mobile, Ala. But Leshoure now has three strikes on him with the drug and will clearly be a target for the NFL after the court system finishes with Leshoure. Because this is his second arrest, he’s currently facing a felony charge.

Given the punishment these men’s bodies must endure, maybe marijuana use ought to be mandatory. It would certainly be a safer option than getting these athletes hooked on prescription opiates:

A study commissioned by ESPN and assisted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse shows retired NFL players misuse painkillers at a rate of 4-to-1 compared to the general public.

Miami Dolphins tight end Dan Johnson’s teammates called him “King of Pain” because of the myriad injuries he suffered throughout his career from 1983 through 1987. He became addicted to painkillers after two back surgeries.

“I was taking about 1,000 Vicodins a month,” Johnson told ESPN. “People go, ‘That’s impossible. That’s crazy.’ No, it’s exactly what I was taking. I mean, believe me, I’d love to be off medications. That’s my worry every day, to make sure I have medication.”

More than half of the surveyed former players reported using prescription painkillers during their playing days. Of that same group, 71 percent admitted misusing the drugs during their time in the NFL.

Oregon Attorney General Race besieged by medical marijuana questions

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Oregon’s Attorney General race features two Democrats, Ellen Rosenblum and Dwight Holton, and no Republicans, so the winner of the May Democratic Primary should eventually become the top law enforcement official in the state.

Medical marijuana is always an issue for law enforcement in Oregon, so the race for Attorney General may be the most important race for marijuana activists to watch in the state. Recently the two candidates appeared at a debate at Willamette University. The moderator of the debate noted that there were eight separate questions submitted regarding marijuana policy, dominating the submissions. However, the eight questions were then presented as one long series of questions, sounding like the most long-winded, redundant question a marijuana maniac might compose. This allowed the candidates to pick and choose which parts of the question to answer, as reported by The Weed Blog:

Dwight Holton gave a very long winded answer. He used about half the time to explain that marijuana is separate from the drug war. Marijuana supporters might find that interesting considering Dwight Holton tried to attack the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP) every chance he had as a federal prosecutor in Oregon. After his flip-floppish answer, Holton very reluctantly stated that the OMMP was voted in by Oregonians, but was also quick to point out that he wouldn’t tolerate it being a ‘front for drug trafficking.’

Ellen Rosenblum was very straight to the point. She will not focus limited government resources towards marijuana enforcement against patients, and if voters approve an initiative at the ballot box that ends marijuana prohibition, she will respect that. I was delighted when Ellen Rosenblum pointed out that Dwight Holton once referred to the OMMP as a ‘train wreck.’ The crowd wasn’t buying his BS, and I’m glad Ellen pointed out the obvious.

Activists have now begun a “Not Dwight Holton” campaign which you can “like” on Facebook or visit on the web.

Drug seizure money and drug testing – the growth industries of the 2010's

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

We’ve been covering the abomination of civil asset forfeiture in this blog for years. This is a legal tool that was created to seize the ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins, but in reality it has turned into policing drug users for profit.

In a civil asset forfeiture case, your property is charged with the crime of being financed by drug money or gained through drug crime. Being property, it doesn’t get civil liberties; it is considered guilty until proven innocent. Thus, if you’re caught growing a marijuana plant or even possessing some marijuana, in some cases your car, your home, and your money are charged with a crime, seized by the police, and sold at auction (or re-purposed by the police – see any number of D.A.R.E. Corvettes).

Here’s the astounding part: you yourself don’t actually have to be charged with any crimes. Any drug crimes you might have been charged with could be dropped, for lack of evidence, for instance, but your property could still be seized by police in a civil asset forfeiture. It would then be incumbent on you to hire a lawyer to go to court to fight for your car, home, and cash back. What’s that, how do you hire a lawyer to rescue your assets when you have no assets? Exactly, which is why civil asset forfeiture has essentially become legalized stealing by police departments who know defendants in most cases can’t afford to fight back. In some cases, the cost of suing to get the assets returned is more than the value of the assets.

But it’s not always fancy Corvettes and new SUVs that the police departments are buying, like Georgia police that have spent $30 million in drug seizure disbursements to purchase things like laptops and tactical gear. In Fayette County, Georgia, about $115,000 of it was spent flying, feeding, and lodging sheriffs who attended seminars in Georgia, Alabama, Florida and South Carolina. In Palatine, Illinois, $65,000 of seized money was approved to purchase new fitness equipment for the police station. And now, in Suffolk County (Long Island) New York, money seized from pot smokers is being used to help parents drug test their kids at home:

Sheriff Vincent F. DeMarco has purchased drug test kits to distribute to parents free of charge.

The program aims to offer free drug test kits that can be used in privacy to assist parents and guardians with monitoring the behavior of their children who are under the age of 18.

And the sooner the better. A drug use intervention plan is much easier to implement on a 13 or 14 year old child who may be experimenting with marijuana or prescription drugs than on an older teen engaging in heroin and cocaine use. However, parents can, and should, engage in active intervention with their children under the age of 18 if they suspect a drug use problem.

Test kits have been purchased by the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office and are made available to residents in Suffolk County. The kits were not paid for by taxpayers but funded with money seized from drug dealers. The program aims to offer free drug test kits that can be used in privacy to assist parents and guardians with monitoring the behavior of their children who are under the age of 18.

So in one program, Sheriff DeMarco has combined two abominations of the drug war – asset forfeiture and drug testing – and combined them into one propaganda monstrosity. Never mind that the American Association of Pediatrics amended its adolescent drug-testing policy to include a statement discouraging home drug testing by parents. The pediatricians’ group also notes that “drug testing poses substantial risks—in particular, the risk of harming the parent-child and school-child relationships by creating an environment of resentment, distrust, and suspicion”. The pediatricians explain the complex protocols that must be followed to guarantee drug test validity in a laboratory setting and that “most parents cannot implement the federal collection protocol and, for ethical and developmental reasons, should not directly observe their teenaged children urinating.” They also examined the harm that drug testing may pose to adolescents:

It is fairly easy to defeat drug tests, and most drug-involved youth are all too familiar with ways to do so. Even properly collected specimens must have checks for validity (eg, urine specific gravity and creatinine), because the easiest way to defeat a drug testing is by simple dilution. Even when properly collected and validated, urine drug tests yield very limited information. With the exception of marijuana, the window of detection for most drugs of abuse is 72 hours or less. Therefore, negative test results indicate only that the adolescent did not use a specific drug during the past several days. Even adolescents with serious drug problems may have negative test results on most occasions. Standard drug-testing panels also do not detect many of the drugs most frequently abused by adolescents, such as alcohol, ecstasy (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA]), and inhalants, and information on the limitations of screening tests and ways to defeat them is widely available to adolescents via the Internet. Widespread implementation of drug testing may, therefore, inadvertently encourage more students to abuse alcohol, which is associated with more adolescent deaths than any illicit drug but is not included in many standard testing panels. Mandatory drug testing may also motivate some drug-involved adolescents to change from using drugs with relatively less associated morbidity and mortality, such as marijuana, to those that pose greater danger (eg, inhalants) but are not detected by screening tests.

But if you’re worried about your Google-savvy kid looking up how to beat your drug test online, never fear. In Maryland, the manufactured need for drug testing has spawned a new start-up industry: mobile drug testing! We can’t get a doctor to make house calls in this country, but we can get a former restaurant worker/driver and his wife to show up at your home or place of business, secure your restroom against any specimen tampering, and tell you on the spot whether your child’s or employee’s pee is worthy of your approval:

Earlier this year, the Annapolis couple became the Maryland contractor for Mobile Drug Testing, an agency that provides door-to-door testing services. As a result, they get a steady supply of instant test kits that can detect the presence of marijuana, cocaine, opiates and other drugs.

Jim Kopernick worked in the food and beverage industry for nearly 20 years. Because he occasionally drove for his company, he had to undergo drug testing. But he became frustrated about going to clinics and waiting three hours to begin the process.

When the Kopernicks learned about Mobile Drug Testing, they saw it as a way to leave the corporate world. They charge $30 for simple drug testing on up to $400 for DNA tests. They have three people who work underneath them as collection agents.

On assignments with individual clients, they go to the person’s home, receive a cash payment and take down personal information. Then they secure the bathroom — tape up the soap dispenser, seal the ceiling ventilation and place bluing tablets inside the toilet — and have them provide a urine sample. Results can be given instantly.

There is no magic test that is going to keep your child or employee off drugs. The biggest unaddressed problem with drug testing is that it has become a substitute for good parenting and good management. A parent or manager who pays attention to and nurtures their children or employees is going to notice the first signs of drug abuse long before any pee test will. A child or employee who isn’t using drugs will be offended and humiliated to have to pee for your approval. A child or employee who is using drugs is going to cheat and beat the test, leaving you mistakenly believing everything is fine; or fail the test, leaving them feeling punished and shamed (or fired); or refuse to take the test, forcing you into a showdown that will drive a greater wedge between the two of you.

In the case of the adult employees, it’s not even worth your time (or any of your business) to test them for marijuana in the first place. We’re hard-working, loyal, safe, productive employees who just like to relax with weed instead of beer. You’re wasting your money by testing us and you’re also missing out on quite a few smart, talented, principled pot smokers who refuse to pee for employment.

In the case of teenage children, it’s a tougher issue to be sure. If they’re not using marijuana, your push for drug testing is just going to open up trust issues. If they’ve decided to use marijuana, your pressure for drug testing is just going to push them toward drugs that don’t show up as well on drug tests. This isn’t the time for some company’s chemical assay to help your child – it’s time for you to have some honest discussions with your teenager.

Wisconsin teen wins $265000 settlement over public strip-search case

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

The city of Beloit, WI, has just settled a lawsuit out of court brought by a 16-year-old boy. He was in a parked car with two other boys when police received a call reporting “drug activity”. When the officer noticed a bulge in the teen’s pants during a routine pat down, the teen said it was his genitals.

The cop didn’t believe the teen, so the teen dropped his pants. That’s when the cop pushed the teen so roughly against the back of the car that the back windshield broke and the teen suffered a concussion.

The cop then found a small baggie containing a personal use amount of marijuana in the teen’s underwear.

The city just paid out $265,000 in the settlement. That’s one expensive baggie of weed!

Two Marijuana Policy Reform Bills Pass in Maryland

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

The clock ran out on Maryland legislators last night. A bill to give medical marijuana caregivers an affirmative defense against charges of possession was collateral damage as legislators spent the evening trying and failing to reach a budget compromise. It wasn’t a total loss though — two good bills did pass. Here’s MPP’s summary of marijuana policy reform developments in the 2012 session of Maryland’s General Assembly.

The two bills that passed are SB 422 and SB 350. The former requires charging certain minor offenses, including marijuana possession, by citation, meaning marijuana users can be arrested (though it’s not required) but won’t be spending the night or the weekend in jail. The latter reduces the maximum penalty for possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana from one year in jail to 90 days and the maximum fine from $1,000 to $500. Here again is the full summary.

It is unfortunate that Gov. O’Malley essentially put a stop to the original medical marijuana bill we were working toward this year, which would have protected patients and caregivers from arrest and established a system to ensure safe access. Still, this is certainly a step in the right direction, and it is only a matter of time before we pass a truly effective medical marijuana bill in Maryland.

City Council Wants Marijuana Decriminalized

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:41:51 GMT

Hazy Marijuana Rulings

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:41:45 GMT

Obama The Happy Drug Warrior

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:41:38 GMT

GOP Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Speaks At UC Berkeley

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:41:32 GMT

The HIGH TIMES Medical Cannabis Cup in Denver

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

This incredible two-day expo highlights the very best of Colorado’s medical marijuana industry.

The event features grow seminars with HIGH TIMES’ cultivation editors Nico Escondido and Danny Danko as well as other experts in the field. There will also be seminars featuring doctors, patients, researchers, dispensary owners, canna-business owners, and activists.

Plus, don’t miss the Saturday night VIP party featuring Odd Future’s MellowHype with Domo Genesis & Jasper Dolphin, as well as Marlon “Ganja Farmer” Asher and DJ Nikka T.

For more information, or to purchase tickets, visit MedCanCup.com.

Get Mile High with HIGH TIMES in Denver!

Edited by, and featuring original music from, Baseshot.

Richard Lee Leaves Oaksterdam

Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

NWA Winter Wrap-Up 2012

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Follow the NORML Women’s Alliance on Facebook andTwitter

New Jersey: NORML Lawyers File Constitutional Lawsuit Over State’s Failure To Implement Two-Year-Old Medical Cannabis Law

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Members of the NORML Legal Committee filed suit yesterday against the State of New Jersey over regulators failure to implement the Compassionate Use of Medical Marijuana Act.

First signed into law by former Gov. Jon Corzine on January 18, 2010, the law — which establishes the creation of up to six state-licensed ‘alternative treatment centers’ to provide medicinal cannabis to qualified patients — was initially scheduled to take effect in July 2010. Since that time state regulators, at the behest of present Gov. Chris Christie, have unduly delayed the law’s implementation. To date, not a single patient in New Jersey has been afforded legal protections under the Act in the 27 months since the measure was signed into law.

On Wednesday, April 4, NORML Legal Committee attorneys William H. Buckman of Moorestown and Anne M. Davis of Brick filed a lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey medical patient who would qualify for cannabis access. The suit also represents one of the few medical doctors who have registered with NJ to recommend medical marijuana. Named in the suit are the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) Commissioner Mary O’Dowd and the newly appointed director of the Medicinal Marijuana Program John O’Brien.

Read the press release below:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAWSUIT FILED OVER FAILED NJ MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM

Trenton: Today a lawsuit was filed against the State of New Jersey over the failure to implement the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act. Named in the suit are the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) Commissioner Mary O’Dowd and the newly appointed director of the Medicinal Marijuana Program John O’Brien.

Civil rights attorneys William H. Buckman of Moorestown and Anne M. Davis of Brick brought the suit on behalf of a New Jersey medical patient who would qualify for cannabis access. The suit also represents one of the few medical doctors who have registered with NJ to recommend medical marijuana.

The compassionate use law was passed in January 2010 with a six-month implementation timeline. But since 2010 a series of politically motivated regulatory, legislative and bureaucratic delays have kept the program from operating at all. None of the six approved Alternative Treatment Centers have been fully permitted by DHSS to open.

“We represent a patient who suffered actual damages as a result of these delays,” said Anne Davis, “He cannot utilize the cannabis because New Jersey’s lack of a working program means he could lose his disability pension if he tested positive for cannabis.”

Davis continued, “Our neighbors with AIDS, cancer, MS and the worst of medical conditions have testified before the legislature and changed the law. Now, patients and doctors have to go to court to win the rights that they should have already been afforded.”

The lawsuit gathers more than two years of facts demonstrating that those in charge of the implementation process for New Jersey’s medical marijuana program have been unable or unwilling to put the law into place.

“Today we are filing suit to require the DHHS to do what every other citizen must do — follow the law,” said William Buckman, “We are also insisting that pursuant to the legislature’s will, sick people have access to medical marijuana without fear of arrest.”

Six National Drug Policy Organizations Call on President Obama to End Unnecessary Assault on Medical Marijuana Providers

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

In the wake of recent attacks on medical marijuana providers and patients by multiple branches of the federal government, including Monday’s raids on Oaksterdam University in Oakland, CA, a coalition of six national drug policy reform organizations is appealing to President Obama and his administration to follow its own previously stated policies respecting state medical marijuana laws. In the letter, posted in full below, the organizations call on the Obama administration to bring an end to the federal government’s ongoing campaign to undermine state efforts to regulate safe and legal access to medical marijuana for those patients who rely on it.

The Obama Administration’s National Drug Control Strategy Report 2012, reportedly being released in the coming days, is expected to cling to failed and outdated marijuana policies which further cement the control of the marijuana trade in the hands of drug cartels and illegal operators, endangering both patients in medical marijuana states and citizens everywhere. The members of this coalition stand together with members of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, current and former Latin American leaders whose countries are being ravaged by drug cartels, state officials from five medical marijuana states, and tens of millions of Americans in their call for a more rational approach to marijuana policy.

THE LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA:

April 4, 2012

President Barack Obama

The White House

Washington D.C. 20500

Via Fax: 2024562461

Dear Mr. President:

Our coalition represents the views of tens of millions of Americans who believe the war on medical marijuana patients and providers you are fighting is misguided and counterproductive. As your administration prepares to release its annual National Drug Control Strategy, we want to speak with one voice and convey our deep sense of anger and disappointment in your lack of leadership on this issue.

Voters and elected officials in sixteen states and the District of Columbia have determined that the medical use of marijuana should be legal. In many of these states, the laws also include means for providing medical marijuana patients safe access to this medicine. These laws allowing for the cultivation and distribution of medical marijuana actually shift control of marijuana sales from the criminal underground to state-licensed, taxed, and regulated producers and distributors.

Instead of celebrating – or even tolerating – this state experimentation, which has benefited patients and taken profits away from drug cartels, you have turned your back as career law enforcement officials have run roughshod over some of the most professional and well-regulated medical marijuana providers. We simply cannot understand why you have reneged on your administration’s earlier policy of respecting state medical marijuana laws.

Our frustration and confusion over your administration’s uncalled-for attacks on state-authorized medical marijuana providers was best summed up by John McCowen, the chair of the Mendocino County (CA) board of supervisors, who said, “It’s almost as if there was a conscious effort to drive [medical marijuana cultivation and distribution] back underground. My opinion is that’s going to further endanger public safety and the environment – the federal government doesn’t seem to care about that.”

The National Drug Control Strategy you are about to release will no doubt call for a continuation of policies that have as a primary goal the ongoing and permanent control of the marijuana trade by drug cartels and organized crime. We cannot and do not endorse the continued embrace of this utterly failed policy. We stand instead with Latin American leaders, members of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, and the vast majority of people who voted you into office in recognizing that it is time for a new approach on marijuana policy.

With approximately 50,000 people dead in Mexico over the past five years as the result of drug war-related violence, we hope that you will immediately reconsider your drug control strategy and will work with, not against, states and organizations that are attempting to shift control of marijuana cultivation and sales, at least as it applies to medical marijuana, to a controlled and regulated market.

Sincerely,

Drug Policy Alliance (DPA)

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)

Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)

National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA)

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)

Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP)

cc: Eric Holder, Attorney General, Department of Justice

James Cole, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice

Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy

University of Colorado Officials Attempt To Sway Students Away From Campus’ Annual Pro-Marijuana Protest With Free Wyclef Jean Concert

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Update: Even the Denver Post’s editorial board is critical of the University of Colorado’s decisions surrounding their efforts to retard the annual student protest against Cannabis Prohibition laws, notably trying to coerce students through the University’s Office of Student Conduct.

* * * *

A number of CU students and employees have forwarded NORML the below email circulated on the campus regarding the state’s flagship university’s massive annual 4/20 protest, and the attempts this year by school officials to both 1) intimidate students from participating in the very popular political rally and 2) to try to tempt them from participating by instead attending a free concert by popular recording artist Wyclef Jean.*

Hard to know what would make for the richer irony here: No one attending Wyclef’s free concert or huge numbers of students attending the university’s alternative 4/20 activity and protesting with their cannabis use?

*Is Wyclef and his fellow musicians actually playing for free, or, should CU students and the local media be asking questions of the CU administration on how much student tuition money is being used to thwart their first amendment activities with a supposedly ‘free’ concert?

Dear CU student:

As you know, your student government and the university administration would
like the disruptive, unnecessary and unsanctioned 4/20 gathering on the
CU-Boulder campus to end. With this in mind, please join us in taking key
steps this year to end 4/20.

We invite students who do not have Friday afternoon classes to attend the
free Wyclef Jean concert at the Coors Events Center, sponsored by CU Student
Government (CUSG) in partnership with Program Council.

The concert is for CU-Boulder students only. Doors open at 2 p.m. and will
close at 4 p.m. The concert is expected to end at 6 p.m. More information
on the concert will be e-mailed to students in coming weeks, so watch your
e-mail for upcoming announcements.

We also want to communicate some key changes and conditions that may impact
you or your peers on 4/20:

– Tickets will be issued for smoking marijuana on the Norlin Quad, or
anywhere on campus, prior to, during and after the gathering. Such tickets can
result in a $100 fine.

– Possession of a medical marijuana card does not entitle its holder to
smoke marijuana on campus, and in fact can result in revocation of the card.

– Alcohol policies will be strictly enforced throughout the campus.

– Students who receive tickets will be subject to a review process with the
Office of Student Conduct and if a student is found responsible, sanctions
will be issued. Additional sanctions will be levied by the Boulder County
and Boulder City courts.

– The federal Clery Act requires that the university maintain a publicly
accessible crime log. Those ticketed or arrested for violating CU rules
and state or local laws will have their names posted on the CU-Boulder
police website’s daily crime log, which could affect their employment futures.

– All classes and academic activities will go on as scheduled.

– Please do not invite friends or visitors to campus that day. Those not
affiliated with CU-Boulder are advised to avoid the campus entirely on 4/20.

– Plan ahead since extremely heavy traffic and long traffic jams are expected
on Broadway due to construction and along 28th Street due to overflow traffic.
University and City of Boulder guest parking will be virtually non-existent on
the CU-Boulder campus and in adjacent CU neighborhoods.

Please join the CU Student Government and the University in taking key steps
this year to end this disruptive, unsanctioned gathering on the CU-Boulder
campus. Your degree has value and your safety and your future matter to all
of us who are proud of the University of Colorado Boulder.

Sincerely,

Deb Coffin, vice chancellor for student affairs

Karen Raforth, interim dean of students

Carly Robinson, CUSG internal vice president

NORML PSA: Together We Will Win

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 GMT

NORMLtv is now streaming a brand new PSA, entitled “Together We Will Win.”

All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self evident. Join NORML in our fight to legalize marijuana today and put an end to the War on Drugs. Together we will win.

Watch and Share!

Click here to view the embedded video.

You can receive the latest updates direct from NORMLtv by following us on Twitter or subscribing to our Youtube channel.

Republican-led New Hampshire Senate passes medical marijuana bill!

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Exciting news! In a 13-11 vote, the New Hampshire Senate voted today to approve New Hampshire’s medical marijuana bill, SB 409. This is a huge victory for New Hampshire patients and their families.

With this vote, New Hampshire’s Senate became the first Republican-led state senate in the nation to pass an effective medical marijuana bill. Eight Republicans voted in favor, joined by all five Senate Democrats.

Last year, the House passed a similar bill in a 229-96 vote, with more than half of Republicans voting in favor.

Unfortunately, Governor Lynch (a Democrat) has vetoed medical marijuana legislation in the past. His press secretary has already indicated that he will veto the bill despite the strong, bipartisan support it enjoys in both chambers of the legislature.

Several senators who voted “no” today are not certain in their opposition, and advocates are still optimistic about gaining support from additional senators (those who did not have the luxury of being present for the bill’s public hearing) as the bill continues moving through the process.

The bill will next be referred to the House Health and Human Services Committee for a hearing in April or May, and the process will continue from there.

N.H. Senate committee unanimously votes to protect patients

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:00:00 GMT

In a huge victory for patients and their families, this afternoon the Senate Health and Human Services Committee voted 5-0 to approve New Hampshire’s medical marijuana bill, SB 409. The full Senate will vote on the bill next week.

The four Republican members of the committee — including Senate Majority Leader and former U.S. Congressman Jeb Bradley — and the one Democrat all voted in favor of the bill, having considered over two and a half hours of testimony at a March 8 public hearing.

SB 409, sponsored by Sen. Jim Forsythe (R-Strafford), would allow patients with serious illnesses such as MS, cancer, AIDS, PTSD, and intractable pain to register with the Department of Health and Human Services and receive ID cards protecting them from arrest if marijuana is recommended by their doctors. Qualifying patients would be permitted to cultivate up to six mature plants in an enclosed, locked facility.

MPP, patients, and our allies have been lobbying for medical marijuana in the state for several years. In 2009, the Democrat-controlled state legislature passed medical marijuana legislation, but Gov. John Lynch (D) vetoed the bill, even after changes were made to specifically address his concerns. The House voted to override Lynch’s vote, but the Senate veto override vote came two votes shy.

In November 2010, the leadership in both chambers shifted after Republicans won 3:1 majorities in the state House of Representatives and Senate. Last year, the New Hampshire House of Representatives showed that compassion is not a partisan issue, voting 221-96 for medical marijuana legislation. Last year’s bill passed the same Senate committee by a narrower, 3-2, margin but did not receive a Senate floor vote.

If you live in New Hampshire, please ask your senator to vote in favor of SB 409 so that patients may finally have the relief they deserve.

Medical Marijuana Activist and Cancer Patient Angel Raich Thrown Out of Hospital for Vaporizing Marijuana

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 GMT

Well, it doesn’t get much more despicable than this. Yesterday, a registered medical marijuana patient with terminal cancer was forced to leave UCSF Medical Center in San Francisco because she was using a vaporizer to ingest her medicine.

A spokesperson for the hospital claimed that use of the vaporizer violated their non-smoking policy. First of all, vaporizing is NOT smoking!

Then, the hospital claimed that even marijuana in vapor form can damage the lungs of other patients. I challenge the hospital to deliver evidence of this, especially considering that a recent study shows marijuana, even smoked marijuana, has little effect on long-term pulmonary function. To the best of my knowledge, there is no data showing any second-hand effects from vaporized marijuana.

This patient happened to be none other than Angel Raich, a long-time medical marijuana activist who battled the federal government in the U.S. Supreme Court for the right to use marijuana to treat the symptoms of her incurable brain tumor.

Marijuana is an accepted medicine in the state of California. For a state university hospital to threaten a terminally ill patient with arrest and federal prosecution, instead of making accommodations so that the patient could use her medicine, is inexcusable.

Just to give you another example of people being denied treatment simply because they use marijuana to treat their conditions, here is a video from our friends at Reason about a man who was taken off a kidney transplant list because he used a legal medicine that his doctor recommended.

What happened to the Hippocratic Oath?

Reefer Madness in Obama's White House

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 08:58:54 GMT

Obama once had a reasonable outlook on medical marijuana.
Photo courtesy: montanafesto.wordpress.com

(MOLALLA, Ore.) - I am completely flummoxed by the complete u-turn made by our president regarding medical marijuana. Nadelman in the NY Times on 7 November points the artillery and fires, what’s going on? In October 2009 he defended the use of medical marijuana and he promised his smoking public that he “would not use the justice department resources to override state laws on the issue”. I can not imagine that being a flat-out lie but he surely has some answering to do.

On that basis, 16 states and Washington D.C. have legal medical marijuana but the DEA, Treasury Dept, IRS, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, have let their alcohol besotted hell hounds loose on unsuspecting legal growers and users of a highly safe medicine.

The United States attorneys also under the influence of ‘ardent spirits’ have joined in the egregious rapacious rampage against mostly sick, disabled medical patients with no mercy, putting them at the mercy of the Mexican drug black marketeers. They seem to be targeting anyone or any organization which might have a scintilla of interest in supplying medical marijuana to sick patients.

The concurrently federal statement that “as a Schedule one drug (Like heroin or cocaine) has no currently acceptable medical use in treatment in the United States”. This is in the face of the federal marijuana “POT FARM” in Mississippi. The six or so federally permitted users of medical marijuana supplied by the federal government, the fact that the U.S. govt. owns the patent for the use of marijuana for cancer and the FDA approved use by prescription of Marinol or THC, the chief chemical in marijuana.

These are examples of Reefer Madness in the white house.

Marijuana is the safest medicine ever found and has NEVER KILLED ANYBODY. Contrast this with about 100,000 deaths per year, of safe federally approved medications.

Marijuana is the safest medicine ever found and has “never KILLED anybody”. Contrast this with about 100,000 deaths per year of ‘safe’ federally approved medication.

Marijuana if taxed like alcohol and tobacco; its two main competitors, would erase every state’s tax deficiency and most of that of the U.S. govt. Instead we send the money to the Mexican millionaire cartels.

Based on Obama’s now ignored promise of 2009, millions of sick patients are using medical marijuana and it is a major industry in most states, legal or not, with several thousands grow sites and dispensaries.

OK Obama, let’s hear it for Kona Gold and Maui Wowie, your old friends in Hawaii.

________________________________________

Dr. Phillip Leveque has degrees in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology, toxicology and minors in physiology and biochemistry. He was a Professor of Pharmacology, employed by the University of London for 2 years, during which time he trained the first doctors in Tanzania. After training doctors, he became an Osteopathic Physician, as well as a Forensic Toxicologist.

Before any of that, Phil Leveque was a Combat Infantryman in the U.S. Army in WWII. He suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder more than 60 years after the war, and specialized in treating Veterans with PTSD during his years as a doctor in Molalla, Oregon. Do you have a question, comment or story to share with Dr. Leveque?
Email him: ASK DR. LEVEQUE

More information on the history of Dr. Leveque can be found in his book, General Patton’s Dogface Soldier of WWII about his own experiences “from a foxhole”. Order the book by mail by following this link: DOGFACE SOLDIER OF WWII If you are a World War II history buff, you don’t want to miss it.

###

Stop State and Federal Charades: ElectTrue Leaders for Montana

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 10:09:29 GMT

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.

November 7, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

I have lived in Montana for over a year and have practiced law here for about the same time. I have handled various medical marijuana cases and have become familiar with the legal and political scenario regarding state and federal laws on medical marijuana.

During this time I have seen a most disturbing sign of our political condition, and it confirms what I have expressed for the past several years concerning state sovereignty verses federal usurpation.

Montana Medical Marijuana Laws

In 2004 the citizens of Montana overwhelmingly passed an initiative to legalize the medical use of marijuana. (Please, if you oppose legalizing marijuana, do not let the subject fog a clear understanding of the point of this article—personal views on morality is not the issue.)

Since then, the State legislature has essentially repealed that law and replaced it with another medical marijuana plan. Regardless of which marijuana law, the lawful use of marijuana for medical use remains.

Conflict with Federal Drug Laws

This state law is, of course, in violation of federal laws that outlaw all possession, manufacturing, growing, and use of marijuana. So, how does this conflict play out in the federal union of the United States? And what do the state and federal governments’ actions regarding the same reveal about this union’s condition?

Federal Prosecutions in Montana

Since early 2011, the federal government has initiated raids and prosecutions against Montana citizens for alleged violation of federal drug laws—in spite of Montana’s laws.

Federal agents focused their attacks on those who were doing business openly—using store front, public advertisement, incorporated registration, etc. This is significant given that the Feds claim they investigated these matters for “years”—it is comparable to investigating Wal-Mart for selling products made in China. Makes you wonder how proficient they are in tax-dollar use.

Federal “Conspiracy” Charges Against Citizens

Word has spread in Montana that the federal government considers certain people as conspiring to violate federal law where those people have only relationships with marijuana users and providers.
For example, a general contractor who builds a greenhouse for a provider; a landlord who rents a grow building to a grower; a person who supplies manufacturing materials; a doctor who prescribes marijuana to a patient; an attorney who drafts legal documents for a marijuana incorporation—all are subject to federal prosecution as “conspirators.”

In fact, one such contractor has been federally charged, and I know of an attorney who has been made a “generous” plea offer of over 100 years in federal prison. What an outrage!

If you study and understand the fundamental concepts regarding state sovereignty and federalism, this situation should burn coals in your gut. But it is worse than the obvious issues of inviolable separation of state from federal usurpation.

Who Are the “Conspirators” to the Feds?

Get a good grasp of this picture: the legislators of Montana pass a law permitting the medical use of marijuana, and similarly, for 7 years, never repeal the marijuana law the people directly passed; the executive branch of Montana signs the same into law; the executive’s administrations regulate and provide for the legal methods of using and distributing marijuana in the State; the Montana Supreme Court has recognized marijuana as a prescription drug; the Secretary of State certifies corporations who openly operate medical marijuana business.

In short, those in the marijuana business are working as legitimately under State law as a local barber shop—not to mention, the State is receiving taxes from this industry and has supplied payroll, covered overhead, and built infrastructure with these taxes. During these economic times, this is not a small matter.

Yet, the Federal government prosecutes Montana’s citizens who comply with a law the state government passed, permitted, executed, and administered on their behalf. The Feds do not attack the power of the State directly by prosecuting State officials. Rather the Feds attack Montana’s citizens, thereby ruining the lives of those without sufficient power, money, and force of government to protect the State’s sovereignty recognized in the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

How convenient for shaping the issue of federal authority. Were the Feds to focus their criminal prosecutions on State officials, the issues would look quite difficult. The Feds avoid this scene. I guess the public mind has not been completely indoctrinated to that level—yet.

Apply Federal Authority Equally—What Would Result?

Here is the question:

if it is lawful for the federal government to arrest Montana citizens who are complying with State law for violating federal law (including those who “conspire” to help users or providers with this unlawful use of marijuana), then would it not also be for them to prosecute state officials who instigated the conspiracy to begin with by putting into place the law so people could benefit from it?

If the answer is, yes; then we do not live in a federal union composed of sovereign states—we live in a national system with the States being nothing but counties to the one-nation, AMERICAN STATE.

If the answer is, no; then what power does the federal government have to arrest a state citizen in complying with a state law?

And what is to be said about the sovereignty of the States and the federal union it created where state government does nothing to protect its own sovereignty?

“State” Officials Are Really Federal (Sub)Agents

It is contemptible that the government of the State of Montana would pretend to care about the sovereignty of the people of Montana by passing a law on their behalf only to hide behind their official status while the federal government bulldozes its way into this state to arrest any Montanan it says is breaking federal law.

Given the way the federal government treats the citizens of the States and the State’s land, the question must be asked: what good are States anyway? Why do we even have States where this kind of action takes place supposedly pursuant to the U.S. Constitution? It would seemingly be much better were we to get rid of the pretense and the litigation arguing the point.

However, seeing that this exact type of constitution was proposed at the 1787 constitutional convention but rejected indicates that the system being implemented today is not constitutional after all.

All the while, State officials sit in their fancy government chairs in a beautiful, big State house, pass state laws, pull the rug over their eyes to the federal government’s intrusion of the State’s sovereignty, and somehow think they are representing the State of Montana.

Sovereignty un-asserted and unprotected is no sovereignty at all. Even the Federalist authors—the “liberals” of their day—admitted this about our federal system.

Will Montana (and Other States) Elect a Real State Leader in 2012?

The States are reaching a tipping point. Either the States are going to be crushed under the weight of the federal government, or (some) will successfully reclaim sovereignty that has been lost for over 150 years. The real question is: what will be the catalyst to cause the tip?

There is hardly any room, if any, left for (federal) courts to determine issues of political power and the sovereignty of the people. This can only be decided by the people—the source of political power.

Montana needs a governor to stand up for the sovereignty of the people of Montana—a governor who will not hide behind his executive position but will assert his position to protect our sovereignty and independence—who will uphold the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I hope the people of Montana will recognize the vital importance of this issue. It is not about Republican or Democrat; conservative or liberal; red, blue, or green. It is about liberty and a republican and federal form of government.

Those who snuff at this fundamental concept only reveal their priorities and misunderstanding of American constitutional law and political philosophy; their credibility to influence these kinds of decisions should be seen as meritless and elementary.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

For you Montanans who see this importance, I hope you will cut through politicians’ rhetoric as they campaign for office in 2012 (for indeed, most, if not all, of the republicans are going to say something about State rights but will do nothing in practice to assert it). Find the candidate who will be a true leader and stand for the rights of the State of Montana. It is their duty.

The only way you can preserve your freedom in the State of Montana is to elect a governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general who will support and defend our constitutions in reality, not in charade only.

Timothy Baldwin is an attorney licensed to practice law in Montana (and Florida) and focuses on constitutional issues. Baldwin graduated from the University of West Florida in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in English and Political Science. In 2004, Baldwin graduated from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, AL with a Juris Doctorate (JD) degree. From there, Baldwin became an Assistant State Attorney in Florida. For 2 1/2 years, Baldwin prosecuted criminal actions and tried nearly 60 jury trials. In 2006, Baldwin started his private law practice and has maintained it since.

Baldwin is a published author, public speaker and student of political philosophy. Baldwin is the author of Freedom For A Change, Romans 13-The True Meaning of Submission, and Political Discussions for People of States–all of which are available for purchase through Liberty Defense League. Baldwin has also authored hundreds of political science articles relative to liberty in the United States of America. Baldwin has been the guest of scores of radio shows and public events and continues to exposit principles which the people in America will need to determine its direction for the future.

Web site: LibertyDefenseLeague

E-Mail: tim@libertydefenseleague.com

Reefer Madness

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:51:01 GMT

MARIJUANA is now legal under state law for medical purposes in 16 states and the District of Columbia, encompassing nearly one-third of the American population. More than 1,000 dispensaries provide medical marijuana; many are well regulated by state and local law and pay substantial taxes. But though more than 70 percent of Americans support legalizing medical marijuana, any use of marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

When he ran for president, Barack Obama defended the medical use of marijuana and said that he would not use Justice Department resources to override state laws on the issue. He appeared to make good on this commitment in October 2009, when the Justice Department directed federal prosecutors not to focus their efforts on “individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.”

But over the past year, federal authorities appear to have done everything in their power to undermine state and local regulation of medical marijuana and to create uncertainty, fear and confusion among those in the industry. The president needs to reassert himself to ensure that his original policy is implemented.

The Treasury Department has forced banks to close accounts of medical marijuana businesses operating legally under state law. The Internal Revenue Service has required dispensary owners to pay punitive taxes required of no other businesses. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives recently ruled that state-sanctioned medical marijuana patients can not purchase firearms.

United States attorneys have also sent letters to local officials, coinciding with the adoption or implementation of state medical marijuana regulatory legislation, stressing their authority to prosecute all marijuana offenses. Prosecutors have threatened to seize the property of landlords and put them behind bars for renting to marijuana dispensaries. The United States attorney in San Diego, Laura E. Duffy, has promised to start targeting media outlets that run dispensaries’ ads.

President Obama has not publicly announced a shift in his views on medical marijuana, but his administration seems to be declaring one by fiat. The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Michele M. Leonhart, a Bush appointee re-nominated by Mr. Obama, has exercised her discretionary authority to retain marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I drug with “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” And the pronouncements on marijuana, medical and otherwise, from Mr. Obama’s top drug policy adviser, R. Gil Kerlikowske, have been indistinguishable from those of Mr. Bush’s.

None of this makes any sense in terms of public safety, health or fiscal policy. Apart from its value to patients, medical marijuana plays an increasingly important role in local economies, transforming previously illegal jobs into legal ones and creating many new jobs as well, contributing to local tax bases and stimulating new economic activity. Federal crackdowns will not stop the trade in marijuana; they will only push it back underground and hurt those patients least able to navigate illicit markets.

Perhaps not since the civil rights era has law enforcement played such an aggressive role in what is essentially a cultural and political struggle. But this time the federal government is playing the bully, riding roughshod over states’ rights, not to protect vulnerable individuals but to harm them.

At the federal level, there have been few voices of protest. Senior Democrats on Capitol Hill shy away from speaking out. Republicans mostly ignore the extent to which anti-marijuana zealotry threatens core conservative values like states rights, property rights and gun ownership.

Mr. Obama briefly showed a willingness to challenge the drug-war mind-set that permeates the federal drug-control establishment. He needs to show leadership and intervene now, to encourage and defend responsible state and local regulation of medical marijuana.

####

Ethan Nadelmann is the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

White House 'Responds' To Marijuana Legalization Petitions

Sat, 29 Oct 2011 10:06:53 GMT

Injustice In Seattle White House Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske is lying his ass off. ?The Obama Administration has officially “responded” to the “We The People” online petitions regarding marijuana legalization. Well, kind of — if you’re willing to dignify a bureaucrat mouthing the same old meaningless platitudes by calling that a “response.”

Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske chose to respond to eight petitions regarding cannabis law reform with one blanket response. Speaking of which, ol’ Gil tried to put a wet blanket on the grass-fire that is the legalization movement, but it turns out all he could do is blow smoke.

Conventional wisdom dictates that when you have to make a press release, but really want it to get as little media attention as possible, you release it late on a Friday — which is exactly what the White House has done with this one. That way, all the top-line reporters have gone home or are bar-hopping by the time the release hits, and it has Saturday and Sunday to blow over before the week’s regular news cycle resumes Monday morning.

Kerlikowske, required by law as director of the ONDCP to oppose marijuana legalization, is either completely unaware that history has passed him by, or is pointedly ignoring the obvious. His refusal to even meaningfully engage with drug policy reform advocates shows that worse than being useless, he is an intentional obstruction — a willing part of the problem.

F oreign Policy “Can they all tell I’m lying by the look on my face?! Oh shit, they can!!”

”When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology of politics,” Kerlikowske’s response begins. Doing great so far, eh? Maybe he’s going to mention all those studies that show cannabis is not only medically very useful, but also remarkably non-toxic! Yeah, right.

“So our concern about marijuana is based on what the science tells us about the drug’s effects,” Kerlikowske lied.

According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health - the world’s largest source of drug abuse research - marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment. We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms. [Editor’s note: Kerlikowske is lying. Almost ALL of the unfortunate schlubs in “marijuana rehab” are there under court order, and would be thrown in jail if they didn’t agree to the “treatment.” Source: a report from the federal government!] Studies also reveal that marijuana potency has almost tripled over the past 20 years, raising serious concerns about what this means for public health - especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20’s. Simply put, it is not a benign drug.

Like many, we are interested in the potential marijuana may have in providing relief to individuals diagnosed with certain serious illnesses. That is why we ardently support ongoing research into determining what components of the marijuana plant can be used as medicine. [Editor’s note: Kerlikowske is lying. The federal government has done everything in its power to BLOCK medical marijuana research, recently even denying respected University of Massachusetts researcher Dr. Lyle Craker permission to grow cannabis suitable for such studies.] To date, however, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition.

As a former police chief, I recognize we are not going to arrest our way out of the problem. We also recognize that legalizing marijuana would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use. [Editor’s note: Kerlikowske is lying. How the hell would he know what effects legalization would have, if he’s never tried it? What we do know is that regulated models like the policy of “tolerance” in the Netherlands and of decriminalization in Portugal have been proven to reduce drug use, especially among teens.]

That is why the President’s National Drug Control Strategy is balanced and comprehensive, emphasizing prevention and treatment while at the same time supporting innovative law enforcement efforts that protect public safety and disrupt the supply of drugs entering our communities. [Editor’s note: Kerlikowske is lying. The federal government’s drug enforcement budget is heavily weighted towards enforcement, not treatment.] Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and its consequences in America. And, as we’ve seen in our work through community coalitions across the country, this approach works in making communities healthier and safer. We’re also focused on expanding access to drug treatment for addicts. Treatment works. In fact, millions of Americans are in successful recovery for drug and alcoholism today. And through our work with innovative drug courts across the Nation, we are improving our criminal justice system to divert non-violent offenders into treatment.

Our commitment to a balanced approach to drug control is real. This last fiscal year alone, the Federal Government spent over $10 billion on drug education and treatment programs compared to just over $9 billion on drug related law enforcement in the U.S.

Thank you for making your voice heard. I encourage you to take a moment to read about the President’s approach to drug control to learn more.

Sadly, that seems to be the best that the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy could come up with in response to online petitions with a total approaching 151,000 signatures.

Kerlikowke’s, er, “response” did absolutely nothing to address the questions of medicinal use addressed by several of the petitions to which he was supposedly responding. Neither did it answer the concerns regarding states’ rights and the freedom of states to chart their own courses when it comes to cannabis policy.

P.S. It seems Obama just didn’t have the sack to make the response himself. Hypocritical pot-smoking bastard.

San Francisco Pot Clubs Sue U.S. Department of Justice

Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:26:20 GMT

Getty Images

Jars full of medical marijuana a medical marijuana dispensary. A Bay Area group is suing the Department of Justice for cracking down on their businesses.

A medical marijuana advocacy group sued U.S. Justice Department officials in federal court in San Francisco Thursday, claiming that the current federal crackdown on medical marijuana enterprises in California is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit by Oakland-based Americans for Safe Access charges that federal prosecutors are violating the 10th Amendment of the Constitution by allegedly selectively targeting medical marijuana, rather than all marijuana, and coercing local governments to withdraw regulations for growing or selling the drug for medical use.

The 10th Amendment reserves to states any powers that are not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government.

“While the government is entitled to enforce its laws against marijuana…in an even-handed manner, the Tenth Amendment forbids it from selectively employing such coercive tactics to commandeer the law-making functions of the state,” the lawsuit claimed.

The lawsuit was filed against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag. It seeks an injunction requiring officials to cease the allegedly unconstitutional actions.

California was the first of 16 states to allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Its Compassionate Use Act, approved by California voters as Proposition 215 in 1996, permits seriously ill patients to use marijuana with a doctor’s permission.

But federal laws criminalizing marijuana make no exception for state laws.

The lawsuit was filed in response to an Oct. 7 announcement by the four regional U.S. attorneys in California that they will boost criminal and civil enforcement efforts to shut down large-scale commercial marijuana enterprises.

The prosecutors said then that they are not targeting individual patients, but rather are going after profit-making businesses that operate in the guise of medical marijuana dispensaries.

“The statewide enforcement effort is aimed at curtailing the large, for-profit marijuana industry that has developed since the passage of California’s Proposition 215 in 1996,” the Justice Department said earlier this month.

The lawsuit says Americans for Safe Access is not challenging the authority of Congress to enact federal laws criminalizing marijuana possession or the authority of the government to enforce its drug laws.

“It is, rather, the government’s tactics, and the unlawful assault on state sovereignty they represent” that forms the basis of the lawsuit, the group asserted in its filing.
###

Marijuana: Half the Nation Believes It Should Be Legal

Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:17:31 GMT

Image via Wikipedia

In 1969, a Gallup poll found that a whopping 84% of Americans believed that marijuana should be illegal. This year, for the first time, according to its latest poll, the majority sentiment on this issue has changed. 50% of those polled thought that the drug should be legalized, while 46% thought otherwise; not quite “one toke over the line” for proponents, but very close.

Even better news for those who favor legalization is that the slope of the line is growing steeper, meaning that views are shifting much more quickly than they did in the previous century. Just five years ago, 60% were against legalization.

According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2010, marijuana was the most used illicit drug, with 17.4 million past-month users. Use is on the rise, too, it found; from 2007 to 2010, up from 5.8% to 6.9%. Among youths 12 to 17, the rate has grown from 6.7% in 2007 to 7.4%. The age at which people first turn on has gone up, though, on average from 17 years of age in 2002 to 18.4 years in 2010.

For sake of comparison, 21% of Americans currently smoke tobacco, and the percentage of high school students who smoked cigarettes in the past month, according to the Centers for Disease Control, was 19.5%. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse claims that “those who drank alcohol and smoked cigarettes at least once in the past month are 30 times more likely to smoke marijuana than those who didn’t.” Talk about gateway drugs!

Last year another Gallup survey found that 70% of respondents felt that doctors should be allowed to use the drug for pain and suffering.

Support for legalization is a function of age, with 18- to 29-year-olds registering 62% approval. Among the greatest generation only 31% agree. More men (55%) than women (46%) favor legalization. Those in the West (55%), Midwest (54%) and East (51%) are pro-legalization; only in the South does a minority (44%) believe it’s a good idea.

The BBC recently estimated that 40,000 people have been killed in Mexico due to drug-related violence. Many of these deaths have to be laid at the feet of U.S. citizens’ thirst for illicit drugs.

In contrast to the softening in American’s attitudes to legalizing marijuana is the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent actions to challenge state’s rights to allow medical marijuana sales. The battle lines seems drawn in California, after the department sent pot clinics a notice that they have 45 days to shut down.

Is the time right to have a national conversation about legalizing marijuana? I don’t see it, despite the Gallup poll trends. Few politicians are willing to get out in front of this issue, and the health industry continues to oppose it. And we’ve witnessed one battle after another in D.C. during this administration where an evenly-split populace leads to nothing but gridlock.

Give it a few more years and, if the trend lines continue, the absurd financial cost to taxpayers for enforcing marijuana laws will put such pressure on the federal budget that such a discussion will be inevitable. In the meantime, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws will no doubt continue its work to change public opinion, one toke at a time.

###

Medical Marijuana Protest Draws 200 to Obama Fundraiser

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:54:55 GMT

President Obama did not see the 200 or so California medical cannabis protestors who came to greet him eye-to-eye during his short San Francisco fundraising stop Tuesday afternoon. His motorcade took Second Street, while the protestors were on Third Street, and by the time word got around, the President was already in the W Hotel, collecting about a million dollars in campaign donations.

Perhaps he looked down briefly from the 20th floor “Extreme Wow Suite” atop the W in SOMA, and with bionic eyes made out signs like “Save Our Jobs” (with the “O” being a big cannabis leaf), or “$100 million in taxes up in smoke”.

But even if he could, would those signs stand out amid the anti-oil pipeline protestors (Stop Keystone XL) who were intermingling with the Occupy Wall Streeters and pissed off landlords? It’s hard to tell.

David Downs
Cannabis activists at 3rd and Mission.

That the President took Second Street while the protesters were on Third might be a snarky observation, but it’s also an observation with symbolism: Earlier in the day, at the press conference at the Marriott, a roomful of activists couldn’t fathom how medical marijuana is polling at 70 percent approval, while political leaders could be so terrified of the issue. Four U.S. Attorneys have used cancer patients as a public punching bag Oct. 7, and since then have gone on to threaten dozens of landlords across the state with forfeiture for harboring a marijuana-related business. Raids on Northstone Organics, threats against Prop 19 author Rich Lee’s landlord, and the tax assessment against Harborside Health Center make it clear the government wants examples made of industry voices.

While Rep. Tom Ammiano had cannabis’ back at the press conference Tuesday, he said the latest raids haven’t reverberated in Sacramento, where the legislative session is out.

There were no appearances Tuesday by San Francisco Sheriff candidate Ross Mirkarimi, wannabe mayor Leland Yee, or aspiring district attorney David Onek. Perhaps they are just fairweather friends to cannabis. Perhaps they all had scheduling conflicts. Perhaps weed law reform isn’t a political sideshow.

But it doesn’t help when Obama’s on Second Street and the movement is on Third — when it literally is a sideshow.

David Downs
President Obama on Second Street Tuesday (screen capture from video)

One gets the sense that America’s elected representatives cannot help Americans, but Americans are helping themselves.

Celebrity grower Ed Rosenthal said Tuesday that this fall’s outdoor marijuana harvest in California would be huge and cheap, thanks to more growing than ever.

Citizens in five California counties this year have successfully petitioned to stop local dispensary bans and crushing regulations that violate the spirit of Prop 215 and SB 420.

At least one of Colorado’s five legalization initiatives looks very strong for 2012, National Cannabis Industry Association president Aaron Smith said Tuesday.

California also has at least four initiatives in the works. The odds are long and the time is short, watchers say, but even a doomed play in the Golden State in 2012 scores tons of news stories and increases the cause’s visibility.

Prop 19 might have failed, but it pushed the Governor to make pot possession an infraction. Amid unprecedented media coverage of the issue, national support for recreational legalization jumped four percent in a single year. And network effects from technology and huge demographic shifts are driving exponential growth in the ranks of pot law reformers, watchers note.

This October, the White House asked citizens to create new ideas for the country, and if they received enough online votes, the White House would respond. The effort became a runaway success for marijuana law reformers.

They are the 50 percent

Which would be easily dismissible, because it happens all the time online. Except this time it was apparently enough to rile some drug warriors.

On October 18, narcotics cops in Los Angeles used federal drug trafficking interdiction time and resources — tax dollars that could be spent making the streets safer — to try and lobby the White House for a continued drug war.

According to Law Enforcement Against Prohibition — who obtained a leaked copy of the e-mail — on Tuesday at 9:36 a.m., the Los Angeles High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area intelligence office called LA CLEAR e-mailed a huge group of cops, asking them to sign a pro-drug war petition. Here’s the full email:

From: info@lacleartraining.org
Subject: Petition Against Marijuana Legalization
Date: October 18, 2011 9:36:30 AM PDT
WE NEED YOUR HELP: The legalizers are totally dominating the White House “We the People” Web site — they have more signatures than every other issue combined.

CADCA’s petition, supporting drug prevention and against marijuana legalization, is up to 1,000 signatures but we need every other network in the field to mobilize to help us get as many more signatures as possible in the next two weeks.

Please sign onto CADCA’s petition NOW and GET AS MANY OTHER PEOPLE AS YOU CAN TO SIGN ON by November 4th!!

To view and sign on to CADCA’s petition all you have to do is:

1. Go to: http://wh.gov/2Yh

2. Create a username and password, if you don’t have one already.

3. After you have created an account, return to the petition link and hit refresh.

4. Click ‘Sign Petition’ button.

Petition Against Marijuana Legalization Tuesday, October 18 - Tuesday, October 18, 2011 WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!!
Please Sign Petition,
Go to: http://wh.gov/2Yh

Thanks for your support, Los Angles HIDTA

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition member and former Los Angeles Police Department deputy police chief Stephen Downing said that never in his decades on the force did he spend his workday trying to gin up votes for a worthless online poll to save his job.

Downing says it was and probably is against department policy to engage in politicking during work hours or in uniform during off-work hours.

“Absolutely. You do not engage in politics period. That was the rule in our department, you don’t do it.”

Six hours after LA CLEAR marshaled the drug war machine to battle the stoner vote, Sr. Deputy Director of LA CLEAR Eric Deroian blasted out a follow-up message saying they had messed up.

“Earlier today an e-mail blast went out from the LA CLEAR Training Site. This e-mail was political in nature and should not have been sent out on or to governmental e-mails. Please disregard/delete,” Deroian wrote.

Deroian did not immediately return calls for comment. But the saga reminds us of a quote by Gandhi we recently learned. It’s apocryphal, of course:

“First they ignore you.

Then they laugh at it you.

Then they fight you over a meaningless online poll, instead of doing their job fighting armed meth and oxycontin traffickers.

Then you win.”

###

Appeal Court Rejects 'Plain Smell' Theory in Pot Case

Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:45:59 GMT

Kate Moser

The Recorder

October 24, 2011

Justice Arthur Gilbert, Second District Court of Appeal
Image: courtesy photo

SAN FRANCISCO — A California appeal court on Monday tossed a pound of marijuana as evidence in a case where police had opened a shipped package that smelled strongly of pot.

“Was the warrantless search justified based on smell alone?” wrote Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert of the Second District Court of Appeal in Ventura. “Not according to the California Supreme Court. To smell it is not the same as to see it.”

The court cited People v. Marshall, a split 1968 California Supreme Court decision that pitted Chief Justice Roger Traynor — who warned that even cops with the most acute sense of smell may be led astray by their noses, thus invading peoples’ privacy — against Justice Stanley Mosk, who argued that cops should be able to employ the sense of smell along with all the senses in determining probable cause.

The court of appeal wondered aloud on Monday about whether it’s time for the high court to revisit that split decision.

“Does the passage of 43 years since Marshall was decided warrant (pardon the expression) reconsideration of Mosk’s view?” Gilbert wrote. “Perhaps not. Courts require an experienced peace officer’s testimony to establish the presence of marijuana through its odor. … We wisely do not speculate whether marijuana’s alleged pungent odor is familiar to a larger segment of the population today than it was in 1968.”

The case started when a FedEx employee smelled marijuana wafting from a package that was to be shipped from Santa Maria to Illinois. She called the cops, who seized the package as evidence, opened it back at the station and found about a pound of pot.

Kewhan Robey came into the Fed Ex office a few days later to ask why the package hadn’t shipped. The Fed Ex employee called the police, and they later arrested Robey.

The trial court denied Robey’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent circumstances justified the seizure, and that the search was justified by the fact that the pot would have inevitably been discovered.

But the appeal court disagreed.

The court acknowledged the logic of the government’s argument that there’s no difference between something that is apparent to the sense of smell and something that is apparent to the sense of sight.

“But we cannot hold the seizure proper,” Gilbert wrote. “Our Supreme Court has not endorsed this view when probable cause is based on odor alone.”

The court granted Robey’s petition for a writ of mandate.

Justices Paul Coffee and Steven Perren concurred in the decision. The case is Robey v. Superior Court, B231019.

###

Geography of weed: Why marijuana is so much cheaper in Western states

Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:36:56 GMT

Price varies from $256 an ounce in Oregon to $450 in Delaware
Growing evidence smoking drug can cause psychosis and schizophrenia

By Lee Moran

Last updated at 5:24 PM on 25th October 2011

Marijuana is almost twice as cheap to buy in the west of America than on the East Coast, a new study has revealed.

Whether used for recreational or medicinal purposes, the drug appears subject to the same market pressures as any other product.

U.S. geography experts have revealed the cost of the drug - which sells nationwide for an average of $377.02 per ounce - can vary widely from state to state.

Customers in the western state of Oregon can pick up an ounce for just $256 - whereas those in Delaware, in the east, are paying almost twice as much - $450 - for the same quantity.

High and lows: The marijuana price map was created by charting the cost of sales in cities were more than 30 transactions have been recorded, with the cheapest in green and the more expensive in yellow

The fact the majority of plants are grown in California means that simple distribution costs make it more cheaper to buy there, and more expensive to buy on the East Coast.

The higher percentage of young people, the ability to buy the substance for medicinal use and the subsequent difficulty police have in confiscating the drug in the west of the U.S. also contribute to its relative affordability.

The research by the Floating Sheep collective comes in the same month that a poll revealed 50 per cent of Americans would like marijuana to be legalised - despite its possession, sale, distribution and transportation remaining completely illegal under federal law.

And the evidence of widespread consumption also comes despite recent studies that show smoking the substance can trigger psychotic illness such as schizophrenia.

Research: The study comes in the same month that a poll revealed 50 per cent of Americans would like marijuana to be legalized

Ups and downs: Marijuana in Portland, Oregon (left) is almost half the price in Wilmington, Delaware (right)

Researchers analysed the price of 16,502 marijuana transactions in 2,397 U.S. cities - submitted by customers to the website priceofweed.com. Marijuana purchasers were also encouraged to say the quality of their purchase.

DANGERS OF THE DRUG

Research shows smoking marijuana can trigger psychotic illness such as schizophrenia almost three years earlier.

Eighty three studies involving 22,000 people were analysed.

It found people vulnerable to mental health problems were likely to suffer symptoms at a much younger age by using the drug.

The findings confirmed that it accelerates the onset of full-blown mental illness, which makes it harder to treat successfully.

Dr Matthew Large and colleagues at the Prince of Wales Hospital, New South Wales, claimed ‘overwhelming evidence’ showed it triggered schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

This was perhaps through an interaction between genetic and environmental disorders or by disrupting brain development.

They found that marijuana is cheapest in Northern California and the Pacific Northwest, the Four Corners region and a swath of the Great Plains, Illinois, Indiana, Northern Kentucky, and South Florida.

It is most expensive in the north-east, much of the Old Confederacy, and especially in Minnesota, Wisconsin, northern Michigan and Illinois.

Other factors influencing the price were the number of arrests for marijuana possession in an area and the general attitudes toward marijuana use in the population.

Richard Florida, Director of the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, said: ‘Their main finding is that marijuana prices rise the further a location is from the major centre of production.

‘Decreased supply leads to a rise in transportation costs and risk.

‘Clearly prices are as low as they are in the Pacific Northwest and Florida for the same reasons that potatoes are cheap in Idaho and corn is cheap in Iowa - because they’re close to the source, the places where the product is either grown, imported, processed, or all three.

‘Marijuana prices are lower in states with medical marijuana programs because the supply is higher and also because some of the demand is being met legally. The effect of enforcement is harder to ascertain.’

Mr Florida, alongside institute colleage Charlotta Mellander, also analysed other socio-economic and demographic factors that could affect the prices.

They found that the price is also higher where the majority share of voters say they are Republicans, where there are high levels of illegal drug use and where there is a higher percentage of African-Americans.

Earlier this month a Gallup poll revealed 50 per cent of Americans wanted marijuana to be legalised.

Supply and demand: The fact the majority of plants are grown in California means that simple distribution costs make it more cheaper to buy there, and more expensive to buy on the East Coast

Gaining steady support, the number was up from 46 per cent last year and had climbed from 12 per cent since 1969, when the research firm first asked the question.

The findings come months after the Obama administration toughened its stand on medical marijuana in the 16 states where it is legal for people with doctors’ recommendations.

HIGHS AND LOWS:

The cheapest ounce of marijuana is on sale in Oregon - for $256

Delaware is the most expensive source of marijuana - at $450 per ounce

Nationwide the average price per ounce is:

High quality - $377.02

Mid-quality - $245.14

Low-quality - $138.12

The data was based on telephone interviews conducted over three days on a random sample of 1,005 U.S. adults, aged 18 and older.

The results showed more young people support legalising the drug than their elders, with those 18 to 29 showing a 62 per cent approval rating, compared to only 31 per cent for those 65 and older. More men than women support reform, at 55 to 46 per cent, relatively.

Those in the West (55 per cent) and Midwest (54 per cent) were more likely to favour it than those in the South (44 per cent).

Liberals were twice as likely as conservatives to favour legalizing marijuana, with relative 69 and 34 per cent approval ratings.

And Democrats and independents, both at 57 per cent, are more likely to be in favour than are Republicans, 35 per cent of which support the legalisation of marijuana.

Possession, sale, distribution and transportation of marijuana, medical or otherwise, remain completely illegal under federal law.

Under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA), marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no accepted medical use.

The advocacy group National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws previously claimed that marijuana is the third-most-popular recreational drug in America, behind only alcohol and tobacco.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2009 found that ‘16.7 million Americans aged 12 or older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, an increase over the rates reported in all years between 2002 and 2008.’

Gallup previously issued a survey last year which found that 70 per cent favoured making it legal for doctors to prescribe marijuana in order to reduce pain and suffering.

Reforming views: A graph shows a steady rise in support for the legalisation of marijuana, and steady decline in opposition over recent years, according to Gallup

###

Capitol Alert: AM Alert: A San Francisco welcome for Obama

Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:30:17 GMT

The latest on California politics and government

President Barack Obama heads to San Francisco today for a lunch fundraiser, but he may get a little more green than he bargained for.

Medical marijuana activists are using the occasion to slam the Obama administration for its recent crackdown on the cannibis industry. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, will hold a 10 a.m. press conference with politicians, patients and directors of medical marijuana dispensaries targeted by federal prosecutors.

An Ammiano release says the coalition will “discuss the ramifications of (the Obama) administration’s new attack on the medical marijuana community” while calling for federal policy changes.

Gov. Jerry Brown, meanwhile, will head Tuesday evening to Club Nokia at L.A. Live in Los Angeles. The concert venue hosts Cyndi Lauper next month and Wu-Tang Clan in January, but on Tuesday it’s all about nonprofits.

Brown speaks at the Annenberg Foundation’s 3rd Annual Alchemy Peer to Peer event. It includes a “Social Innovation Fast Pitch Competition,” in which nonprofits will compete for more than $100,000 in funding by giving three-minute speeches on their projects.

Elsewhere, an anti-death penalty coalition called SAFE California says it will begin gathering signatures today to end the death penalty and replace it with life sentences without parole. The group will hold press conferences this week around the state featuring law enforcement officials and crime victims.

“With the money in the bank and commitments we have we are not concerned at all and positive we will have the signatures needed to get on the ballot,” said spokeswoman Erin Mellon.

###

Torey Van Oot of The Bee Capitol Bureau contributed to this report.

Drivers face drug checkpoints on highways near Flint

Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:25:24 GMT

This sign was posted Tuesday for several hours on I-69 near Flint, one of a series of checkpoints by the Genesee County Sheriff’s Office. / Jamie Fricke

BY BILL LAITNER

DETROIT FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Motorists driving on expressways around Flint are getting surprised by a stunning tactic that the Genesee County sheriff has been using to fight the flow of illegal drugs — one that legal experts said will not withstand a court challenge.

At least seven times this month, including Tuesday, motorists have said they have seen a pickup towing a large sign on I-69 or U.S.-23 that depicts the sheriff’s badge and warns: “Sheriff narcotics check point, 1 mile ahead — drug dog in use.”

The checkpoints are part of a broad sweep for drugs that Genesee County Sheriff Robert Pickell and his self-titled Sheriff’s Posse said are needed, calling Flint a crossroads of drug dealing because nearly a half-dozen major roads and expressways pass in and around the city. Pickell said he decided to try checkpoints when he learned that drug shipments might be passing through Flint in tractor-trailers with false compartments.

“We’re doing everything by the book,” Genesee County Undersheriff Christopher Swanson said. “We think there’s major loads (of drugs) coming through here from all over, every day. And this is one of the tools we use — narcotics checkpoints.”

He said the dogs are used to sniff around the vehicles to check for drugs.

The practice has legal experts on searches and seizures at two law schools in Michigan, a constitutional law expert in Lansing and the American Civil Liberties Union calling the practice out of bounds and out of touch with state and U.S. Supreme Court rulings that ban such practices.

Based on a case out of Indianapolis, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2000 that narcotics checkpoints where everyone gets stopped on a public road are not legal and violate Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures, professor David Moran at the University of Michigan Law School said.

Wayne State University Law School professor Peter Henning said police can set up roadblocks to search all who pass by, but only if a crime has just been committed.

And Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton, who said he was not consulted by Pickell about the checkpoints, said that after a court challenge, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that so-called “sobriety check lanes,” put in place to nab drunken drivers, were illegal.

The new practice of narcotics checkpoints “certainly brings up probable-cause issues,” Leyton said Thursday.

Leyton said he has no power to stop the practice, however. That, he said, would require someone arrested at a checkpoint to contest the evidence in court.

The checkpoints have caused an uproar, officials said. And, as a result, the sheriff’s office has altered its methods: Instead of using the checkpoints daily — even Sundays when they started at the beginning of the month — they are used sporadically. And instead of stopping everyone, law enforcement has been putting the signs out and waiting for a motorist to make an illegal U-turn in the freeway median to try to avoid the checkpoint, thus giving them cause to pull the driver over and search the vehicle.

But even that method raises question, U-M professor Moran said. The technique has not been tested in Michigan courts, he said. But judges would take a dim view of it because “it’s perilously close to entrapment,” he said.

“It’s just the kind of shabby treatment that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent,” Moran said.

Among the groups of motorists most stunned by the checkpoints are state-registered medical marijuana users and caregivers. Pickell and Swanson said the checkpoints weren’t meant to target medical-marijuana users, but word of the new tactic spread quickly through that community.

Many registered users and caregivers told the Free Press they now fear driving near Flint, even when they possess their medical-marijuana registry cards.

At a checkpoint Tuesday afternoon just west of Flint on I-69, officers pulled over only those who saw the checkpoint sign, then made an illegal U-turn on the freeway, Jamie Fricke, 31, of Lapeer said.

“But my buddy went through this on Monday and he said they were pulling over all enclosed trailers. They had drug-sniffing dogs out that day,” on I-69 east of Flint, in Burton, she said.

Fricke, a state registered medical-marijuana user, said she had a small amount of the drug with her, but her car was not searched.

Larry and Diane Foster, both of Muskegon, said they saw a checkpoint Oct. 5 in which officers were stopping every motorist on eastbound I-69.

“We were going in the opposite direction or we would’ve been stopped,” said Diane Foster, 55, a state-registered medical-marijuana user and caregiver. “I had medication (marijuana) on me, so I don’t know what the outcome would’ve been.”

Contact Bill Laitner: 586-826-7264 or blaitner@freepress.com

###

Fed threat gets results as Calif. pot shops close

Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:03:59 GMT

Greg Risling, The Associated Press

LAKE FOREST, Calif. — A letter from federal prosecutors accomplished what nearly $600,000 in legal fees couldn’t do in this Orange County suburb: it shut down medical marijuana shops.

Frustrated and fed-up with pot collectives flouting their laws, some California cities like Lake Forest asked the federal government for help. AP

Two weeks after California’s four U.S. attorneys announced they were cracking down on dozens of operations across the state growing and selling medical pot illegally, all eight collectives that occupied the second floor of a Lake Forest mini-mall have closed.

Across the Central District of California, which stretches from Santa Barbara to San Bernardino counties, many of the 38 clinics have closed because landlords, threatened with criminal charges or seizure of their assets, were given just 14 days to evict their clients, a period that expires Friday. Other districts in California gave pot dispensaries more time to comply.

Some smaller California communities like Lake Forest have struggled in recent years to regulate the clinics, while others have banned pot shops altogether. Cities such as Los Angeles and San Jose have sought to rein in a large number of collectives that have cropped up. The fight has cost local municipalities millions of dollars in legal fees as it has shifted between city halls and courtrooms.

Frustrated and fed-up with pot collectives flouting their laws, cities asked the federal government for help.

The recent action has drawn a backlash from medical marijuana advocates who argue the collectives are protected by California law, which allows the drug to be cultivated and supplied to ill people on a nonprofit basis. Federal officials counter the clinics are lucrative ventures that operate under the guise they are helping the sick. Pot remains illegal under federal law.

To buttress their claim that shops were fronts for illegal drug dealing, federal authorities offered a list of examples, including longtime farmers raising a marijuana crop to a Los Angeles clinic that was shipping up to 700 pounds of pot out of state each month.

Most of those who received letters from prosecutors were smaller dispensaries. The Lake Forest group stood out because eight clinics were lined up in a building across the street from a kindergarten and preschool.

The little strip mall also houses a small market, a massage parlor and at least two dental offices.

Dentist Pankaj Narkhede said he was losing a few new patients every week after they found his office beneath the row of dispensaries upstairs.

The parking lot is usually full, fights have broken out and Narkhede said he’s seen teens smoking in front of a head shop that opened after the clinics arrived. Moving isn’t an option, Narkhede says, because it’s too costly so he has to watch the steady flow of foot traffic, hoping something will change.

“If you are looking to improve this area, having what is upstairs is not going to help,” he said. “It’s the wrong place for the wrong thing.”

In Lake Forest, a town of roughly 75,000 people, dispensaries began to crop up two years ago, about the same time when federal officials indicated they would not take aggressive action against those who complied with laws in 16 states where medical marijuana is legal. Pot clinics are not permitted in Lake Forest per the municipal code, which prohibits businesses that violate state or federal law.

In May, city attorney Scott Smith sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte asking for assistance because many of the dozen or so dispensaries weren’t complying with zoning enforcement actions that sought to close them down and had cost the city nearly $600,000 in legal fees.

“In these cases we’ve just gotten nothing but contempt,” from the dispensaries, Smith said. “They’ve been on notice for a long time. They’ve been pretty blatant in their disregard for compliance.”

A forfeiture complaint filed by federal prosecutors against the owner of the building that has the eight dispensaries as tenants said that two of the collective operators had been arrested on drug-related charges; one was convicted.

Attorney Vincent Howard, who represents two of the Lake Forest pot collectives, said his two clients have closed their doors in the wake of the federal government’s action. He said cities like Lake Forest need to have better regulations in order not to have problems with proliferation.

“Their position is they don’t want them there,” Howard said of Lake Forest officials. “I don’t think they can ban a business that the state of California says is legal.”

But an about-face by the U.S. Department of Justice put dispensaries on watch with a policy memo issued this summer noting they could face prosecution for violating federal drug and money-laundering laws.

“What we are seeing is a wholesale violation of both federal and state law by some people involved in the industry,” said Thom Mrozek, a spokesman with the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles. “There are huge amounts of money going into this industry. It’s our position that this goes way beyond simply paying rent and cultivating marijuana.”

Six people were indicted this month on federal charges accusing them of trafficking as much as 700 pounds of pot every month from a now-defunct collective in North Hollywood that allegedly netted nearly $15 million in profits. A clinic that now occupies the same storefront was raided two weeks ago where federal agents said they found two 16-year-old boys smoking pot inside the shop.

In Dana Point, a coastal hamlet in south Orange County, city attorney Patrick Munoz said dispensaries there were “giant money-making machines,” bringing in as much as $12,000 every day.

Through a series of legal actions, Dana Point was able to shutter seven clinics and a judge has awarded $7 million in civil penalties against some of the outlets, citing noncompliance with state law that says dispensaries can’t sell marijuana for a profit.

“There was no effort to make sure only ill people were getting access to medical marijuana,” Munoz said. “The law was being treated as a big joke by these guys.”

In Murrieta, a city in southwestern Riverside County, Police Chief Mike Baray also asked for Birotte’s help after a collective opened in July despite a local ordinance prohibiting such businesses. Police said the collective was burglarized the first week it opened and some customers have been robbed. The collective, which received a letter from federal prosecutors, has since closed.

Attorney David Welch, who represents three of the Lake Forest dispensaries that have closed since the letter went out, said every collective in the city received a warning letter that makes it unclear who they are really targeting.

“It doesn’t seem there is any narrowing of who is a large operation and who is profiting,” Welch said. “I think the main purpose of this tactic is to convince or scare landlords not to rent to medical marijuana collectives.”

###

Is the Drug War Almost Over? Half of Americans Support Legal Marijuana

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:48:12 GMT

Asked in 1995 to comment on the War on Drugs, William F. Buckley told the New York Bar Association that perhaps it should be ended. Waging it seemed to him counterproductive and unjust. “It is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana,” he stated. And the magazine he founded soon followed suit. In 1996, National Review published a brave editorial declaring that “the war on drugs has failed,” adding that “we all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far.” It was brave because just one in four Americans favored legalizing marijuana back then, and most of them weren’t movement conservatives.

Today 50 percent of Americans favor legalizing marijuana, according to a new poll released by Gallup. That’s a milestone. Among liberals, 69 percent want to end prohibition. Just 34 percent of conservatives agree. The prohibitionist cause is nevertheless doomed by demographics. “Support for legalizing marijuana is directly and inversely proportional to age,” Gallup reports, “ranging from 62 percent approval among those 18 to 29 down to 31 percent among those 65 and older.” The only question is how many more lives prohibition will destroy over how many years before voters end it.

If current trends persist, full legalization of marijuana will be a presidential issue as soon as Election 2016. And if the Republican nominee in 2012 is savvy, he’ll take advantage of this information: “A Gallup survey last year found that 70 percent favored making it legal for doctors to prescribe marijuana in order to reduce pain and suffering. Americans have consistently been more likely to favor the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes than to favor its legalization generally.”

It isn’t just that almost any 70-30 issue is useful for a candidate trying to tack to the center and appeal to independents; this issue is particularly exploitable because in 2008 President Obama signaled to medical marijuana supporters that he’d leave them alone in states where the substance was legal. As Jacob Sullum reports in his Reason magazine piece, Bummer: Barack Obama Turns Out To Be Just Another Drug Warrior:

Campaigning in New Hampshire during the summer of 2007, he said raiding patients who use marijuana as a medicine “makes no sense” and is “really not a good use of Justice Department resources.” In a March 2008 interview with southern Oregon’s Mail Tribune, he went further, saying, “I’m not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.” Two months later, when another Oregon paper, Willamette Week, asked Obama whether he would “stop the DEA’s raids on Oregon medical marijuana growers,” he replied, “I would, because I think our federal agents have better things to do.”

Even after he took office, it appeared as though he’d keep his word. “Yet the DEA’s raids continued. If anything, the pace picked up,” Sullum wrote. “In fact, medical marijuana raids have been more frequent under Obama than under Bush … The administration’s position, essentially, is that patients can have marijuana; they just can’t get it anywhere.” You’d think that his rivals could exploit this — a broken promise on an issue with appeal to independents and young voters, one that would alienate some liberals from Obama, but that had the approval of Buckley, the leading intellectual light of the modern conservative movement, and National Review too.

True, Mitt Romney is firmly opposed to medical marijuana. But analysis of previous stances he’s taken on matters of public policy suggest that he is sometimes willing to change his mind. Rick Perry says states should be permitted to decide about medical marijuana for themselves (but favors constitutional amendments to prevent the exercise of some such rights). Herman Cain has taken no position, and Ron Paul and Gary Johnson both favor ending the War on Drugs — a stance that hurts them among a majority of GOP voters, who’ve managed to persuade themselves that they can be prohibitionists and uphold a philosophy of limited government. In an election where seven in 10 voters want medical marijuana legalized, can the bipartisan consensus against it hold? If so, support for full legalization will perhaps be even stronger in 2016.

Image credit: Reuters

Federal representatives explain marijuana raids

Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:06:53 GMT

October 18, 2011 12:37 AM

Jenica Villamor/KTVL.com

MEDFORD, Ore.—The former U.S Attorney General says local growers broke state and federal laws.

The former Attorney General says a significant amount of marijuana is being trafficked out of state and into the black market. He says a large amount of weed is grown in Southern Oregon and federal agents are watching over the area.

Insiders say growers are providing medicine then selling excess weed, making thousands of extra dollars per patient.

However, local growers who have been affected by the raid say federal agents are after the wrong people.

“The patients come first we’re not trying to make money off them,” grower Anthony Machado said.

Machado’s Central Point garden was raided a couple of weeks ago. He says he does not have more medicine than his patients need, claiming that he grew under the legal state limit.

“We dispose of the excess. We burn it,” he said.

Medical Marijuana is legal in Oregon, but against federal law. Some state leaders say federal agents are over stepping their boundaries.

“I do have a problem because I think the feds are using their power because they can and sticking their nose in the state’s issue,” said State Representative Dennis Richardson.

Richardson says recent raids are due to an unclear law. He says growers are allowed to grow too much weed, encouraging people to sell extra weed.

“We need to revamp the law so that marijuana is restricted to those who suffer from a medical condition that proves to be beneficial from using marijuana,” he said.

The former Attorney General says agents will be monitoring the situation in Oregon. However, growers say they are not giving up.

Southern Oregon Normal is planning a rally on Wednesday. Medical Marijuana supporters will meet at the 6th street office at noon.

###

Feds v. states on medical pot: 'These people are caught in the middle'

Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:48:18 GMT

By JEFF BARNARD Associated Press Published: Oct 18, 2011 at 6:00 AM PDT Last Updated: Oct 18, 2011 at 8:42 AM PDT

In this Thursday, Oct. 13, 2011 photo, medical marijuana grower James Bowman, right, explains changes he would like to see in Oregon’s medical marijuana law to state lawmakers Rep. Peter Buckley, D-Ashland, center, and Sen. Alan Bates, D-Ashland, left, outside Jacksonville, Ore. (AP Photo/Jeff Barnard)

JACKSONVILLE, Ore. (AP) — Recent raids by federal drug agents who seized medical marijuana by the dump truck load have rankled some Oregon lawmakers who say federal authorities are overstepping their authority.

During a tour Thursday of one of Oregon’s biggest and most sophisticated medical marijuana grow sites, Reps. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, and Sal Esquivel, R-Medford, said they believe some growers are abusing Oregon’s medical marijuana law, but law enforcement should be left to Oregon as a states’ right under the Constitution.

“It is not appropriate for the federal government to come in and assume authority just because they have the power to do so,” Richardson said.

In a tougher stance by the Obama administration, federal authorities have been cracking down on medical marijuana nationwide, particularly in California, where landlords recently were warned they could lose their property if they don’t kick out growers and dispensaries.

Sen. Alan Bates, D-Ashland, a doctor who has about 30 patients using medical marijuana in place of opiates, likened the situation to federal pressure against Oregon’s assisted suicide law, adding he hoped state Attorney General John Kroger would take legal action to settle the differences in state and federal law.

“These people are caught in the middle,” he said of growers.

Since Oregon voters made it legal to grow marijuana for medical use in 1996, federal eradication efforts in Oregon have focused on Mexican drug cartels growing huge plantations on public lands. This month, federal agents changed course and started raiding large medical marijuana sites in Jackson County, hauling away hundreds of plants. The third raid was Friday.

So far, no one has been charged criminally, and court documents remain sealed.

U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton has said federal law clearly trumps state law, and the raids were prompted by evidence that medical marijuana from Oregon was increasingly being sold in other states.

Richardson and Bates said it was unlikely that medical marijuana would make it into the four-week special legislative session this February, due to more pressing budget issues, but that the regular session in 2013 would be a good time to address the issue.

Spokesman Tony Green said the state attorney general had no comment on the issue at this point, but Green noted the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the issue.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 in a 6-3 decision that the federal government can prosecute home-grown marijuana, even in states that have legalized medical use.

Kroger has defended the right of medical marijuana users to have concealed handgun permits, though federal law prohibits the sale of firearms to drug abusers.

The high court upheld Oregon’s physician-assisted suicide law in 2006, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

Richardson, Esquivel, Bates and Rep. Peter Buckley, D-Ashland, were invited by medical marijuana grower James Bowman to the farm he runs in the Applegate Valley wine country.

Bowman, who did time in federal prison for growing marijuana before Oregon voters made medical marijuana legal, told the lawmakers he would like to see states and the federal government change marijuana’s classification as a controlled substance so that growers could make a profit, generate jobs, and export marijuana for medical use to other states where it does not grow as well.

“You want to pay $30,000 a year to keep us in prison, or $40,000 a year to work,” he said.

Bowman said he had started small, growing for himself and a couple others, but over time demand grew as people learned about the high quality of his pot, and his ethical treatment of patients. The farm grows about 200 plants a year to serve about 100 patients who sign a contract and choose from a menu of strains to treat their specific ailment.

Troy Morris of M-Research in Corvallis told the lawmakers there are 87 different kinds of active ingredient, known as cannabinoids, in marijuana, and his company was cataloguing them all so doctors could prescribe them more effectively.

Oregon’s law allows growers to charge patients for expenses, such as fertilizer and electricity, but not for labor, which Bowman said is the biggest expense he faces in growing about 200 plants to order to meet the specific medical needs of about 100 patients. He figures it costs about $88 per ounce, or about $1,400 per pound just in expenses, without counting labor. Workers on the farm are volunteers with medical marijuana cards who work in return for the 1 1/2 ounces a year of marijuana allowed by law.

Asked how he makes a living and covers expenses, Bowman offered a vague explanation about how a few patients subsidize the others through donations and voluntary reimbursements.

“There is still abuse in the system,” Esquivel said. “I don’t think this is one of the places we have to worry about.”

###

Medical Marijuana - BEHIND THE SMOKE

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:29:16 GMT

By Austen Smith
Journal Register News Service

Steve Hiller’s job at the Washtenaw County’s Prosecutor’s Office is to evaluate cases brought forth by law enforcement, determine whether criminal charges are merited and then see it through the courts. That job hasn’t changed since Michigan voters approved the 2008 Medical Marihuana Act, allowing for medicinal use of the drug for qualified patients.

Despite the growing network of medical marijuana dispensaries in Washtenaw County, Hiller said he hasn’t noticed a trend upward or downward for marijuana-related cases and, for the most part, he sees law enforcement evaluating arrests on a case-by-case basis, like they always have done. “I don’t know that there is a trend or any kind of large difference between what we were seeing before, what we we’re now seeing after the act was approved in 2008,” said Hiller, an assistant prosecuting attorney. “And I don’t see any kind of changes since the McQueen decision.”

The state Court of Appeals’ ruling in State of Michigan vs. Brandon McQueen and Matthew Taylor, owners of Compassionate Apothecary, has disrupted the landscape for medical marijuana cooperatives by effectively outlawing patient-to-patient sales of medical marijuana. The Mount Pleasant dispensary is now closed as the court ruled that McQueen and Taylor were operating outside of the boundaries of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act and were in violation of the state’s Public Health Code. Hiller said they, like everybody else, are going to be monitoring the progression of various court cases that will, hopefully, better define a statute that, he said, “You could drive trucks through.” “It’s a confusing statute,” Hiller said. “I don’t know whether it was written to be confusing, but if that is the case, then they did an excellent job of it.” Hiller expects the Michigan Supreme Court to uphold the Court of Appeals’ ruling. He said the court issued a measured and well-reasoned opinion.

While raids on two Ann Arbor dispensaries happened just a few days after the Aug. 23 Court of Appeals decision was issued, Lt. Wynonia Sturdivant of the Livingston and Washtenaw Narcotics Enforcement Team, or LAWNET, said those actions were not in any way connected to the court ruling.

As with all cases involving the hazy guidelines between the legal, medical use of marijuana and the abuse of the 2008 Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, Sturdivant said every case is based on investigation and taken one at a time. “Those were cases that were initiated weeks prior to that Court of Appeals’ ruling,” Sturdivant said. “I can tell you that the dispensaries operated outside the guidelines of the state law selling their product, and on that avenue it was addressed.” There have been no raids conducted since. Sturdivant echoed Hiller’s comments that in Washtenaw County, at least, she hasn’t noticed an uptick in marijuana-related arrests despite the explosion of dispensaries throughout the state.

Statewide numbers, however, do indicate an upward trend from 2008 to 2009. After the act was passed, there were approximately 1,000 more marijuana-related arrests in Michigan, according to FBI statistics. But Sturdivant is quick to point out that LAWNET has not dedicated any more resources toward monitoring the growing medical marijuana culture and those who abuse the act. “We still address narcotics in all areas, whether being street sales or whatever,” she said. “It’s not like as if the focus has changed or shifted.”

Michael Komorn, a Southfield attorney and board member of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Association, said there are other concerns that proponents of the Medical Marihuana Act have with law enforcement, not the least of which being some police agencies attempting to enforce federal law.

The use of any marijuana is still illegal, according to the federal government, and continues to be listed as a Schedule 1 drug, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. “It amazes me about the judges and police officers that think they’re enforcing federal law,” Komorn said. “That’s not the case. They are sworn to uphold state law, and they cannot waiver by their own personal or philosophical beliefs as to which one they’re going to enforce. That’s not what this law was designed for. That’s not what they took an oath to do.

“Those things go on all the time.”

In an attempt to educate, Komorn said those in the medical marijuana community have been reaching out to law enforcement rather than protesting. And what gets lost in the legal shuffle is the fact that this mechanism that allows qualified patients to ease pain and suffering is a basic human rights issue, not a legal issue, Komorn said. “I can tell you that the medical marijuana community has been trying to show that this actually works — the challenges for cultivators, the challenges for patients, the various methods of ingestion, the forms of ingestion and things like that,” he said. “There has been a tremendous effort, but a lot of it falls on deaf ears, and much of the approach by the state has been to not be responsive.”

Komorn did say, however, that supporters of the legal use of medical marijuana as defined in guidelines provided in the Medical Marihuana Act and law enforcement agree that those operating outside of the law should be arrested and prosecuted. “There are people who engage in illegal activity and try to hide behind the MM act, but we do not embrace those people,” Komorn said. “We want those people prosecuted.” If there is one sentiment everybody can agree on whether it be patients, caregivers, law enforcement or state legislators, the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act needs to be addressed and more clearly defined.

There are a dozen pieces of legislation working their way through the state House of Representatives and the Senate that seek to amend the Medical Marihuana Act. Most of the bills offer stricter guidelines to the framework of the patient-caregiver system, including establishing qualifications for medical marijuana caregivers, outlining the bona fide patient-physician relationship when it comes to medical marijuana, prohibiting felons from being primary medical marijuana caregivers, require photos on medical marijuana registration cards, restricting transfers of medical marijuana and limit the legal defenses, among others.

There also is a bill proposed to outlaw medical marijuana bars and clubs, or dispensaries. Hiller said there always is an initial period of time when a new law gets more clearly defined in the courts and through legislation, and the Medical Marihuana Act is no different. In the meantime, they will continue to enforce the law as it stands.

“It will take some time,” he said “(The McQueen decision) is the law in the state right now. If the Supreme Court overrules that, which I think is very unlikely, or if the Legislature amends the statute, then we will adjust for that.”

####

(Journal Register News Service’s Sean Dalton and Charles Crumm contributed to this story.)

Medical-marijuana workers unionizing

Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:55:54 GMT

By John Ingold
The Denver Post

Posted: 10/13/2011 05:51:17 PM MDT

Updated: 10/13/2011 05:51:26 PM MDT

The state’s largest labor union today announced that it has hundreds of new members from the medical-marijuana industry.

Local 7 of the United Food and Commercial Workers union said in a statement that the new members come from a “comprehensive cross section” of the industry. The union, which has 25,000 members statewide, said it would announce more details at a news conference Monday. The union put the total number of jobs in the medical-marijuana industry in Colorado at 8,000, though it is unclear how it came to that number.

In the union’s announcement, Steve Ackerman of the Organic Alternatives dispensary in Fort Collins said the pairing of the UFCW and the medical-marijuana industry are a natural fit. Kim Cordova, the union’s president, echoed that.

“We are the retail food, pharmacy, agriculture, food processing, and healthcare Union in Colorado and around the nation,” Cordova said in the announcement.

The move solidifies a surprising allegiance that has developed between marijuana advocates and the UFCW in recent years.

Last year, hundreds of California medical-marijuana industry workers joined the UFCW. That included dozens at businesses run by an Oakland cannabis entrepreneur who was the main backer of an initiative to legalize marijuana in that state. The UFCW endorsed the initiative and took an active role in the campaign, which was ultimately unsuccessful.

The medical-marijuana unionization in Colorado comes as cannabis activists here are working to put a marijuana-legalization measure on the 2012 statewide ballot. Today’s announcement from Local 7, though, made no mention of the Colorado legalization campaign.

John Ingold: 303-954-1068 or jingold@denverpost.com.

Barbie drives 6 pct rise in Mattel net income

(AP Photo/Rick Bowmer) 10/14/2011 05:52 AM MDT - EL SEGUNDO, Calif.—Toy maker Mattel Inc. said Friday that strong sales worldwide of its iconic Barbie brand and “Cars 2” toys helped third-quarter net income rise nearly 6 percent.

NATO, Afghan forces kill 13 insurgents - 10/14/2011 05:49 AM MDT

Animal shelter calls mechanic for cat stuck in van - 10/14/2011 05:46 AM MDT

Fiery wreck at Houston toll booth, 2 drivers dead - 10/14/2011 05:40 AM MDT

Deaths of foster father, five kids in crash devastate Colorado town - 10/14/2011 06:33 AM MDT

Denver-area mayors fear FasTracks will stall, suggest area-specific remedies - 10/14/2011 12:47 AM MDT

3 candidates named for Colorado Supreme Court seat - 10/14/2011 05:22 AM MDT

Gill Foundation to re-evaluate Gay & Lesbian Fund’s grant-giving - 10/14/2011 12:46 AM MDT

Former Elbert County assessor gets jail time for embezzlement - 10/14/2011 12:45 AM MDT

Arrests made as police, CSP clear out Occupy Denver camp site - 10/14/2011 07:36 AM MDT

Avalanche break out behind goalie Giguere, rout Ottawa 7-1 - 10/14/2011 07:34 AM MDT

Colorado Attorney General clears HCA’s purchase of state’s largest hospital system - 10/13/2011 07:07 PM MDT

Deadline looms for free tutoring applications - 10/13/2011 06:06 PM MDT

Regulators will review casino tax loophole next week

Pepper spray discharged in Adams City High classroom - 10/13/2011 04:33 PM MDT

Openly gay military veteran to run for Colorado House of Representatives

Truck kills man in wheelchair in Fort Collins - 10/13/2011 04:29 PM MDT

Coleman could be moving back to Colorado - 10/13/2011 04:25 PM MDT

Boulder police seek to identify dead pedestrian - 10/13/2011 04:01 PM MDT

Medical-marijuana workers unionizing

By John Ingold
The Denver Post

Posted: 10/13/2011 05:51:17 PM MDT

Updated: 10/13/2011 05:51:26 PM MDT

The state’s largest labor union today announced that it has hundreds of new members from the medical-marijuana industry.

Local 7 of the United Food and Commercial Workers union said in a statement that the new members come from a “comprehensive cross section” of the industry. The union, which has 25,000 members statewide, said it would announce more details at a news conference Monday. The union put the total number of jobs in the medical-marijuana industry in Colorado at 8,000, though it is unclear how it came to that number.

In the union’s announcement, Steve Ackerman of the Organic Alternatives dispensary in Fort Collins said the pairing of the UFCW and the medical-marijuana industry are a natural fit. Kim Cordova, the union’s president, echoed that.

“We are the retail food, pharmacy, agriculture, food processing, and healthcare Union in Colorado and around the nation,” Cordova said in the announcement.

The move solidifies a surprising allegiance that has developed between marijuana advocates and the UFCW in recent years.

Last year, hundreds of California medical-marijuana industry workers joined the UFCW. That included dozens at businesses run by an Oakland cannabis entrepreneur who was the main backer of an initiative to legalize marijuana in that state. The UFCW endorsed the initiative and took an active role in the campaign, which was ultimately unsuccessful.

The medical-marijuana unionization in Colorado comes as cannabis activists here are working to put a marijuana-legalization measure on the 2012 statewide ballot. Today’s announcement from Local 7, though, made no mention of the Colorado legalization campaign.

John Ingold: 303-954-1068 or jingold@denverpost.com.

Update: Northstone Organics owner discusses federal raid

Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:28:59 GMT

Updated: 10/13/2011 11:59:45 PM PDT

Northstone Organics owner Matthew Cohen confirmed Thursday that federal authorities raided his Redwood Valley home, which doubles as the cooperative’s medical marijuana garden and office.

“They came in, guns blazing,” Cohen said of the Thursday morning raid. “They calmed down and were pleasant at the end, but they came in with machine guns.”

The agents arrived at 6 a.m., handcuffed Cohen and his wife and stayed until about 2 p.m., taking 99 marijuana plants, computers and testing equipment, according to Cohen. He said the agents threatened to file federal charges against him, but made no arrests during the raid.

Responding to early reports about the raid, the DEA confirmed only that it was conducting enforcement operations at a Ukiah home.

DEA spokeswoman Casey McEnry said Thursday that the operations were ongoing at about noon, and that she could not reveal further information because the documents were under court seal.

California NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) reported Thursday morning that Northstone Organics was raided, and called the cooperative “a pioneering participant in Mendocino County’s innovative zip-tie’ program to license medical marijuana gardens.”

The program, through the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office, issues zip ties to growers whose marijuana gardens meet state and county guidelines for medical grows, so the growers can affix them to the plants to show compliance.

Local authorities, including the MCSO and Mendocino Major Crimes Task Force, knew of marijuana enforcement operations in the Ukiah Valley Thursday morning but did not confirm the location.

“They destroyed our house and eradicated everything,” Cohen said.

He said there were six federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents, a state Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement agent and a Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office deputy, who Cohen said “didn’t know what he was walking into here.”

Cohen has a medical marijuana cooperative permit and zip ties from the Sheriff’s Office, and was among the first of local growers to get the permit under the county’s new Medical Marijuana Program.

Northstone has about 1,700 members, and delivers to patients in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

“If we’re not legal, nobody’s legal,” Cohen said, echoing the words of Mendocino County 2nd District Supervisor John McCowen.

McCowen appeared last month in Sonoma County Superior Court to testify on behalf of two Northstone employees arrested earlier this year while reportedly driving marijuana to cooperative members outside Mendocino County.

Cohen said he didn’t know if the raid had anything to do with the ongoing court case, which is still in the preliminary hearing phase.

Cohen noted the “insane irony” of the situation, adding, “We actually are a legitimate not-for-profit corporation … we worked with the county to get where we are, and there are illegal growers all around us. We fell under what the U.S. Justice Department said was the threshold for prosecution (1,000 plants).”

The cooperative grows the plants it distributes to members, rather than getting the plants from area growers, according to Cohen — one of the only, if not the only cooperative in the state to do so “like is intended in the spirit of the law.”

Northstone was also operating under the state Attorney General’s guidelines for cooperatives, he said, and had the county sheriff in three times a year to inspect for compliance.

What does the Thursday raid at Northstone tell local growers, then?

“Go back underground, I guess; make our community a less safe place to be,” Cohen said.

###

Tiffany Revelle can be reached at udjtr@pacific.net, or at 468-3523.

Marijuana Raid of Licensed Grower That Delivers to Los Angeles Area Has California Pot Advocates Worried About Federal Crackdown

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:38:43 GMT

NorthstoneOrganics.com Matt Cohen

A Northern California pot farm that delivers cannabis all the way to Los Angeles was raided by DEA agents today, according to an announcement from California NORML.

NORML state coordinator Dale Gieringer was outraged and told the Weekly the action has “gotta be” part of a new federal initiative against medical marijuana in California.

He described the target of the raid, Northstone Organics, as being about as legal as compliant a grower as you could wish for under the state’s medical marijuana laws:

They have done more than anyone else to try to advance the model of regulated outdoor cultivation.

As Gieringer tells it, Northstone owner Matt Cohen spearheaded a program in Mendocino County to legalize and regulate nonprofit growers who want to have as many as 99 plants on site. The operations require sheriff’s inspections and permits.

As such, the NORML leader argues, Cohen has been in the press a lot, perhaps making hin a target for the DEA.

Ironically, he argues, Northstone was trying to do it right: It’s hard to fathom, for example, many dispensaries in L.A. proper that abide by the letter of state law, which only allows nonprofit growing among collective members who want to share their weed with others who are seriously ill.

Of course, federal law, which doesn’t recognize any legal use for pot, is another matter.

“There are people in this business racking up millions and millions in profits,” Gieringer admits. “Cohen isn’t one of them.”

He said that, as we spoke, Cohen was in handcuffs:

To go after him is to strike a blow in favor of the Mexican cartels.

We have a call into the DEA to get its side of the story.

[@dennisjromero/djromero@laweekly.com]

###

Rob Kampia: Obama: From First to Worst on Medical Marijuana

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:21:44 GMT

During his run for the presidency, Barack Obama instilled hope in medical marijuana supporters by pledging to respect state laws on the matter. And for the first two years of his term, he was generally faithful to his promise. Yet suddenly, and with no logical explanation, over the past eight months he has become arguably the worst president in U.S. history regarding medical marijuana.

1. In 1970, Nixon signed into law the Controlled Substances Act, which placed marijuana in Schedule I — the most restrictive of the five schedules, which declared that marijuana has no medical value whatsoever. Since then, all seven presidents have been content to keep marijuana in Schedule I, even going so far as to have (1) DEA bureaucrats overrule the DEA’s own administrative law judge on the matter, and (2) Health & Human Services reject scientific petitions for rescheduling.

2. In 1978, the Carter administration created the “compassionate IND” program, which allowed patients to apply to (what is now known as) HHS to legally receive monthly shipments of the federal government’s marijuana. Reagan left this program untouched for all eight years of his administration, but the first Bush closed the program to new applicants halfway through his term.

3. From 1969 to 1992, it was relatively easy for state governments and private institutions to investigate marijuana’s therapeutic uses: The mechanism was to get FDA approval for a research protocol, then obtain DEA permission to store and handle the marijuana, and then NIDA would provide the marijuana. After Clinton took office, his team created a new hurdle, requiring a separate HHS review of the scientific merit of an FDA-approved research protocol, which has essentially prevented all but a few research projects from moving forward over the last 18 years. Indeed, just last month, Obama’s HHS rejected an FDA-approved protocol that would have researched whether marijuana can reduce PTSD among combat veterans.

4. After California voters passed the first state medical marijuana law in November 1996, the Clinton administration threatened to take away the prescription-writing authority of physicians who recommend medical marijuana to patients. This bad policy was successfully blocked in federal court on First Amendment grounds.

5. In 1998, the Clinton administration filed a civil lawsuit to close down the premier Oakland dispensary at that time; this case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 8-0 against that dispensary in 2001. Since then, the Bush and Obama administrations have routinely dragged dispensary owners into federal court. Most recently, on October 7, Obama’s four federal prosecutors in California announced a coordinated plan to shut down most dispensaries in the state.

6. Clinton’s drug czar actively spoke out against good ballot initiatives in 1996, 1998, and 2000. And Bush’s drug czar campaigned against ballot initiatives and state-level bills for all eight years of the Bush administration. Obama’s drug czar hasn’t lobbied or campaigned against medical marijuana reform measures (yet), but he has publicly opposed medical marijuana generally.

7. In 2000, Clinton signed into law a bill that made it harder for the federal government to seize property through civil lawsuits. Unfortunately, the federal government can still wreak havoc when it wants to, and the Bush and Obama administrations have both threatened some landlords (almost exclusively in California) with property forfeiture if they lease their properties to medical marijuana growers or dispensaries.

8. The IRS started going after medical marijuana businesses under the second Bush regime, and the IRS has continued doing so under Obama. In a fluke of how federal law is written, the IRS is arguing that businesses can actually deduct the cost of the marijuana that they’re selling, but businesses cannot deduct other costs (rent, salaries, insurance, supplies) that any other business would normally deduct. If this doesn’t change, almost all dispensaries will either go out of business or become tax evaders; either way, the federal government will be deprived of tax revenues.

9. This past spring, Obama’s U.S. attorneys in Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington state issued letters to local and state government officials at carefully chosen times, for the purpose of killing medical marijuana reform measures or hampering implementation in each state.

10. Over the last couple of years, medical marijuana businesses have been having trouble finding banking institutions that are willing to accept their money. When members of Congress asked Obama’s Treasury Department for guidance, the Treasury Department said that each banking institution would have to determine its own tolerance for risk — without defining what might constitute a risky situation. And now, just in the past couple of weeks, the Obama administration has been scaring California banks into dropping all businesses that are involved with medical marijuana.

11. On September 21, Obama’s ATF issued an open letter saying that gun shops cannot sell guns to medical marijuana patients — or people who are known to be addicted to drugs other than alcohol or tobacco, ironically enough.

So those are the footnotes for the chart. Depressing, huh?

But there may be a way forward through this mess: Since Colorado, Maine, and New Mexico set up state-licensing systems for medical marijuana businesses in recent years, literally zero such businesses in these three states have been raided by the feds.

(All the raids we hear about — in California, Michigan, Montana, and Washington state — do not involve any state-licensed businesses. At best, some of the targeted businesses were licensed by local governments in California under a loosely worded provision of California state law.)

Technically, federal prosecutors can civilly or criminally target any marijuana businesses they want — in any state — until we change federal law. But, for the time being, the feds appear not to be targeting medical marijuana businesses with state licenses.

It’s worth noting that my organization has successfully enacted new laws that include state licensing in Arizona, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Vermont over the last two years. (And D.C. and New Jersey have licensing systems, too.)

So we may have a way forward. Unfortunately, the plan now assumes hostility from the former marijuana user in the White House who used to profess notions of hope, change, and compassion toward the less fortunate. Shame on him.

###

Feds to target newspapers, radio for marijuana ads

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:01:26 GMT

October 12, 2011 | Michael Montgomery, California Watch

The Sacramento News & Review published a special section of pot dispensary ads in April.

Federal prosecutors are preparing to target newspapers, radio stations and other media outlets that advertise medical marijuana dispensaries in California, another escalation in the Obama administration’s newly invigorated war against the state’s pot industry.

This month, U.S. attorneys representing four districts in California announced that the government would single out landlords and property owners who rent buildings or land where dispensaries sell or cultivators grow marijuana. Now, newspapers and other media outlets could be next.

U.S. Attorney Laura E. Duffy, whose district includes Imperial and San Diego counties, said marijuana advertising is the next area she’s “going to be moving onto as part of the enforcement efforts in Southern California.” Duffy said she could not speak for the three other U.S. attorneys covering the state, but noted their efforts have been coordinated so far.

“I’m not just seeing print advertising,” Duffy said in an interview with California Watch and KQED. “I’m actually hearing radio and seeing TV advertising. It’s gone mainstream. Not only is it inappropriate – one has to wonder what kind of message we’re sending to our children – it’s against the law.”

Federal law prohibits people from placing ads for illegal drugs, including marijuana, in “any newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication.” The law could conceivably extend to online ads; the U.S. Department of Justice recently extracted a $500 million settlement from Google for selling illegal ads linking to online Canadian pharmacies.

Duffy said her effort against TV, radio or print outlets would first include “going after these folks with … notification that they are in violation of federal law.” She noted that she also has the power to seize property or prosecute in civil and criminal court.

William G. Panzer, an attorney who specializes in marijuana defense cases, said publishers may have a reason to worry. Federal law singles out anyone who “places” an illegal ad in a newspaper or publication. Nevertheless, Panzer said he is not aware of a single appellate case dealing with this section of the law.

“Technically, if I’m running the newspaper and somebody gives me money and says, ‘Here’s the ad,’ I’m the one who is physically putting the ad in my newspaper,” he said. “I think this could be brought against the actual newspaper. Certainly, it’s arguable, but the statute is not entirely clear on that.”

Panzer said the penalty for a first offense is a maximum four years in prison and eight years for someone with a prior felony conviction.

In the federal law, an exception is made for ads that advocate the use of illegal drugs but don’t explicitly offer them for sale or distribution. Newspapers, Panzer said, could argue that they have a right under the First Amendment to run the ads, and any “prior restraint” before publication is itself illegal.

Duffy said she believes the law gives her the right to prosecute newspaper publishers or TV station owners.

“If I own a newspaper … or I own a TV station, and I’m going to take in your money to place these ads, I’m the person who is placing these ads,” Duffy said. “I am willing to read (the law) expansively and if a court wants to more narrowly define it, that would be up to the court.”

Seven states, including California, allow for medical marijuana to be distributed in dispensaries, though more than 200 California cities and nearly two dozen counties have bans or moratoriums in place on storefront pot businesses. The industry has otherwise exploded in recent years, including a marked increase in delivery services.

Ngaio Bealum, publisher of West Coast Cannabis, described as “the Sunset magazine of weed,” said he receives a significant portion of his revenue from dispensary ads, though he has tough competition from alternative newspapers and even The Sacramento Bee, which began running print advertisements for dispensaries this year.

Bealum said it was “misguided for the Department of Justice to come after people who are following state law and doing well for the economy in a recession.” He disputed the notion that marijuana ads target children.

“We’re just in doctor’s offices and cannabis collectives, where you have to be 18 years old or where you have to be a patient,” he said. “We’re not targeting anyone but cannabis patients.”

Duffy said Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act, passed by California voters in 1996 has transformed from an effort to supply marijuana to sick people through nonprofit groups into a profit-making industry. She said the advertising is part of that – and “it’s illegal.”

The San Diego Reader website includes a special section devoted to marijuana dispensaries.

Duffy said she’s seen marijuana stores advertise coupons, bring-a-friend deals, extra samples for buying a certain amount of marijuana, magazines devoted entirely to the industry, T-shirts for sale, marijuana linked to video games – all things, she said, “in large part directed at our youth and children.”

“The good intentions behind that law,” she said, “have almost completely been taken over by people who are trying to use that permission law to get rich, to distribute marijuana and traffic drugs to people who aren’t sick, to our youth and to people who are using drugs on a recreational basis.”

It’s clear that alternative newspapers throughout the state have benefited from the increased business, even as other advertising sources have dwindled.

In April, the Sacramento News & Review published a special supplement devoted exclusively to marijuana dispensaries. “This year’s edition includes more than 100 regional medical-cannabis dispensaries, physicians, and med-delivery and hydroponics shops for the 2011 Green Pages,” the newspaper wrote. Marijuana dispensary ads, which can cost $2,000 for a full page, allowed the News & Review to hire additional reporters.

“I don’t see how the News & Review running medical-marijuana ads is any different from TV stations running massive amounts of commercials for pharmaceutical companies selling drugs,” Jeff vonKaenel, CEO and majority owner of the News & Review, wrote in a May 2010 column about the advertising.

In an interview about Duffy’s statement, vonKaenel said he was “stunned by that interpretation of the First Amendment.” He said his publications “receive quite a bit of revenue from (dispensaries) and it would have a detrimental impact” if he was forced to stop publishing the ads.

Panzer said he doesn’t think the federal government can effectively shut down the marijuana industry, even if it makes short-term gains by targeting high-profile dispensaries and newspapers. Given the government’s lack of resources and the huge size of the marijuana industry, Panzer said officials’ efforts are “a losing proposition.”

“The government is trying to put the genie back in the bottle,” Panzer said.

Circumventing the law on advertising the sale of illegal drugs can bring expensive consequences. In August, Google agreed to pay a $500 million settlement for accepting illegal advertisements from online Canadian pharmacies. Employees of the company had been working with pharmacies to bypass Google’s own internal controls, even as Google executives testified before Congress, claiming the company had clamped down on the illegal ads.

The fine was one of the largest ever from a U.S. company. At the time of the settlement, Google said in a statement that ”it’s obvious with hindsight that we shouldn’t have allowed these ads on Google in the first place.”

California is not the only state struggling with the issue of marijuana ads. In Colorado, the city of Boulder recently voted to ban medical marijuana ads that target young people or recreational users. Now, the city clerk will decide if the tone of the ads crosses the line.

The federal government’s recent crackdown on the marijuana industry coincides with a February 2011 memorandum written by the state’s four top federal prosecutors, outlining a uniform approach to enforcing federal marijuana laws in California. The document, reviewed by California Watch, places an emphasis on federal investigations that target “leaders and organizers of the criminal activity as opposed to lower-level workers.”

The memorandum sets thresholds that make investigations more likely to be prosecuted. Those include distributors caught with at least 200 kilograms of marijuana, including distribution near schools, playgrounds and colleges; cultivators with gardens of at least 1,000 plants that are not on federal land and at least 500 plants on federal or tribal land or where there is significant damage; and dispensaries that sell more than 200 kilograms or 1,000 plants annually.

###

Dutch to reclassify high-strength cannabis

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:53:33 GMT

7 October 2011 Last updated at 19:15 ET By Anna Holligan BBC News, Amsterdam

Much of the higher-strength cannabis will have to be removed from sale in coffee shops

The famous cannabis-selling coffee shops of the Netherlands are facing new tighter restrictions.

The Dutch government is reclassifying high-strength cannabis to put it in the same category as hard drugs.

It says the amount of the main active chemical in the drug, THC, has gone up, making it far more potent than a generation ago.

It means the coffee shops will be forced to take the popular, high-strength varieties off their shelves.

Dutch politicians say high-strength cannabis, known as “skunk”, is more dangerous than it was before.

In the future, anything containing more than 15% THC will be treated the same way as hard drugs, such as cocaine and ecstasy.

The move is a big blow to the coffee shops - and means they will have to replace about 80% of their stock with weaker varieties.

Marc Josemans, who runs a cafe in Maastricht, says he believes that the new tough approach is being driven by the increasingly influential far-right in Dutch politics.

“You immediately can taste the difference. Everything which is considered unusual for them - they call it ‘left hobbies’ and under this name they want to ban all ‘left hobbies’, like using cannabis,” he told the BBC.

The move means that the Netherlands’ traditional tolerance of soft drugs is to become a thing of the past.

The ban on the high-strength “skunk” is expected to be introduced next year, when police will start doing random checks in the cafes.

From next year, the Dutch government also plans to ban tourists from entering coffee shops across the country.

Amsterdam and other cities are strongly opposed to such a ban.

###

Teapot Party Backs Occupy Wall Street

Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Willie Nelson and the Teapot Party are officially in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement centered in New York and rapidly spreading throughout the country. Nelson says it’s a “great idea” for the Teapot Party to back the growing movement that now includes labor unions in addition to the disenfranchised and unemployed who are camping out in urban centers.

Other celebrities in support include Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Russell Simmons, Michael Franti, Mark Ruffalo, Roseanne Barr, Lewis Black, Penn Badgley, Lupe Fiasco, Talib Kweli, Peter Yarrow, Rev. Billy Talen and David Peel.

Also see:
Nelson Starts the Teapot Party
Teapot Party Endorsements
Teapot Party @Faecbook

Teapot Party Backs Occupy Wall Street

Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Also see:
Nelson Starts the Teapot Party
Teapot Party Endorsements
Teapot Party @Faecbook

Gary Johnson Blasts California Dispensary Crackdown

Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Sixteen dispensaries were ordered closed on Wednesday as part of the Feds’ attempt to shut down California’s medical-marijuana industry. The shocking Bush-era tactics are being criticized by activists throughout the state.

The Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, three stores in San Francisco and a dozen in San Diego were targeted this week by U.S. Attorneys, the DEA and local authorities as well. Letters were sent to the dispensaries and owners of buildings that house the medi-pot shops stating they must vacate because of zoning issues, such as distances from schools and parks.

“With the federal budget on empty, the economy in disarray, our prisons overflowing and prohibition-related violence raging across the border, it’s an outrageous misuse of federal resources to wage war on marijuana dispensaries,” says California NORML coordinator Dale Gieringer. “Federal anti-drug bureaucrats are afraid because the dispensaries are proving that it’s possible for marijuana to become a safe, legal, tax-paying industry and so expose their own last-century policies as bankrupt and obsolete.”

Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson issued the following statement: “DOJ and the Administration have better things to do than mount an assault on medical marijuana dispensaries in California that are legal under state law. Regardless of one’s view of medical marijuana, Americans who believe in states’ rights should be extremely disturbed that the federal government is in the process of shutting down businesses, threatening criminal charges and confiscating the property of small businesses operating under good faith according to state law… It’s time for the Feds to just admit that their law is just wrong, and let the states decide for themselves how they want to handle the issue of medical marijuana.”

Also see:
Did Cannabis Prohibition Kill Steve Jobs?
ASA Responds to California Critics
The Battle for Medical Marijuana
More News

Gary Johnson Blasts California Dispensary Crackdown

Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Also see:
Did Cannabis Prohibition Kill Steve Jobs?
ASA Responds to California Critics
The Battle for Medical Marijuana
More News

Medical marijuana cardholders worried about federal agents

Sat, 08 Oct 2011 12:38:32 GMT

October 07, 2011 5:48 PM

Katie Conner / KTVL.com

WILLIAMS, Ore. — Federal agents have busted two large marijuana gardens in the past two week and now some medical pot growers are worried they could be next.

Federal agents are keeping busy in the Rogue Valley. Within the last two weeks, there has been two pot busts. One in Gold Hill and the other in Central Point.

William residents say they’re seeing an increase of law enforcement in their town.

One reason could be William’s high number of marijuana growers. The city leads the state.

In August, The Associated Press analyzed the number of registered growers in the state. Their report showed that 19.5 percent of the Williams population is registered to grow marijuana. The AP analysis showed that Williams isn’t alone. Other Josephine County towns have a large number of growers: O’Brien was at 15.2 percent; Selma at 10.5 percent; and Cave Junction at 9.9 percent

Lauren Applegate’s medical marijuana garden was raided into back in 2009. She and her husband were growing for 11 patients. Police busted her for having 220 pounds of pot, more than the legal limit. It’s something Applegate admits too but didn’t expect the punishment to be so severe.

“We were under the impression, the only they they could do is put us in compliance and take away the excess but instead they referred to us as drug dealers and its been an uphill struggle since 2009,” said Applegate.

The DEA says its not specifically focusing on Southern Oregon. The organization says it has a four state area of responsibility for drug trafficking — including Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

###

Calif. pot dispensaries told to shut down

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:06:37 GMT

Robert Galbraith / Reuters

Marijuana plants are shown for sale in a medical marijuana dispensary in Oakland, Calif.

SAN FRANCISCO — Federal prosecutors are cracking down on some pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state’s 15-year-old medical marijuana law.

In an escalation of the ongoing conflict between the U.S. government and the nation’s burgeoning medical marijuana industry, at least 16 pot shops or their landlords received letters this week stating they are violating federal drug laws, even though medical marijuana is legal in California. The state’s four U.S. attorneys were scheduled Friday to announce a broader coordinated crackdown.

Their offices refused Thursday to confirm the closure orders. The Associated Press obtained copies of the letters that a prosecutor sent to at least 12 San Diego dispensaries. They state that federal law “takes precedence over state law and applies regardless of the particular uses for which a dispensary is selling and distributing marijuana. ”

The move comes a little more than two months after the Obama administration toughened its stand on medical marijuana. For two years before that, federal officials had indicated they would not move aggressively against dispensaries in compliance with laws in the 16 states where pot is legal for people with doctors’ recommendations. “Under United States law, a dispensary’s operations involving sales and distribution of marijuana are illegal and subject to criminal prosecution and civil enforcement actions,” according to the letters signed by U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy in San Diego. “Real and personal property involved in such operations are subject to seizure by and forfeiture to the United States … regardless of the purported purpose of the dispensary. ”

The Department of Justice issued a policy memo to federal prosecutors in late June stating that marijuana dispensaries and licensed growers in states with medical marijuana laws could face prosecution for violating federal drug and money-laundering laws. The effort to shutter California dispensaries appeared to be the most far-reaching effort so far to put that guidance into action.

“This really shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. The administration is simply making good on multiple threats issued since President Obama took office,” said Kevin Sabet, a former adviser to the president’s drug czar and a fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Substance Abuse Solutions. “The challenge is to balance the scarcity of law enforcement resources and the sanctity of this country’s medication approval process. It seems like the administration is simply making good on multiple statements made previously to appropriately strike that balance.”

Greg Anton, a lawyer who represents dispensary Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, said its landlord received an “extremely threatening” letter Wednesday invoking a federal law that imposes additional penalties for selling drugs within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds.

The landlord was ordered to evict the 14-year-old pot club or risk imprisonment, plus forfeiture of the property and all the rent he has collected while the dispensary has been in business, Anton said.

Marin Alliance’s founder “has been paying state and federal taxes for 14 years, and they have cashed all the checks,” he said. “All I hear from Obama is whining about his budget, but he has money to do this which will actually reduce revenues.”

Kris Hermes, a spokesman for the medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, said the warnings are part of what appears to be an attempt by the Obama administration to curb medical marijuana on multiple fronts and through multiple agencies. A series of dispensary raids in Montana, for example, involved agents from not only the FBI and U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, but the Internal Revenue Service and Environmental Protection Agency.

Going after property owners is not a new tactic though, Hermes said. Five years ago, the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush made similar threats to about 300 Los Angeles-area landlords who were renting space to medical marijuana outlets, some of whom were eventually evicted or closed their doors voluntarily, he said.

“It did have an impact. However, the federal government never acted on its threats, never prosecuted anybody, never even went to court to begin prosecutions,” Hermes said. “By and large, they were empty threats, but they relied on them and the cost of postage to shut down as many facilities as they could without having to engage in criminal enforcement activity.”

Besides the dozen dispensaries in San Diego and the one in Marin County, at least three shops in San Francisco already have received closure notices, said Dale Gieringer, director of the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

The San Diego medical marijuana outlets put on notice were the same 12 that city officials sued last month for operating illegally, after activists there threatened to force an election on a zoning plan adopted to regulate the city’s fast-growing medical marijuana industry, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith said. A judge on Wednesday ordered nine of the targeted shops to close, while the other three shut down voluntarily, Goldsmith said.

Duffy, the U.S. attorney for far Southern California, planned to issue warning letters to property owners and all of the 180 or so dispensaries that have proliferated in San Diego in the absence of compromise regulations, according to Goldsmith.

“The real power is with the federal government,” he said. “They have the asset forfeiture, and that means either the federal government will own a lot of property or these landlords will evict a lot of dispensaries.”

###

American marijuana growers could beat this war on drugs

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 08:28:34 GMT

A soldier guards packages of marijuana being incinerated in Tijuana, Mexico. Photograph: Guillermo Arias/AP

The gruesome concomitants of the war on drugs were on display yet again last week in Mexico, where gangs continue to terrorise the public with impunity. The decapitated body of a crime-awareness blogger was found in Nuevo Laredo, the third of such killings to occur in the city over the last month. A bag of rotting human heads outside an elementary school in Acapulco had a note threatening the state governor, who responded with promises of more police and security cameras.

After four decades of bloodstains and milked budgets, only one thing is certain: no matter how hard you fight, the market always wins. It is no longer tenable to describe this war on drugs as a failure. It is, as Winston Churchill once remarked, “an affront to the whole history of mankind”. Although former dignitaries have routinely come forth to denounce prohibition, the incumbents and bureaucrats who continue to wage this battle simply refuse to be swayed by data or reason. In the past few months, new fronts have opened up in Russia, Africa and south-east Asia. But nowhere is the incongruity between reality and ideology more acute than in its North American epicentre.

On 17 August William Brownfield, the assistant secretary for the US bureau of international narcotics and law enforcement affairs, showed up in Ciudad Juarez to defend America’s drug war. At a press conference, he stated: “We cannot lose, because if we lose we will say to the generations that come after us: ‘You are condemned to live in a disgusting and repulsive world.’ And that’s a conversation I do not want to have with my children or grandchildren in years to come.” Such a comment, so clearly dismissive of those Mexicans who are already condemned to the hell that Brownfield alludes to, is indicative of the technological determinism that informs the logic of drug warriors. The idea being that eventually the technology of surveillance will become effective enough to end this war of attrition and enforce global control on the production and distribution of narcotics.

Many assumed that this brand of thought would be curbed when Barack Obama came to power, but the president has proved an invaluable asset to America’s narco-industrial complex. Though Obama campaigned on a promise to “fix the problem with medical marijuana” and called for an end to dispensary raids in 2009, those promises have gone the way of Guantánamo Bay. Under his watch, federal authorities have vigorously persecuted medical marijuana suppliers, with raids occurring constantly throughout the country. This week, in a crude turn of events, it was revealed that the Obama administration was directly involved in selling thousands of automatic weapons to cartel members, some of which have been used in the murders of Mexican officials.

If one considers that “the world’s largest undefended border” between Canada and the US is now monitored by surveillance drones searching for pot smugglers, it seems like a gloomy inevitability that military force will eventually triumph. But the same technological determinism that deemed those drones a necessity also works in favour of the drug trade.

In Canada, the Tory government is scrambling to pass an unpopular bill that will see marijuana growers receive tougher sentences than those convicted of raping children. This plan to crack down on growers is pure politically clownery. With a minimum of 30,000 grow-ops in British Columbia alone, Canada has been effectively “overgrown”: the level of marijuana production is so high that the justice system has an imperceptible effect on the industry. Out of the minority of growers who are discovered by police, only about 30% are arrested, meaning that a maximum of 0.5% of those involved in cultivation face jail time.

The single most crucial element of the sustainability of the drug war is the US trade deficit. Unlike Canada, the US produces fewer drugs than it consumes. The resultant cross-border traffic provides the rationale for the US to impose its policies on any country that supplies the drugs that the American consumer demands. But the current state of the American economy may change this. Unemployment rates in the US are now nearing the same level that British Columbia experienced in the late 1980s; a climate that precipitated the marijuana production boom that continues to this day.

If industrious Americans were to saturate their landscape with clandestine grow-operations, it would substantially damage the profitability of the cartels, which draw somewhere in between 25% to 60% of their profit from marijuana. This would eliminate much of the US government’s motivation to interfere in the narcotics policies of foreign countries, while forcing the issue of legalisation at home.

For those who would prefer a future with less drones, take comfort in the fact that the market is trending towards this possibility: Americans are growing more pot than ever. If this continues, the decisive battle in the war on drugs will be waged in the backyards, basements, and national parks of America. It will see stealth agriculture pitted against stealth surveillance – the outcome of which will depend on whether or not American ingenuity can defeat its own government’s military supremacy.

###

Simple forms, quick doctor visits, long wait for medical marijuana card

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 08:05:38 GMT

Published: Wednesday, October 05, 2011

By NORB FRANZ

For Mike Rogers, the pain began about five years ago. A dozen years as a carpenter, plus bricklaying, carpet installation and several years delivering furniture took a toll on his back. “I had severe back pain that brought me to my knees. I couldn’t walk,” said Rogers, 44, of Sterling Heights.

On some days, he felt no discomfort. But sneezing, leaning over a table or pulling the cord to start a lawnmower could trigger intense pain and stop him in his tracks.

Periods of respite disappeared over a year ago, so he sought relief from the steady pain by visiting a chiropractor. The first spinal adjustment brought some relief. Hot baths and other direct-heat treatment also helped — but not enough. Twice-weekly visits to the chiropractor were unaffordable.

With no health insurance for other treatments and saying he had “nothing else to lose,” Rogers opted for medical marijuana. He saw an ad for a physician in Hazel Park, explained his suffering and the doctor asked if he had medical records to back up his claims. Rogers replied that he could get the documents. He said the doctor told him it wasn’t necessary and completed the certification form to recommend that Rogers be added to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Registry.

The fee for the consultation: $150. The applicant/patient form — downloaded from the state Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs — was easy to complete, caused no confusion and was simple to submit, Rogers said. Patients needing a caregiver must also provide that person’s name.

Under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Program, the Bureau of Health Professions reviews applications to ensure they are complete. By statute, the state must issue a medical marijuana registry identification card within five days if information on the form is verified.

However, even before the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled this summer that medical marijuana cannot be sold through private shops and dispensaries, virtually cutting off access to the drug for many users, patients waited months to get their marijuana drug cards.

Currently, the bureau is issuing registry cards for original applications received in April. “No one is being held accountable in government for this intolerable delay,” said Rick Thompson, editor of Michigan Medical Marijuana Magazine and a member of the Michigan Association of Compassion Centers. “It’s reprehensible and unfortunate,” he said. “If it took five months to get a driver’s license to you, the Secretary of State would lose her job.”

The MMRA advises patients to keep a copy of their application while awaiting notification from the state whether their application has been approved, denied or terminated, because the documents have the same legal effect as a registry identification card and can be shown to law enforcement officials. But Thompson said police often doubt the validity of the forms because they are user-generated and can be forged easily.

He thinks the state should issue a certified letter bearing the state seal and a patient ID number to applicants awaiting their card. “The reality is not issuing these cards in a timely manner puts people in jail,” he said. “What might be acceptable at one marijuana distribution center might be different for another,” Thompson added.

Rogers said he waited six months before his medical marijuana card arrived in the mail. He said he is unaware of anyone having a difficult time proving to police that their completed forms or registry ID cards are valid. He grows some marijuana on his own. Under Michigan law, patients are allowed to grow up to 12 plants or can designate a caregiver to grow for them. Caregivers can grow a dozen plants for up to five patients each.

Rogers also purchases the drug from a woman he met through Craigslist, paying $45 for one-eighth of an ounce. When they met, she asked about his need for medical marijuana and discussed different strains of the drug. She recommended “XXX” and “train wreck.”

“I only do it at night before I go to bed, so I don’t need much,” said Rogers, explaining that his pain has been dulled “80, 90 percent.” He said that when he can afford insurance, he’ll undergo surgery.

The process

Not all ailments qualify a person for the medical marijuana registry, which exempts qualified users from state laws that make possession and use of marijuana illegal. Rejections by doctors are common, said Thompson. “Often time patients misunderstand and think they need medical marijuana,” he said, citing anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder as examples of conditions that do not qualify.

The Medical Marihuana Act passed by 63 percent of voters in 2008 requires that patients receiving the drug must suffer from a debilitating medical condition, including:

* Cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, agitation of Alzheimer’s disease or nail patella.

* A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that causes one or more of the following: cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures; and severe or persistent muscle spasms.

* Any medical treatment or condition adopted by the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

In the first year of the program, 115 petitions were filed with DLARA to expand the list with specific ailments. However, no hearings have been added to expand the list, Thompson said.

Technically, marijuana cannot be prescribed by doctors because it is categorized by the federal government as a Schedule 1 drug. Under Michigan’s medical marijuana law, doctors must certify a patient’s debilitating medical condition and can only recommend the use of pot as treatment.

The latest figures released by the state show 181,303 original and renewal application have been submitted since April 6, 2009. Nearly 20,000 applications were rejected, mostly due to incomplete forms or missing documentation. More than 105,000 medical marijuana cards have been issued to patients. The number of caregivers has not been released.

Critics claim some patients are getting the recommendation without seeing a doctor in person. “Some physicians push the boundaries just like some patients and caregivers may push the boundaries. The vast majority of physicians are doing it the right way,” Thompson said.

The elderly and others who are physically incapable of growing marijuana on their own can rely on a caregiver. Caregivers must attest that they are at least 21 years old, have no convictions of felony drug offenses and must provide the name of qualified patients for whom they provide marijuana.

Patients under age 18 must have consent of a parent or guardian for medical decisions and must be the minor’s caregiver. The fee to submit the application: $100. “The forms are very user-friendly,” said Thompson. “The intimidating part is paying $100 if you’re on a fixed income.” Installment payments are not allowed. For qualified patients on Medicaid or receiving Social Security benefits, the fee is $25.

House visit

“Alan,” a medical marijuana patient from Macomb County, who spoke on the condition that his real name not be published because he wants no “unnecessary visits” from law enforcement officials, said a co-worker recommended an elderly doctor.

Together, they made a house call to the physician’s Flint area home. Alan told the doctor he suffered chronic pain in his knee. “He just looked at my knee for about 30 seconds. I showed him the scar on the front of my knee,” said Alan, who added that he paid $100 for the brief visit. He sent the applications to the state in October 2009 and received his medical marijuana registry card three months later.

To renew his card a year later, Alan visited a Roseville clinic where he paid $100. First-time medical marijuana seekers were charged $175. He still laughs about the lasting image of a man dressed as Santa Claus outside the clinic, carrying a sign advertising medical marijuana consultation and prices. Alan said the registration process was “pretty simple” but said the law, generally, is vague. He said he grows marijuana on his own but also gets the drug from two other patients.

Cards expire too quickly?

A medical marijuana registry card is valid for one year. Critics say that’s too short. After expiration, patients hoping to continue medical marijuana use must submit renewal forms.

“Which means another visit to the doctor,” Thompson said. Plus another $100 application fee. “I think it should be a one-time deal. I don’t have to reapply for a driver’s license every year and I don’t have to apply for a credit card every year,” Rogers pointed out.

Thus far, patient and caregiver registrations have resulted in an $8.2 million profit for the state. In the wake of the Appeals Court ruling, Thompson fears that any potential changes to the law by the Legislature will cause more people to suffer. “I’m worried they’re going to develop a lot of red tape and restrictions,” said the editor of Michigan Medical Marijuana Magazine. “A lot of people are worried.” “Alan” of Macomb County added: “Prohibition has never worked on any level. It’s not going to work on marijuana.”

###

To download and print forms for the Michigan Marihuana Registry Program, go to: www.michigan.gov/lara/0,4601,7-154-27417_51869_52139—-,00.html

For a list of frequently asked questions about MMRP, go to: www.michigan.gov/lara/0,4601,7-154-27417_51869_52140—-,00.html

IRS ruling strikes fear in medical marijuana industry

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:41:07 GMT

John Brecher / msnbc.com

Steve DeAngelo of Harborside Health Center

By Al Olson

In a potentially crushing blow to the burgeoning medical marijuana industry, the IRS has ruled that dispensaries cannot deduct standard business expenses such as payroll, security or rent.

Harborside Health Center, one of the nation’s largest medical marijuana dispensaries and considered a model for the industry, is on the hook for $2.5 million in taxes from 2007 and 2008. That is $2 million more than the Oakland, Calif.-based company paid for those tax years.

“I see only two outcomes here,” said Steve DeAngelo, director and chief executive of Harborside. “Either this IRS assessment has to change or we go out of business. There really isn’t a middle ground for us.”

DeAngelo says the ruling will likely be appealed. He has 90 days to respond to the ruling.

The IRS ruling is based on an obscure portion of the tax code — section 280E — passed into law by Congress in 1982, at the height of Reagan administration’s “war on drugs.” The law, originally targeted at drug kingpins and cartels, bans any tax deductions related to “trafficking in controlled substances.”

Although 16 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws allowing medical use of marijuana, the federal government still considers it a Schedule I drug, the most restrictive category with the harshest penalties.

The Internal Revenue Service refused to comment on the specific case, but letters sent from Andrew Keyso, IRS deputy associate chief counsel, to some members of Congress spell out the official position:

“Section 280E of the Code disallows deductions incurred in the trade or business of trafficking in controlled substances that federal law or the law of any state in which the taxpayer conducts the business prohibits. For this purpose, the term “controlled substances” has the meaning provided in the Controlled Substances Act. Marijuana falls within the Controlled Substances Act.”

The news has spread rapidly through the cannabis community and is likely to have a chilling effect on businesses.

“We are all a bit nervous and frustrated,” said Ken Estes, owner of Patient To Patient Group Collective in San Jose, Calif. “We have tried to comply with every city, state and federal law. We ask for input from all the agencies. But we are still being punished for operating a legitimate business.”

Harborside, which celebrated its fifth anniversary Monday, serves 94,000 patients with 84 full-time employees and brings in about $22 million in annual revenue. According to DeAngelo, the center, set up as a not-for-profit business, pays about $1.1 million in taxes to the city of Oakland, $2 million to the state of California and $500,000 to the federal government.

“We have no complaint about the taxes we pay,” DeAngelo said. “We are doing our part. All we ask is that we be treated like any other business enterprise. To treat us like criminals makes is simply wrong. Drug kingpins and cartels don’t file taxes. We do. But no business, including ours, can survive if it is taxed on its gross revenue. The IRS is trying to tax us out of existence.”

Keith Stroup, legal counsel and founder of NORML, the nation’s largest marijuana advocacy group, says the IRS ruling is likely to stifle the quasi-legal industry and force people back onto the black market.

“You know, Al Capone was taken down by the IRS, not by the FBI or the police. And I can assure you that Steve DeAngelo is no Al Capone,” Stroup said.

Stroup believes the move also could make it more difficult for the medical marijuana industry to capture significant capital investment. Medical marijuana is now a $1.7 billion market, according to a report released this year by See Change Strategy, an independent financial analysis firm that specializes in new and unique markets. The figure represents estimated sales of marijuana through dispensaries in states with medical marijuana laws.

Although the IRS declined comment, Stoup says NORML has received e-mails from other dispensaries that are currently being audited and will likely receive similar rulings. “Harborside is one of the biggest, so that is why the IRS targeted them first,” Stroup said. “But there are other dispensaries that will suffer the same fate unless Congress acts.”

Some members of Congress have taken up the cause.

Reps. Pete Stark, D-Calif., Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Jared Polis, D-Colo., have introduced legislation to ensure the medical marijuana industry is treated like any other business.

Two Republican presidential candidates — Ron Paul and Gary Johnson — also support the legislation.

Stark’s bill, the Small Business Tax Equity Act, authorizes medical marijuana dispensaries to take the full range of business expense deductions.

“You’d think that a time of record budget deficits that the IRS would be happy that a legal business is doing the right thing and paying its taxes,” Polis said. “Instead, the IRS seems intent on destroying a successful and legal business that creates jobs and strengthens our economy.”

The confused legal situation is “an un-American loop of nonsense,” says Jerome Handley, a tax attorney in Oakland who has more than 100 clients in the medical marijuana industry. “My advice to my clients is simple: Document everything … and stay out of the spotlight.”

William Panzer, an Oakland tax attorney who helped author California’s medical marijuana law, Proposition 215, also successfully fought the IRS in a similar case in 2007.

In that case, U.S. Tax Court Judge David Laro declared that Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems (CHAMP), a medical marijuana provider, could deduct the majority of employee costs as caregiving expenses. The IRS sought $426,000 in back taxes and penalties, but CHAMP ended up paying a tax assessment of less than $5,000.

“This law is not about protecting citizens from criminals. It is a concerted effort by the federal government to crack down on a legitimate business,” Panzer said.

DeAngelo points out the apparent craziness of the law. “The IRS allows me to deduct my cost of purchasing cannabis, which is the controlled substance they say is illegal. But I can’t deduct my payroll or my rent? That, clearly, defies logic and common sense.

“Besides,” DeAngelo added, “have you ever heard of a drug trafficker that actually files a tax return? Me neither.”

###

Prohibition: A parallel to modern war on drugs

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 11:10:31 GMT

Originally published Friday, September 30, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper reflects on the violent U.S. experiment with Prohibition, as depicted in Ken Burns’ new PBS documentary. He argues there is a compelling parallel between the damage done by the 18th Amendment and the current U.S. war on drugs.

By Norm Stamper

‘PROHIBITION’

The three-part documentary film series directed by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick tells the story of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The film will appear at 8 p.m. on PBS over three nights. Sunday through Tuesday. For more information: www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/

KEN Burns’ new documentary on alcohol prohibition, premiering on PBS Sunday, reportedly begins with a Mark Twain quote: “It is the prohibition that makes anything precious.”

As a retired police officer who worked to enforce today’s prohibition — the “war on drugs” — I think it’s a lesson we would do well to remember.

It was the prohibition of alcohol that made it so valuable to criminals, providing the tax-free dollars that turned neighborhood street gangs into national crime syndicates headed by the likes of Al Capone and Charles (“Lucky”) Luciano.

Prohibition did little to curb liquor consumption, particularly among young people. Moreover, as otherwise law-abiding citizens were suddenly deemed criminals, the resulting hypocrisy significantly undermined respect for authority.

Today, drug use, especially by adolescents, is shockingly widespread, and law enforcement’s job has been made that much harder. In cities across the country, young people, poor people and people of color have come to view us as the enemy.

Our drug laws have given rise to a new generation of gangsters with names like Sinaloa, Los Zetas and La Familia. These evil and greedy cartels are raking in profits that Capone and his ilk could only have dreamed of.

Like the bootleggers of old, today’s international cartels reap untold billions of dollars from the drug war, and they aren’t afraid to kill to protect profits or expand markets. After alcohol prohibition took effect, the homicide rate skyrocketed by 78 percent. Nearly a century later, 4,323 U.S. homicides between 2005 and 2009 have been directly traced to the illegal drug trade — more than the number of Americans killed on 9/11 or in combat in Iraq. Even this figure pales in comparison to the 40,000 murders in Mexico since 2006 that are directly related to the illegal drug market.

It would be difficult for anyone who lived under alcohol prohibition to imagine today’s drug war-related violence. Whereas the St. Valentine’s Day massacre of seven alcohol-trafficking gangsters in Chicago made international headlines in 1929, today’s drug cartels regularly kidnap and murder police and other government officials, roll severed heads into nightclubs and hang mutilated bodies from bridges — complete with threatening messages carved into the flesh. The violence is so frequent that each grisly incident is but a blip on the radar.

Just as in the 1920s, this violence stems from disputes over territory. Instead of bringing whiskey from Canada, organized criminals deliver illegal drugs from Mexico via a sophisticated network whose tentacles extend from our southwestern border to more than 1,000 American cities.

Previews show that Burns’ documentary vividly depicts the lavish lifestyles of Prohibition-era gangsters, the more successful of whom banked staggering profits for their time.

Yet today’s drug cartels are even more profitable. It costs about $75 to produce a pound of marijuana, which then sells for about $6,000, depending on quality. Mexico alone produces more than 5,000 metric tons yearly, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

As with every historical documentary, we all know the ending to this one: At long last, Americans of all political stripes realized that the Prohibition experiment was a complete failure. Support for it collapsed, and repeal finally came with the 21st Amendment in 1933.

The repeal allowed the creation of thousands of new jobs in a reinvigorated alcohol industry, with millions of dollars earned in tax revenues.

Legalizing alcohol shut off a major source of funding for organized crime and took the violence out of the market. It’s not surprising that you haven’t seen any newspaper headlines recently about Budweiser and Coors distributors shooting one another over who gets to stock liquor stores.

It took just 13 years for the country to come to its senses. But our drug laws have been on the books for decades. Nevertheless, I believe we are closer than ever to undoing some of the damage through current initiatives to legalize marijuana.

With so many parallels to the past in evidence, Burns’ latest work should touch off a long-overdue discussion about ending our current experiment with the war on drugs.

Norm Stamper, a 34-year police veteran who retired as Seattle’s chief of police, is a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com).

MT medical marijuana backers ready to move fight forward

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:42:44 GMT

Posted: Oct 4, 2011 8:17 AM by Breanna Roy- KPAX News

MISSOULA - The state medical marijuana law will go to Montana voters next year after petitioners picked up more than the 26,000 signatures needed to place the measure on the ballot.

A petition to put the power back to the people has passed and voters will not have their say on Montana’s current medical marijuana law that the legislature passed earlier this year.

Senate Bill 423 effectively closed all medical marijuana businesses on July 1st amd also repealed the initiative Montana voters approved back in 2004.

“We think that the citizens of Montana should have a say in such a large change in the program that they approved in the first place and we look forward to presenting our case,” said Rose Habib with the group Patients for Reform Not Repeal.

Habib coordinated a summer-long signature gathering effort and says volunteers generated more than 46,000 autographs, well above the 24,000 needed to qualify 5% of the voters in 34 legislative districts.

The Montana Secretary of State’s Office certified the initiative will be on the ballot in 2012 on Monday.

“I think the approval of our Initiative Referendum will show the legislators that they have overstepped their bounds during the legislative session by repealing a citizens’ initiative,” Habib said.

“We got support for every county in Montana. We go support from every House District in Montana and we expect that when our signatures are done being counted that we will have qualified for 5% of the voters in over 60 House Districts,” she said.

Volunteers will now shift from gathering signatures to gathering votes. Click here to learn more about Senate Bill 423.

###

The benefits of using, risks of abusing medical marijuana

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:00:19 GMT

Published: Monday, October 03, 2011

By MARYANNE KOCIS MACLEOD

To hear Rick Thompson tell it, marijuana is the single most effective remedy to hit modern health care since penicillin, as adaptable as yoga and as harmless as buckwheat honey on toast. “I think most people agree that it’s time for us to decriminalize marijuana,” said Thompson, executive director of Michigan Association of Compassion Centers. “At the turn of the (last century, circa 1900) people grew it in their garden like mint and rosemary. It was used for ailments such as pain management and insomnia, Parkinson’s disease, migraines and rheumatoid arthritis.” Today, Thompson said, a growing number of doctors are coming out in support of the herb’s medicinal value. “With government less able to provide assistance to low-income families, vets and seniors, these people need an alternative to treat the illnesses they face,” Thompson continued. “Marijuana is no more dangerous than anything else we allow our society to consume. The best way to help these people is to stay out of their way.” In fact, marijuana was banned in 1937, as part of pro-pharmaceutical industry legislation supported by Dow Chemical and newspaper baron William Randolph Hearst, Thompson said. While research is inconclusive, recent studies link marijuana to the remission of cancer growth in rats and test tubes, and reduced inflammation in elderly rat brains diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. In small quantities, marijuana has similarly been shown to decrease depression in rats, while larger quantities appear to increase it. Pain control, appetite stimulation, relief from restless leg syndrome, nausea and insomnia are currently the top five therapeutic applications for marijuana, Thompson said.

Beyond that, marijuana is effective in treating “hundreds” of ailments, he added, including cancer and AIDS, and as an anti-spasmodic for those living with epilepsy and Parkinson’s.

“I’ve spent about a million dollars to control my skin cancer,” said Mike McShane of Ferndale. “I’ve had surgeries, chemo and radiation — but it always comes back. I heard (marijuana) oil was effective, so this summer I started a 10-week treatment program. Nothing has helped me more than marijuana. Everybody knows cancer doesn’t go away, it grows. Yet mine is receding.” The active ingredient in marijuana is THC. That’s short for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Within minutes of smoking pot, THC is absorbed into the body causing short-term medical effects such as rapid heart rate, increased blood pressure, red eyes, dry mouth, increased appetite and reduced reaction time, according to the Partnership for a Drug Free America. These effects remain in the system for several hours after the “euphoria” or “high” wears off, continuing to cause impairment according the PDFA. Distorted perception of reality and short-term memory lapse are the most dangerous side effects, said Kevin Friedrich, prevention and community programs director for Community Assessment Referral and Education in Fraser. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, marijuana, “pot,” “weed,” or “herb,” which comes from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, is the most frequently used illegal drug in America. About 4 percent of adults here smoke pot at least once a year. Roughly 1 percent of them abuse pot and one in 300 are addicted, according to the Partnership for a Drug Free America. Though the rate of marijuana smoking in adults has remained constant since the 1990s, recent government studies show 30 percent of today’s teenagers are smoking pot. Friedrich is not surprised.

“After the medical marijuana law was passed, youth begin to generally view it as less harmful,” Friedrich said. “It’s proven: When the perception of risk declines, use increases. And current surveys show youth perceive smoking cigarettes as more dangerous than smoking marijuana.”

With the long-term mental impairments side effects of smoking marijuana established, Friedrich called the thought of drugged driving in youth, “scary”; one of the biggest long-term effects is lung cancer. “Smoking cigarettes is extremely harmful to the body,” Friedrich said. “It stands to reason that smoking marijuana would be at least as harmful; 90 percent of marijuana is smoked.” Marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Similarly, the Partnership for a Drug Free American reports “studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes a day.” “At this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy,” said Federal DEA administrator Michelle Leonhart. With these risks and benefits in mind, does the federal government have the right to prevent those suffering from chronic pain, disability or terminal illness from exploring every possible solution, despite the potentially dangerous side effects? Rick Thompson, and others like him, says no.

“Many people can’t afford prescription drugs,” Thompson said. “We need to add alternatives to the pharmaceutical model. The citizens of this country should not have to wait another day for effective and affordable, medicinal therapies that could save their lives.”

####

By MARYANNE KOCIS MACLEOD

4 Americans get pot from U.S. government

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:06:55 GMT

EUGENE, Ore. (AP) – Sometime after midnight on a moonlit rural Oregon highway, a state trooper checking a car he had just pulled over found less than an ounce of pot on one passenger: A chatty 72-year-old woman blind in one eye.

By Don Ryan, AP

Glaucoma patient Elvy Musikka, 72, lights a marijuana cigarette on Tuesday, one of many she regularly receives from the U.S. government, at her home in Eugene, Ore.

By Don Ryan, AP

Glaucoma patient Elvy Musikka, 72, lights a marijuana cigarette on Tuesday, one of many she regularly receives from the U.S. government, at her home in Eugene, Ore.

She insisted the weed was legal and was approved by the U.S. government.

The trooper and his supervisor were doubtful. But after a series of calls to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Drug Enforcement Agency and her physician, the troopers handed her back the card — and her pot.

For the past three decades, Uncle Sam has been providing a handful of patients with some of the highest grade marijuana around. The program grew out of a 1976 court settlement that created the country’s first legal pot smoker.

Advocates for legalizing marijuana or treating it as a medicine say the program is a glaring contradiction in the nation’s 40-year war on drugs — maintaining the federal ban on pot while at the same time supplying it.

Government officials say there is no contradiction. The program is no longer accepting new patients, and public health authorities have concluded that there was no scientific value to it, Steven Gust of the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse told The Associated Press.

At one point, 14 people were getting government pot. Now, there are four left.

The government has only continued to supply the marijuana “for compassionate reasons,” Gust said.

One of the recipients is Elvy Musikka, the chatty Oregon woman. A vocal marijuana advocate, Musikka relies on the pot to keep her glaucoma under control. She entered the program in 1988, and said that her experience with marijuana is proof that it works as a medicine.

They “won’t acknowledge the fact that I do not have even one aspirin in this house,” she said, leaning back on her couch, glass bong cradled in her hand. “I have no pain.”

Marijuana is getting a look from states around the country considering calls to repeal decades-old marijuana prohibition laws. There are 16 states that have medical marijuana programs. In the three West Coast states, advocates are readying tax-and-sell or other legalization programs.

Marijuana was legal for much of U.S. history and was recognized as a medicine in 1850. Opposition to it began to gather and, by 1936, 48 states had passed laws regulating pot, fearing it could lead to addiction.

Anti-marijuana literature and films, like the infamous “Reefer Madness,” helped fan those fears. Eventually, pot was classified among the most harmful of drugs, meaning it had no usefulness and a high potential for addiction.

In 1976, a federal judge ruled that the Food and Drug Administration must provide Robert Randall of Washington, D.C. with marijuana because of his glaucoma — no other drug could effectively combat his condition. Randall became the nation’s first legal pot smoker since the drug’s prohibition.

Eventually, the government created its program as part of a compromise over Randall’s care in 1978, long before a single state passed a medical marijuana law. What followed were a series of petitions from people like Musikka to join the program.

President George H.W. Bush’s administration, getting tough on crime and drugs, stopped accepting new patients in 1992. Many of the patients who had qualified had AIDS, and they were dying.

The AP asked the agency that administers the program, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, for documents showing how much marijuana has been sent to patients since the first patient in 1976.

The agency supplied full data for 2005-2011, which showed that during that period the federal government distributed more than 100 pounds of high-grade marijuana to patients.

Agency officials said records related to the program before 2005 had been destroyed, but were able to provide scattered records for a couple of years in the early 2000s.

The four patients remaining in the program estimate they have received a total of 584 pounds from the federal government over the years. On the street, that would be worth more than $500,000.

All of the marijuana comes from the University of Mississippi, where it is grown, harvested and stored.

Dr. Mahmoud ElSohly, who directs the operation, said the marijuana was a small part of the crop the university has been growing since 1968 for all cannabis research in the U.S. Among the studies are the pharmaceutical uses for synthetic mimics of pot’s psychoactive ingredient, THC.

ElSohly said the four patients are getting pot with about 3 percent THC. He said 3 percent is about the range patients have preferred in blind tests.

The marijuana is then sent from Mississippi to a tightly controlled North Carolina lab, where they are rolled into cigarettes. And every month, steel tins with white labels are sent to Florida and Iowa. Packed inside each is a half-pound of marijuana rolled into 300 perfectly-wrapped joints.

With Musikka living in Oregon, she is entitled to more legal pot than anyone in the nation because she’s also enrolled in the state’s medical marijuana program. Neither Iowa nor Florida has approved marijuana as a medicine, so the federal pot is the only legal access to the drug for the other three patients.

The three other people in the program range in ages and doses of marijuana provided to them, but all consider themselves an endangered species that, once extinct, can be brushed aside by a federal government that pretends they don’t exist.

All four have become crusaders for the marijuana-legalization movement. They’re rock stars at pro-marijuana conferences, sought-after speakers and recognizable celebrities in the movement.

Irv Rosenfeld, a financial adviser in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., has been in the program since November 1982. His condition produces painful bone tumors, but he said marijuana has replaced prescription painkillers.

Rosenfeld likes to tell this story: In the mid-1980s, the federal government asked his doctor for an update on how Rosenfeld was doing. It was an update the doctor didn’t believe the government was truly interested in. He had earlier tried to get a copy of the previous update, and was told the government couldn’t find it, Rosenfeld said.

So instead of filling out the form, the doctor responded with a simple sentence written in large, red letters: “It’s working.”

###

Industrial hemp bill close to becoming legal

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:47:07 GMT

A bill that would make it legal for some California farmers to grow and sell industrial hemp is a signature away from taking effect. The bill is controversial because hemp and marijuana look nearly the same and the two are the same plant species.

Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood supports the bill and says harvesting hemp would be a good thing for Kern farmers and our economy but he admits it could make it difficult to monitor and differentiate between fields of marijuana and hemp, especially from the air.

From milk to body wash, hemp products aren’t hard to find in stores. Soon, hemp used to manufacture these goods could be growing in Kern County fields. “This particular bill would help Kern County. It’s a product that can be grown and used in agriculture,” said Sheriff Youngblood. “It’s used in all different kinds of products right now.”

Senate bill 676 creates a pilot program allowing for the cultivation of industrial hemp in Kern County and three other California counties - Imperial, Kings, and San Joaquin. “I don’t know of anyone who really wants to grow it,” said Don Davis, current president of Kern’s Farm Bureau. He says hemp has a reputation problem, but overall, farmers support the bill. “A lot of the groups that are for legalizing marijuana are for this bill. We’re on the same side for completely different reasons.” Davis says farmers want freedom to choose what to grow.

According to SB 676, hemp has less THC than marijuana. THC is the chemical that gets people high. The DEA says that doesn’t matter. The agency classifies hemp the same as marijuana. “Everyone is afraid because it looks like marijuana, that there’s illicit uses for it. If there are, I’m not aware. I’ve done my research,” said Sheriff Youngblood.

As the county crackdowns on marijuana grows, hemp, marijuana’s seed sibling is making headway. Governor Jerry Brown has until October 9th to make a decision on hundreds of bills, including this one.

###

Town residents: medical marijuana reeks - Roy, NM

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:05:05 GMT

Reporter: Kim Holland

ROY, N.M. (KRQE) - It’s harvest time and the strong odor hovers over parts of this tiny town like a noxious haze.

It penetrates residents’ houses, clothes and cars and is causing most of the 200 people who live in Roy on the high plains east of Wagon Mound to raise their eyebrows and turn up their noses.

A potent crop of marijuana is behind olfactory offenses – 150 plants worth, in fact – and it is growing in a greenhouse and another building smack dab in the middle of town. And because it’s officially licensed medical marijuana, the state not only knows about it, officials are on board with it.

“Oh man, it’s hard to take that, you know what I mean?” said the 68-year-old man who lives directly behind the crop and asked to remain anonymous. “(My granddaughter) said, ‘You know grandpa, there’s a funny smell.’”

He and other neighbors said they deal with the stench almost every day. A News 13 reporter and photographer smelled the strong marijuana odor as soon they opened their car door on a recent visit.

“Everyone knows about the marijuana house,” said Gene Hubersberger, another neighbor.

Mario Gonzales – the grower who owns a company called “Budding Hope” – said the plants are almost fully mature, which means they are at their most fragrant.

“They are smelling the flower, the bud, (which is) similar to wildflowers you smell in a field on a certain early morning,” Gonzales said.

And while residents may have had enough of the odor, there’s nothing in state law that says marijuana growers have to mitigate the stink.

Still, the Department of Health would prefer that growers keep the odor to a minimum, said Dominick Zurlo, who works with the medical cannabis program. And it’s less because neighbors are complaining than because criminals might recognize the smell, he said.

“It’s not a requirement, but it’s a big suggestion because it’s really part of what protects them from other people knowing where they may be,” Zurlo said.

He also said the health department has never received a complaint about an odor coming from a state marijuana grower. However, most of the state approved marijuana is grown in rural areas, not in the middle of a community like the property in Roy.

“One of the things we do look at with the proposals is we do look to see what kind of filtration systems will the producers have,” Zurlo said.

Gonzales said he has purchased carbon filters that are supposed to installed on the back of the exhaust fans. However, they haven’t yet been put into place, he said.

He also said he has “an extensive security system in place” to guard against thieves.

State officials plan to visit the facility to make sure it’s in compliance with the law.

The state has approved 25 producers to grow medical marijuana in New Mexico for patients, while more than 2,000 people are approved to grow it for personal use.

###

Nevada’s medical marijuana situation is an unclear mess

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:55:41 GMT

Patrick Coolican

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 (5:29 p.m.)

No seed for you: In Nevada, you can grow medicinal weed, but you are not allowed to have the seeds in your possession. Uh …

Photo: Steve Marcus

Nevada’s medical marijuana statute is a cruel farce, like a dark Kafka story for those in need of weed.

Passed by voters in 2000 as section 38 of Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution, the measure called on the Legislature to approve “appropriate methods for supply of the plant to patients authorized to use it.”

Shocking: The Legislature largely ignored the mandate and told patients and caregivers to more or less fend for themselves.

So as it stands now, dispensaries are illegal, and even though you can grow your own plants, you may not possess the seeds to grow them.

Patients and patient, um, advocates, have tested the law by opening large-volume “co-ops” and nonprofit dispensaries. In retrospect, it was probably foolish, as both local and federal law enforcement have cracked down.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced in 2009 he would stop prosecutions of medical marijuana in states where it is legal, though the order was confused by a second one from his deputy David Ogden, who said the feds would prosecute growers and sellers who go big.

After all the arrests this year, here and in other states, medical marijuana advocates asked for some clarity, but Holder has yet to offer it.

No doubt Holder is thinking that the last thing President Obama needs is another moniker—“dope fiend abettor of the Mexican drug war”—to add to “America-hating Muslim socialist.”

On the local front, the medical marijuana community scored a victory recently when Judge Donald Mosley—whose reputation is hardly that of Louis Brandeis—dismissed a grand jury indictment against Leonard Schwingdorf of Sin City Co-Op (poor choice of name, kids!). The judge ordered the dismissal because the jury didn’t see exculpatory evidence that showed the pot wasn’t for sale and that a donation wasn’t required.

Robert Draskovich, Schwingdorf’s attorney, is a libertarian who was feeling the indignation when I talked to him: “They prosecuted cases that they shouldn’t be prosecuting, and then they broke the rules.”

Separately, the judge also questioned the law’s “you can smoke it but you can’t own it” ambiguity: “I’m looking at it thinking I can’t make any sense out of this law,” he said, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

I’m torn. On the one hand, I don’t want to see anyone suffer, so the Legislature should create regulations, as they have in other states, to enable patients to get their pot.

On the other hand, there’s a reason, back to Upton Sinclair and The Jungle, that the federal government regulates food and drugs. And I want the feds to maintain that primacy because they have the resources and can set national standards. What if I said to you, “Oh, I’ve got this awesome Aspirin substitute. No side effects. Great pain relief.” Would you really want Nevada to decide if it were safe and effective? Wouldn’t you kind of want it to be tested and regulated by the FDA, imperfect as that agency is?

Of course, while some will deny it, there’s no question that medical marijuana advocates were savvy enough to realize that if they could use the states and suffering patients to create a sweet-smelling smoke screen, swaths of the country would barrel right through that drug war brigade.

It hasn’t happened here in Nevada, but go to Venice Beach in California and you’ll see what I mean. It might as well be Amsterdam: Your medical marijuana card and your high-quality bud, right in the same place, right near the drum circle on the beach.

The problem is that it has also created a mostly unregulated market prone to thuggishness and unsafe and unstable working and cultivating conditions for growers, their workers and their weed.

The real answer, of course, is not the shortcut approach we’re using with medical marijuana, however effective it has been in creating national dialogue.

It’s time for a frank discussion here in Nevada and around the country about the failure of the drug war and especially the quixotic but still destructive war on pot, medicinal and not.

Obama can’t run on the economy, so maybe this is his winning issue.

###

J. Patrick Coolican is a columnist for the Las Vegas Sun. Follow him on Twitter @jpcoolican or email him at patrick.coolican@lasvegassun.com. His Neon Eden radio show airs Tuesdays at 5:30 p.m. on 91.5 FM.

Pot Group Files Signatures for Second Time in Push for Medical Marijuana Ballot Issue

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:10:20 GMT

Posted by Maude L. Campbell on Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:00 AM

This probably exceeds the quantities for personal use.

Update: The Columbus Dispatch reports that Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine last week confirmed that there were at least 1,000 valid signatures in the latest batch supplied by the Ohio Coalition for Medical Compassion, a group pushing for medical marijuana to make the Ohio ballot, but that they failed in some front on the ballot language itself.

However, DeWine cited a litany of problems, including numerous provisions that were left out of the proposed ballot summary, one section that was misstated, and one item that was included that is not part of the full amendment. That is a $2 million loan for the proposed Division of Medical Cannabis Control to hire personnel, lease office space and purchase equipment.

The group can not move on to the next step of collecting over 350,000 signatures statewide until the ballot language is approved. We’re sure they’ll get right on it, just as soon as this Chappelle Show marathon on Comedy Central is done. — Grzegorek

***

It’s time once again to play “Pass That Pot Law,” Ohio’s hot new game where multiple groups vie to get medical marijuana reform on the ballot without ever talking to each other!

This week, Attorney General Mike DeWine expects to field a new stack of petitions that could set the stage for an all-out campaign to amend the Ohio constitution in favor of medical reefer. If successful, the issue would go before voters in November 2012.

The latest signatures were ponied up by backers of the Ohio Medical Cannabis Act, which would allow patients with a doctor’s prescription to possess up to seven ounces of weed and grow up to 24 pot plants.

“We are very, very confident in our signatures, and we’ve validated them to make sure they are successful,” says group spokeswoman Theresa Daniello. Only 1,000 signatures are required, but they submitted more than 2,300.

In August, another group backing a different proposal (half the pot, half the plants, twice the confusion) submitted more than 2,100 signatures — but was thwarted when DeWine deemed only 534 of them valid. That group, which supports an “Alternative Treatment Amendment,” visited an AFL-CIO picnic last week and plans to file a new petition soon.

“It was interesting, because our petitions were more popular than their own petitions,” says spokesman Rob Ryan.

Once either group slips 1,000 valid signatures past DeWine, the real chase begins: 381,000 more are needed for inclusion on the ballot.

Ohio medical marijuana ballot language rejected

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:04:43 GMT

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine says a group wanting to legalize medical marijuana has enough petition signatures but failed to properly summarize ballot language in its initial effort toward putting the idea before voters.

The Columbus Dispatch reports (http://bit.ly/mZFSPP) DeWine last week rejected the 2012 ballot proposal by the Ohio Coalition for Medical Compassion. The constitutional amendment would require a prescription for marijuana purchases and allow those qualified to grow a limited number of plants.

An initial 1,000 signatures and approval of issue wording are required before the group can circulate additional petitions. It would then need about 385,000 valid signatures to make the ballot.

DeWine in August rejected another group’s initial effort to get a medical marijuana issue on the ballot because it did not have the required signatures.

###

The sky isn't falling - Medical Marijuana

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:59:16 GMT

By Larry Gabriel

Published: September 21, 2011

Medical marijuana activism in Michigan seems to have hit a roadblock the past few weeks in the wake of the State Appeals Court decision against Compassionate Apothecary, LLC, of Mt. Pleasant. After that ruling, hundreds of so-called dispensaries shut down and there were raids in Ann Arbor, arrests in Oak Park and the bust of a grow operation in Detroit.

All in all it had the look, at least in the media, of a massive crackdown that struck fear in the hearts of marijuana users across the state. But a closer look shows that the blanket tossed out by State Attorney General Bill Schuette may not be quashing so much as it seemed in the medical marijuana world. For example, the People’s Choice alternative medicine center in Ann Arbor is still doing business right across the street from Michigan Stadium

“The ruling said you can’t sell marijuana,” says Harry Cayce, a medical marijuana patient, caregiver and partner at People’s Choice. “As a compassion club we don’t sell things; we take donations.”

However, while the People’s Choice and other facilities in the area stay open, two other places in Ann Arbor, Med Mar and A2 Go Green Corp, were raided the day after the Appeals Court decision. State police, who conducted the raids, say they had nothing to do with the court decision. No one had been charged by press time so it’s hard to tell what will come of those actions.

The next cases are the arrest and charges against four people associated with Big Daddy’s in Oak Park. Big Daddy’s was originally raided in January but not shut down; the charges and arrests came in August. The actual arrests may have been held back until prosecutors saw which way the courts were going to go on the issue, but attorney Paul Tylenda, who represents the folks charged from the Big Daddy’s raid, says the charges were dated before the appeals court decision.

The timing could be coincidental, but medical marijuana activists say it points to collusion between the court and prosecutors — that prosecutors knew what the court was going to rule before the decision was announced to the public. I don’t know that was the case, but the bottom line is that this was in the works long before the court decision. Also, the defendants have not had their day in court yet and it could be that they’ll be are exonerated. In the meantime, Big Daddy’s, which has four locations in other cities, has closed down its Oak Park facility.

The third incident, the bust of a growing facility with 12,000 plants on Detroit’s east side, had nothing to do with medical marijuana, dispensaries or sales. It was the straight up bust of an illegal grow facility. Police say the street value of the weed confiscated is $15 million, that may be slightly inflated but it’s in the ballpark. That’s a pretty good return on a building that owners bought for $1,000 from the city. News reports say the building was bought by Matt Tatarian of Beverly Hills and his now ex-wife. So far Tatarian is not among those who have been charged in the bust. That could change at any time. It took several months before anybody at Big Daddy’s was charged after a January raid. However, the $15 million value does point to the fact that this was a major operation.

Also last week, an Oakland County co-op grow facility was raided and police took about 500 plants from two buildings that each had 17 separate grow rooms. A police spokesman told the Morning Sun, a Mt. Pleasant-based newspaper, they are investigating whether growers were in violation of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. Again, no one has yet been formally charged, but as we found out in a Lansing-area case last year, group growing facilities are not looked upon with favor even for registered patients and caregivers.

And when you add up the legal actions, the well-publicized events change little for most of the 100,000 medical marijuana patients in Michigan or for stores selling grow equipment or most compassion clubs that are not in Oakland County, although some patients have been inconvenienced. Cayce says that one woman who used to go to Big Daddy’s now drives from Sterling Heights to People’s Choice in Ann Arbor to get her medication.

Trans Love Energies in Detroit, which is co-owned by Holice P. Wood and John Sinclair, who writes this column on alternate weeks, is another facility that has stayed in operation since the court decision.

“No, we’re not doing anything different,” says Wood. “Within the first couple of months we hit our stride with the model that we thought would work. We’re a private club. We do not consider ourselves a dispensary. You will not find jars of marijuana here. We don’t have advertising out there on the best buds. It’s a comfortable place for people to come and medicate. Some people do not have living arrangements where they can medicate. We’ll provide transportation. It’s a private locked-door facility. The MMMA says you can medicate on private property. It’s not a 7-11.”

There are still a lot of places open, and more folks are reopening after consulting with their lawyers. That may be more difficult if you are located in Oakland County, but other places don’t seem to be a problem. The Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city councils are moving forward with plans to zone and regulate medical marijuana facilities.

“We’re open every day except football Saturdays because we’re right across the street from the Big House,” says Cayce. “It’s a madhouse on those days. We’re in the process of moving because we’re not in the zone that the city says. There are several zones that we can go into. They’re electing a panel of five to oversee medical marijuana facilities — three patients, a doctor, and a city council member. Ann Arbor seems to be moving forward.”

Advocates encourage patients and supporters to contact their state representatives about support for medical marijuana. Make appointments to speak to them when they are at their home offices, call and write letters. Don’t show up en masse and unannounced. And above all else, patients and caregivers should stay strictly within the provisions of the MMMA.

“Probably everybody is back open now with the exception of Oakland County and probably Ingham County,” says Wood. “The rumor mill is that most people are back open. The guys that I talk to say, ‘If they want to raid us, let them go ahead and raid us.’ With the model that we have, you can’t raid us just because you’re suspicious. As long as you have a hard card and pay your membership fee, club privileges are open to you. We don’t break any laws. We don’t make parking lot deals. I don’t have that much available in my place. Are you able to get compassionate care there? Absolutely, that’s what we are.”

Things may have taken a step backward in Michigan but that seems contrary to national trends. Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, points out that some states have responded differently than Michigan Attorney General Schuette to the memo regarding medical marijuana from federal Assistant Attorney General James Cole to state attorneys general.

“Other politicians in the country got the same memo. … The Vermont governor signed a bill moving them toward a system of regulation. Maine, they usually don’t care what the feds say. They said we’re going to have our dispensaries and tax them. Gov. Christie in New Jersey has even signed off on a program that has effectively told the federal government to go ‘F’ themselves.”

####

> Email Larry Gabriel

Rand study finds less crime near pot dispensaries

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:52:43 GMT

By John Hoeffel, Los Angeles Times

September 21, 2011

Medical marijuana dispensaries — with storerooms of high-priced weed, registers brimming with cash and some clientele more interested in getting high than getting well — are often seen as magnets for crime, a perception deepened by a few high-profile murders.

But a report from the Rand Corp. reaches a startling conclusion: The opposite appears to be true.

In a study of crime near Los Angeles dispensaries — which the investigators call the most rigorous independent examination of its kind — the Santa Monica-based think tank found that crime actually increased near hundreds of pot shops after they were required to close last summer.

“What I would take away from it is maybe there should just be a little bit less fear about having dispensaries,” said Mireille Jacobson, a health economist who was the lead researcher. “Hopefully, this injects a little bit of science into the discussion.”

The researchers compared the 10 days before the city’s medical marijuana ordinance took effect June 7, 2010, with the 10 days after, when many of the more than 400 illegal dispensaries shut down — if only briefly.

They found a 59% increase in crime within three-tenths of a mile of a closed dispensary compared to an open one and a 24% increase within six-tenths of a mile.

The city attorney’s office, which has argued in court proceedings that the number of dispensaries needs to be reduced to deal with “well-documented crime,” called the report’s conclusions “highly suspect and unreliable,” saying that they were based on “faulty assumptions, conjecture, irrelevant data, untested measurements and incomplete results.”

In particular, the office challenged the idea that most dispensaries closed June 7, 2010, and were not open for at least 10 days. And it offered its own conjecture for the rise in crime: infighting among collective members, increased traffic for pot fire sales and customers disgruntled to find their dispensary closed.

Jacobson said Rand did not assume dispensaries shut down exactly on that date and said that, if more of them closed earlier or later, it would mean only that crime increased more than the report found.

The researchers acknowledge that the results are subject to a large margin of error, so the increase in crime within less than a third of a mile could range from as low as 5.4% to as high as 114%.

“These are noisy data over a short period of time,” Jacobson said. But she noted that the numbers, which were subjected to complex statistical analyses, clearly show crime increased.

The researchers did not try to draw conclusions on why crime increased, but offered the hypothesis that dispensaries may heighten security in the areas around them because they employ cameras and guards, increase late-night foot traffic, replace illicit street sales and draw heavier police patrols.

In a review of crime statistics from 2009 ordered by Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, the LAPD found that banks were much more likely to be robbed than dispensaries.

Cmdr. Andrew Smith, a department spokesman, said the LAPD had not yet reviewed the report, but would do so.

The Rand report notes that police departments in Denver and Colorado Springs, Colo., also studied crime around dispensaries and found no evidence that they attracted crime.

None of this surprises dispensary owners or their lawyers, who note that their surveillance records are sometimes requested by police to investigate crimes unrelated to selling marijuana.

“It’s some empirical evidence that demonstrates that the security measures that make it safe for patients to obtain their medical marijuana also serve the community,” said David Welch, a lawyer who has represented many Los Angeles dispensaries.

Yamileth Bolanos, who runs PureLife Alternative Wellness Center on South La Cienega Boulevard and also is president of the Greater Los Angeles Collectives Alliance, said, “I know that there’s no crime around here. We watch everything.”

But Steve Whitmore, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, strenuously disagreed with the report’s conclusions.

“Every time we shut down a dispensary, the crime and the disorder decrease,” he said.

The report looks at such crimes as thefts and assaults, but not “disorder,” nuisances such as loitering, double parking, loud noises and graffiti that sparked anger among neighborhood activists. Whitmore said those complaints are often what causes the department to act.

Eagle Rock, which has about a dozen dispensaries, has long been one of the city’s pot hot spots.

Michael Larsen, president of the neighborhood council, said he only knows of one dispensary-related crime — an armed robbery — but has heard countless complaints from irritated neighbors.

He said most of the dispensaries that initially closed last summer have reopened, defying the city.

“Our main concern is the crime of illegal dispensaries illegally selling marijuana,” Larsen said. “That’s the crime that we’re concerned about.”

###

john.hoeffel@latimes.com

Santa Cruz Guide: Pot Cards

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:31:51 GMT

We won’t ask why you’re thinking about getting your medical marijuana card. We’re not here to judge. Here’s our list of a few things to keep in mind, though, before you let your biology books and daily planner disappear into a plume of pungent smoke.

Will This Go on Your Permanent Record? Nope. Right now there is no searchable database for bosses and enemies to leaf through in an attempt try to destroy your reputation. Although Senate Bill 420—which passed in 2003—was supposed to establish a central registry and patient database, no one ever got around to it. So for now, just don’t fumble your club card out of your wallet when you show the HR gal your driver’s license on your first day of work.

Feds Ain’t All Chill The Drug Enforcement Agency isn’t buying into this “medical” stuff. The DEA still lists pot as a Schedule I narcotic (like heroin or methamphetamine). The agency refused to reclassify the drug in July, saying marijuana has no accepted medical value. This year, DEA has conducted dispensary busts and raids in Helena, Montana, West Hollywood and Oakland. Even the Justice Department has backtracked since a 2009 memo that said it wouldn’t pursue medical pot cases. In its latest marijuana memo, the justice department said patients are still safe, but large-scale clubs and growers might not be.

Help Yourself If You Dare Medical grade pot is different from a typical strand you might buy on the levee. It’s extra-loaded with cannabinoids like THC and CBD that give Mary Jane her kick. And unlike most pharmaceuticals, no stethoscope-sporting doctor will limit how much “medicine” you’ll need to alleviate your aches and pains—and help make Family Guy a little funnier. Bear that in mind if you reach for those Herbal Cruz lemon bars sitting in your fridge and start nibbling away…

Running Unregulated While both the county and city of Santa Cruz have ordinances regulating where clubs can and can’t set up shop, neither one has regulations for testing weed. While the County Board of Supervisors has flirted with the possibility of mandating testing for things like pesticides or mites, nothing is on the books yet. Marc Whitehill, who runs the Boulder Creek Collective on Highway 9, has started testing his club’s crops for potency and 13 different pesticides, but he says industry-wide requirements are a long way off.

You Really Don’t Even Need a Card While a credit card-sized piece of plastic with your name on it might help explain to the cops that you’re not doing anything illegal, California law doesn’t require that you carry one. What you’ll need is a referral. Interested patients must be 18 (or have a righteous parent willing to give their consent) and can start with a Google search for something like “medical marijuana evaluations.” Find a doctor from the listings. Show up, walk in, list your symptoms and get a note. The cost of a card is $101 through the County Health Office, which can be reached at 831.454.3431.

###

Whistle-blowers allege corruption, cartel ties

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:17:45 GMT

Two former law enforcement officers allege that they cannot get anyone to investigate allegations that the Mexican drug cartels have corrupted U.S. law officers and politicians in the El Paso border region.

Greg Gonzales, a retired Doña Ana County sheriff’s deputy, and Wesley Dutton, a rancher and former New Mexico state livestock investigator, said that instead of arrests and prosecutions of suspects, their whistle-blowing activities have resulted only in threats and retaliation against themselves.

“I lost my job for a security company at the federal courthouse in Las Cruces because I would not keep my mouth shut, and someone threatened me by holding a knife to my throat,” Gonzales said.

Dutton, a rancher in Southern New Mexico, said an election official stopped by his ranch to ask him what was it going to take for him to retract his allegations concerning the official.

Confidential sources

Both men were confidential sources for the FBI in El Paso and assisted with investigations over an 18-month period.

Gonzales and Dutton allege that the FBI dropped them after “big names” on the U.S. side of the border began to surface in the drug investigations.

FBI Special Agent Michael Martinez said that the FBI cannot comment on its former or current relationships with confidential sources.

Dutton said an FBI official who used to be in El Paso sent a memo to other law enforcement agencies in the area to dissuade them from talking to him and Gonzales or having anything to do with them.

Gonzales and Dutton said both or either one of them helped with federal investigations that were successful, including the arrest of Special FBI Agent John Shipley. Shipley was convicted of weapons-related charges after a weapon he sold someone turned up in Chihuahua state at a scene where a firefight took place between Mexican soldiers and drug traffickers.

However, they said, they are concerned that other serious allegations have not found their way to court.

Hit on agent

“One of the street gangs that works for the Juárez cartel put a hit out on FBI Special Agent Samantha Mikeska, and I told the FBI as soon as I heard about it,” Dutton said. “We also had information on campaign fundraisers and parties in La Union that the cartel held for officials from New Mexico and El Paso. A lot of important people were at those parties, such as bankers, judges, and law enforcement officers.”

Mikeska is a high-profile agent whose investigations of the Barrio Azteca gang led to prosecutions of gang leaders. The gang, which has members in West Texas and New Mexico, is linked to the Carrillo Fuentes drug cartel.

Gonzales said a U.S. law enforcement officer was suspected of selling to a street gang with Juárez drug cartel ties a list of U.S. Marshals that included their telephone numbers.

“With their number, the gang was able to ‘clone’ the agents’ cell phones and intercept their calls,” Gonzales said. “That way, they would know when one of the agents was trying to serve an arrest warrant against one of their members.”

Dutton and Gonzales said small aircraft regularly drop drug loads on ranches or other properties along the U.S.-Mexico border, and that some U.S. law officers escort the loads to the next stop.

The two whistle-blowers said that drug cartels have managed to obtain computer access codes to U.S. surveillance systems that let them see where and when Border Patrol agents are monitoring the border.

They also alleged that drug cartels have given big donations to politicians, which are unreported, to influence appointments of key law enforcement officers.

Some of these allegations were contained in a letter that Dutton provided to Gov. Rick Perry, who is seeking the Republican Party’s nomination for president in the 2012 election.

“Our office received the letter and referred it to the appropriate agency, which was the Department of Public Safety,” Josh Havens, a spokesman for the Texas governor’s office, said last Friday.

Steven McCraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety and a former FBI agent from El Paso, said last Friday that he was interested in talking to Dutton. Then, about a half-hour later, McCraw said that Dutton had no credibility.

‘Nothing there’

“We looked into it and there was nothing there,” McCraw said.

Dutton said in response, “How can they say there was nothing when they didn’t even look at what I have?”

Dutton said he has videos, telephone records, and other documents gathered over the 18 months he worked with the FBI.

“The DPS never asked to see any of it,” Dutton said.

During his work with the FBI, Dutton said the FBI asked him to accept drug shipments from Mexico through his ranching company.

“The drugs were concealed in horse saddles, and we started getting a lot of them,” Dutton said. “But the FBI kept putting me off when I asked for the money to pay the cartels for the drugs. I had to use my own funds. The FBI still owes me thousands of dollars for these out-of-pocket expenses.

“I asked the FBI for help when I started getting threats, but the only thing that happened is that everyone starting running for cover to protect their careers,” Dutton said. “One of the FBI agents said politics got in the way, and that they had to close out the investigation and end their relationship with me.”

As a state livestock investigator, Dutton made arrests like any other law enforcement officer, collaborated with sheriffs’ offices, seized drugs and investigated thefts. He also developed intelligence that drug cartels used cross-border cattle shipments to transport drugs across the border at Santa Teresa.

Zetas cartel

Dutton said other informants told him that the Zetas drug cartel has a high-level member in Las Cruces whose wife holds a non-law enforcement job in the “DA’s office,” referring to the Doña Ana County District Attorney’s Office.

The whistle-blowers also alleged that the corruption they’ve encountered includes a prominent doctor in El Paso who provides prescriptions for drugs to people who need to pass lie-detector tests.

“The FBI was provided with all this information, and I guess that’s why they’re now saying that we’re crazy,” Dutton said.

Dutton and Gonzales said their frustration over the lack of investigations has compelled them to turn to U.S. lawmakers and to Judicial Watch for help.

Judicial Watch is a conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation in Washington, D.C., which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

The organization publishes a list each year of the “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” of both major political parties.

Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch research director, confirmed that Dutton has been in contact with his office.

“These are very serious allegations that should be investigated by law enforcement,” Farrell said. “There are too many details and specifics to just ignore them. The threats against them (Dutton and Gonzales) also should be investigated.”

###

Diana Washington Valdez may be reached at dvaldez@elpasotimes.com; 546-6140.

Medical marijuana company leaves Oakland County after raids

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:25:41 GMT

Some of the supplies for sale by Big Daddy’s Management Group help those who grow marijuana. The company has left Oakland County. / August photo by ERIC SEALS/Detroit Free Press

BY BILL LAITNER

DETROIT FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Big Daddy’s Management Group — a big player in the medical marijuana industry — emptied the firm’s Oak Park headquarters on Thursday to leave Oakland County.

The county’s Narcotics Enforcement Team raided sites Wednesday in Commerce Township, where defense attorneys said 34 caregivers grew the drug in 34 leased and locked units.

Adding to the county’s reputation as hostile turf for medical marijuana, the action also showed ratcheting pressure statewide on medical pot.

“We’re going from five locations in the state to four” — in Chesterfield Township, Detroit, Livonia and Burton near Flint, said Big Daddy’s spokesman Rick Thompson. The move from an Oak Park industrial park involves a dozen employees, Michigan Medical Marijuana Magazine and a business that marketed indoor cultivation equipment, Thompson said.

In the Commerce Township raids of properties called Absolute Herbal Remedies, about two dozen officers burst into buildings on Ruler Drive and Welch Road, making no arrests but seizing about 500 plants and tens of thousands of dollars in growing equipment from 34 individually controlled growing rooms, defense attorneys said.

The growers were operating in strict compliance with state law, and the resulting legal cases will show that police abused their power, attorney Colin Daniels said.

“There were no sales or deliveries there,” Daniels said.

“These people relied on the section in the law that said patients’ and caregivers’ properties shall not be seized,” attorney Neil Rockind added.

But Oakland County Undersheriff Mike McCabe said the raids were approved by county prosecutors and that officers had search warrants.

“We’ve followed the law, and everything we’ve done has been upheld by the courts” in dozens of previous raids of medical marijuana sites, McCabe said.

“This has nothing to do with medical marijuana. It has to do with breaking the law and profiteering from marijuana,” he said.

####

Contact Bill Laitner: 586-826-7264 or blaitner@freepress.com

Drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in U.S., Times analysis shows

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 09:14:16 GMT

Lori Smith of Aliso Viejo with photographs of her son Nolan, who died of a drug overdose in January 2009, six months shy of his 16th birthday. A toxicology test turned up Zoloft, which had been prescribed for anxiety, and a host of other drugs that had not been prescribed, including two additional anti-anxiety drugs, as well as morphine and marijuana. (Liz O. Baylen / Los Angeles Times / September 18, 2011)

5:55 p.m. EDT, September 17, 2011

Propelled by an increase in prescription narcotic overdoses, drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in the United States, a Times analysis of government data has found.

Drugs exceeded motor vehicle accidents as a cause of death in 2009, killing at least 37,485 people nationwide, according to preliminary data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While most major causes of preventable death are declining, drugs are an exception. The death toll has doubled in the last decade, now claiming a life every 14 minutes. By contrast, traffic accidents have been dropping for decades because of huge investments in auto safety.

Public health experts have used the comparison to draw attention to the nation’s growing prescription drug problem, which they characterize as an epidemic. This is the first time that drugs have accounted for more fatalities than traffic accidents since the government started tracking drug-induced deaths in 1979.

Fueling the surge in deaths are prescription pain and anxiety drugs that are potent, highly addictive and especially dangerous when combined with one another or with other drugs or alcohol. Among the most commonly abused are OxyContin, Vicodin, Xanax and Soma. One relative newcomer to the scene is Fentanyl, a painkiller that comes in the form of patches and lollipops and is 100 times more powerful than morphine.

Such drugs now cause more deaths than heroin and cocaine combined. “The problem is right here under our noses in our medicine cabinets,” said Laz Salinas, a sheriff’s commander in Santa Barbara, which has seen a dramatic rise in prescription drug deaths in recent years. Overdose victims range in age and circumstance from teenagers who pop pills to get a heroin-like high to middle-aged working men and women who take medications prescribed for strained backs and bum knees and become addicted.

A review of hundreds of autopsy reports in Southern California reveals one tragic demise after another: A 19-year-old Army recruit, who had just passed his military physical, took a handful of Xanax and painkillers while partying with friends. A groom, anxious over his upcoming wedding, overdosed on a cocktail of prescription drugs. A teenage honors student overdosed on painkillers her father left in his medicine cabinet from a surgery years earlier. A toddler was orphaned after both parents overdosed on prescription drugs months apart. A grandmother suffering from chronic back pain apparently forgot she’d already taken her daily regimen of pills and ended up double dosing. Many died after failed attempts at rehab — or after using one too many times while contemplating quitting. That’s apparently what happened to a San Diego woman found dead with a Fentanyl patch on her body, one of five she’d applied in the 24 hours before her death. Next to her on the couch was a notebook with information about rehab.

The seeds of the problem were planted more than a decade ago by well-meaning efforts by doctors to mitigate suffering, as well as aggressive sales campaigns by pharmaceutical manufacturers. In hindsight, the liberalized prescription of pain drugs “may in fact be the cause of the epidemic we’re now facing,” said Linda Rosenstock, dean of the UCLA School of Public Health. In some ways, prescription drugs are more dangerous than illicit ones because users don’t have their guard up, said Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Sgt. Steve Opferman, head of a county task force on prescription drug-related crimes. “People feel they are safer with prescription drugs because you get them from a pharmacy and they are prescribed by a doctor,” Opferman said. “Younger people believe they are safer because they see their parents taking them. It doesn’t have the same stigma as using street narcotics.”

Lori Smith said she believes that’s what her son might have been thinking the night he died six months shy of his 16th birthday. Nolan Smith, of Aliso Viejo, loved to surf, sail and fish with his brother and father. He suffered from migraines and anxiety but showed no signs of drug abuse, his mother said. The night before he died in January 2009, Nolan called his mother at work, asking for a ride to the girls basketball game at Aliso Niguel High School. Lori told him she couldn’t get away. When Nolan didn’t come home that evening, his parents called police and his friends. His body was found the next morning on a stranger’s front porch. A toxicology test turned up Zoloft, which had been prescribed for anxiety, and a host of other drugs that had not been prescribed, including two additional anti-anxiety drugs, as well as morphine and marijuana. All investigators could give the family were theories. “They said they will have parties where the kids will throw a bunch of pills in a bowl and the kids take them without knowing what they are,” Lori said. “We called all of his friends, but no one would say they were with him. But he must have been with someone. You just don’t do that by yourself.” The triumph of public health policies that have improved traffic safety over the years through the use of seat belts, air bags and other measures stands in stark contrast to the nation’s record on prescription drugs. Even though more people are driving more miles, traffic fatalities have dropped by more than a third since the early 1970s to 36,284 in 2009. Drug-induced deaths had equaled or surpassed traffic fatalities in California, 22 other states and the District of Columbia even before the 2009 figures revealed the shift at the national level, according to the Times analysis. The Centers for Disease Control collects data on all causes of death each year and analyzes them to identify health problems. Drug-induced deaths are mostly accidental overdoses but also include suicides and fatal diseases caused by drugs. The CDC’s 2009 statistics are the agency’s most current. They are considered preliminary because they reflect 96% of death certificates filed. The remaining are deaths for which the causes were not immediately clear. Drug fatalities more than doubled among teens and young adults between 2000 and 2008, years for which more detailed data are available. Deaths more than tripled among people aged 50 to 69, the Times analysis found. In terms of sheer numbers, the death toll is highest among people in their 40s. Overdose deaths involving prescription painkillers, including OxyContin and Vicodin, and anti-anxiety drugs such as Valium and Xanax more than tripled between 2000 and 2008. The rise in deaths corresponds with doctors prescribing more painkillers and anti-anxiety medications. The number of prescriptions for the strongest pain pills filled at California pharmacies, for instance, increased more than 43% since 2007 — and the doses grew by even more, nearly 50%, according to a review of prescribing data collected by the state. Those prescriptions provide relief to pain sufferers but also fuel a thriving black market. Prescription drugs are traded on Internet chat rooms that buzz with offers of “vikes,” “percs” and “oxys” for $10 to $80 a pill. They are sold on street corners along with heroin, marijuana and crack. An addiction to prescription drugs can be costly; a heavy OxyContin habit can run twice as much as a heroin addiction, authorities say. On a recent weekday morning, Los Angeles County undercover sheriff’s deputies posing as drug buyers easily purchased enough pills to fill a medicine cabinet on a sidewalk a few blocks south of Los Angeles City Hall.

The most commonly abused prescription drug, hydrocodone, also is the most widely prescribed drug in America, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. Better known as Vicodin, the pain reliever is prescribed more often than the top cholesterol drug and the top antibiotic. “We have an insatiable appetite for this drug — insatiable,” Joseph T. Rannazzisi, a top DEA administrator, told a group of pharmacists at a regulatory meeting in Sacramento.

In April, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy announced initiatives aimed at stanching prescription drug abuse. The plans include a series of drug take-back days, modeled after similar programs involving weapons, in which consumers are encouraged to turn leftover prescription drugs in to authorities. Another initiative would develop voluntary courses to train physicians on how to safely prescribe pain drugs, a curriculum that is not widely taught in medical schools.

Initial attempts to reverse the trend in drug deaths — such as state-run prescription drug-monitoring programs aimed at thwarting “doctor-shopping” addicts — don’t appear to be having much effect, experts say.

“What’s really scary is we don’t know a lot about how to reduce prescription deaths,” said Amy S.B. Bohnert, a researcher at the University of Michigan Medical School who is studying ways to lower the risk of prescription drugs. “It’s a wonderful medical advancement that we can treat pain,” Bohnert said. “But we haven’t figured out the safety belt yet.”

lisa.girion@latimes.com

scott.glover@latimes.com

doug.smith@latimes.com

###

Marijuana charge halts education

Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:42:09 GMT

Posted: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 6:28 pm

Freedom and education are at risk for a former Chico State student as he continues to struggle with a court case involving medical marijuana more than a year after his arrest.

On May 1, 2010, Michael Visgilio was arrested at his residence at 317 Ivy St. and charged with possession of marijuana with intent to sell and violation of probation.

Following his arrest, Visgilio, then a senior at Chico State, faced prosecution from Butte County and consequences from Chico State Student Judicial Affairs.

“I was kicked out - permanently banned - from CSU Chico,” Visgilio wrote in an email. “Not only am I banned from ever returning to school at Chico, I was suspended from all CSUs for a year.”

There is a California code regulation that university students must adhere to, said Connie Huyck, Chico State Student Judicial Affairs interim director.

Regulation number nine states that use, possession, manufacture or distribution of illegal drugs or drug-related paraphernalia, or the misuse of legal pharmaceutical drugs can result in expulsion from the California State University system, Huyck said.

At the time of his arrest, Visgilio was on probation after being convicted of receiving stolen property, Chico police Sgt. Rob Merrifield said. His person and residence was therefore subject to search at anytime.

Chico police officers entered Visgilio’s house to complete a routine probation check, Merrifield said.

During their search they found three glass jars with marijuana, two digital scales, numerous zip lock baggies on the floor, plastic wrap and evidence of multiple conversations with several people related to the sales of marijuana, Merrifield said.

Detectives found 4.4 ounces of processed marijuana at Visgilio’s residence during the probation search, according to a Chico Police Department press release.

Visgilio had a doctor’s recommendation for medicinal marijuana use per Proposition 215.

“According to Prop. 215, in Butte County I was allowed to possess 16 ounces of marijuana,” Visgilio said.

Although Visgilio had the right to possession, that doesn’t mean he was following the law, Merrifield said.

“We know that people are abusing the 215 recommendations,” he said. “People are getting them for reasons that are not consistent with how that law was intended and using their 215 recommendations to grow and obtain marijuana and then provide it to other people.”

Visgilio has spent more than a year fighting his case in court, which has cost his family and the state of California thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of time, he said.

The district attorney’s only solution is for Visgilio to plead guilty to a felony, Visgilio said.

Since his arrest, Visgilio said he has re-enrolled in school and maintained a steady job at an upscale restaurant where he has received a promotion and continues to work.

“I am a 22-year-old who just wants to put this past behind him and get on with his life,” Visgilio said. “To have a felony added to my record and to potentially have to drop out of school and quit my job to go to jail for 4 ounces of marijuana sounds extremely harsh considering what I have already been through.”

###

Juniper Rose can be reached at

jrose@theorion.com

The collegiate drug hypocrisy

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:02:49 GMT

By David Sirota

iStockphoto/PeskyMonkey

In the firmament of celebrated Americana, there is Mom, apple pie, football and beer — but there most certainly is not marijuana. As it relates to drugs, this bizarre culture has us implicitly accepting that people will inevitably use mind-altering substances. But through our statutes, we allow law-abiding citizens to use only one recreational substance — alcohol — that just happens to be way more hazardous than pot.

Such idiocy is the product of many variables. There’s been interest-group maneuvering and temperance-movement hypocrisy. There’s been hippie-hating rage and reefer-madness paranoia. And, most invisibly, there’s been college.

Though little noticed for its role in America’s selective War on Drugs, the university system has now become a key player shotgunning the oxymoronic “alcohol is acceptable but pot is evil” mentality down the beer-bong-primed throats of America’s youth. To see how it all works, consider the University of Colorado.

Both figuratively and literally immersed in alcohol, CU is the higher education gem of a state whose governor famously made his millions on beer breweries. Today, the school’s catering service sells alcohol and university officials license CU’s logo for use on beer-drinking merchandise. Meanwhile, every school year, CU forces kids to sit through a convocation in a beer-themed arena — the Coors Events Center — to learn about the “meaning and responsibilities” of student life.

Not surprisingly, CU now has a binge-drinking problem, as evidenced by last week’s news that another of its students died after a night of heavy imbibing.

This headline-grabbing tragedy — CU’s second such fatality in less than a decade — is but one of the 600,000 alcohol-related student injuries each year, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. But because (like other schools) CU is intertwined with alcohol culture, the university has danced around the issue — simultaneously acknowledging the problem and not doing much about it.

“[Alcohol] is the cause or primary factor in [a majority] of suicides, unintentional deaths, physical injuries, distressed personal relationships, legal problems, sexual assault, property damage and academic failure,” admitted CU’s assistant vice chancellor Donald Misch in 2010. Yet, Misch refrained from an abstinence message, imploring students to “drink responsibly.”

This libertarian attitude seems laudable for appreciating the fact that kids will party regardless of prohibitionist rules. However, it is counterproductive in the context of the school’s no-tolerance posture toward marijuana — a substance that has been connected to far fewer injuries and no overdoses.

In recent years, the Boulder Daily Camera newspaper reports that university regents have been looking to “crack down” on students’ unsanctioned “4/20” pro-pot protest because officials say it gives the school a “party image” — as if CU’s beer-soaked tailgating festivities don’t do that already. While students over 21 may possess alcohol in university residences, the Camera reports that “CU bans marijuana in its dorms, even if students have medical licenses.” And whereas underage drinking typically results in soft punishments from university officials, CU campus police have been increasing citations for marijuana possession, which can result in students losing financial aid.

CU, of course, embodies the norm in our universities, almost all of which have harsher penalties for marijuana possession than alcohol use. Though students at more than a dozen schools across the country recently voted for referenda demanding administrators equalize punishments, the initiatives have been ignored. Instead, school officials are fighting to instill America’s destructive drug-war mentality in the next generation.

The result is the perpetuation of a toxic ethos that encourages us to party hard, but only with a substance that is far more dangerous than marijuana.

###

About David Sirota

David Sirota is a journalist, radio host and author living in Denver, CO. His latest book is “Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live in Now.” As a contributing writer to Salon, he blogs about the intersection of politics, media and pop culture.

Medical marijuana out of reach for City man with epilepsy

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:58:16 GMT

By Tony Gicas

Tim DaGiau, who suffers from epilepsy, said marijuana was the only medication that was able to stop his numerous seizures while attending university in Colorado. Now that he’s back in New Jersey, where marijuana for medical use is not legal, his seizures have returned.

CLIFTON – A frustrated City native continues to fight a severe medical condition whose symptoms are extinguished by a natural, yet controversial, drug which he may not be able to possess legally until 2012.

Unfortunately for 23-year-old Tim DaGiau, an epileptic who has suffered from violent seizures since he was 10, that drug is marijuana and state law prohibits him from purchasing, possessing or using it while in New Jersey.

DaGiau spent a decade enduring every medical procedure and medication Western medicine had to offer. He tried 12 different medications and underwent two brain surgeries. Both avenues, he said, ended in failure and the last surgery left DaGiau paralyzed on his left side for several months.

It was not until his senior year in high school, as an 18-year-old, that he tried to treat his condition utilizing marijuana, a method which he used regularly while attending college in a state which granted medical marijuana use.

“My seizure patterns diminished to nearly zero - a reduction from about 15 per month - and I turned around my life,” he said. “The absence of social anxiety allowed for me to become heavily involved and assertive.”

Sixteen states have legalized the use of medical cannabis and, although it remains a hot-button issue around the country, it is not yet available to New Jersey patients, like DaGiau, who say they benefit greatly from its use. However, according to recent reports, it could be some time, likely 2012, before prescriptions are honored.

Shortly before former Gov. Jon Corzine left office, the state legalized the use of cannabis by patients with specific medical conditions. The law’s initiation faced extensive delays, however, as state legislators quarreled over regulatory parameters.

“Since Governor Christie has been fighting this law, marijuana is far from available,” DaGiau said.

His frustrated mother, Kathy DaGiau echoed her son’s statements.

“I do not know why the Governor is holding up this drug, but I believe people who stand in the way of legalizing [marijuana] for medical use have never been through what our family has faced,” she said. “We are not proponents of legalizing it for non-medical reasons and believe that it should be closely regulated.”

In July, Gov. Chris Christie eased his opposition to the legislation and announced the state would advance with its medical marijuana program. Roseanne Scotti, New Jersey State director of the Drug Policy Alliance, the organization which spearheaded the effort to pass the legislation, applauded the decision.

“We are absolutely thrilled that the governor has decided to move forward with the program and we hope that officials in other states who are contemplating options for their programs will follow New Jersey’s lead,” Scotti said at the time.

DaGiau, on the other hand, is not as optimistic.

“It takes about three months to grow, dry and cure, so it’s not going to be available for quite some time,” he said. “There will be major issues over this poorly thought-out aspect.”

Six nonprofit organizations have been licensed to grow and sell medical marijuana to patients who have registered with the state’s Medicinal Marijuana Program and been certified by their physician that they suffer from a debilitating condition, according to the N.J. Health Department.

Epilepsy and seizure disorder are among qualifying conditions such as multiple sclerosis and glaucoma, which warrants the prescription and use of the drug.

The state has yet to complete a comprehensive registry to approve patients and therefore medical marijuana has yet to be legally sold anywhere in New Jersey.

The timing of the delays couldn’t be worse for DaGiau, who returned to Clifton in May after attending college in Colorado where he was able to legally attain medical marijuana.

“It was days, maybe four, before I began seizing [again],” he said. “Last Thursday, while exiting the Lincoln Tunnel into New Jersey, I began seizing. The bus had to be pulled aside, an ambulance came and I ended up in St. Mary’s emergency room.”

The ER visit marked the 27th ambulance trip since his 10th birthday.

The ordeal has left his mother, and father Gary, heartbroken to see their son suffer unnecessarily.

“When you see your child exhaust every other possibility, and suffer mentally and physically, you want to do almost anything to see some improvement,” Kathy said. “He was not able to visit New Jersey during the holidays since he felt he needed to remain in a state where medical use of this drug is granted. But, now that he is home without this drug his condition appears to be steadily worsening and we fear for his welfare.”

DaGiau said because he has grown reliant on the anti-epileptics he has taken for 13 years, he will continue to experience the seizures while traveling on the subway, walking the streets or while interning at the two public relation firms where he works in New York City.

“I know it’s coming, and all I can do is hope it doesn’t cause scars all over my face,” he added. “But it’s actually given me strength because I’ve decided to wait for it to be legal. It’s a difficult bout but I don’t ever want to be considered a criminal or a stoner.”

John Wilson, a 38-year-old multiple sclerosis patient from Somerset, is facing a 5-year prison sentence for growing marijuana plants in his back yard which he said were for personal use. Wilson’s symptoms were headache, blurred vision and numbness from the waist down. Typically, the symptoms of MS worsen over time and may progress to total paralysis and death.

On Aug. 16, Wilson appealed the conviction a month after an appeals court ruled that a judge has the right to bar his testimony that the marijuana was grown for personal use to alleviate his MS condition. The court upheld his five-year sentence.

As divisive as the issue seems, DaGiau said he is “amazed” how the most conservative New Jerseyans he’s talked to are able to disregard politics upon hearing how efficient cannabis is in quelling pain that “piles of pharmaceuticals” could not.

“I’ve met the worst epilepsy cases out there and if there’s any avenue that can decrease their pain, why must they be judged? It’s as simple as this: people are suffering,” he said.

DaGiau has met numerous New Jersey patients who use cannabis illegally to effectively treat a multitude of conditions, from severe pain due to fibromyalgia to a friend who suffers from AIDS and finds that she doesn’t vomit daily as she once did without it.

“It makes me extremely pessimistic to know that this girl, whose hair I’ve held back while she’s vomited, is [considered] a stoner or a drug addict because she’s illegally using marijuana,” he said.

DaGiau said he wants to create a family support groups in North Jersey. While in Colorado he founded the first chapter of the Epilepsy Foundation on a college campus in the state.

“I never thought support was available, so I always fought the condition alone,” he explained. “Then, at age 22, I realized that there actually have been support groups I never knew about so I am working to [expand] groups throughout New Jersey.”

Email: gicas@northjersey.com

Oaksterdam's Richard Lee: Marijuana Legalization Is

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:49:08 GMT

By Chris Roberts Thu., Sep. 8 2011 at 7:40 AM

Categories: Marijuana

Richard Lee says it’s all over — for now ?Last year’s Proposition 19 was quite a wild ride, but marijuana legalization in California is over.

That’s according to Richard Lee, the Oaksterdam University founder and chief sponsor of Prop. 19, which won its place on Californians’ November 2010 ballot only after Lee spent his $1.5 million life savings on the requisite signature drive.

Following Prop 19’s historic defeat — the legalization ballot measure lost 54 percent to 46 percent, but won more votes than gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman did — backers, including Lee, promised they’d be back in 2012 with a successor measure. But the fundraising just hasn’t been there, Lee said Saturday at the International Cannabis and Hemp Expo in downtown Oakland, held a few blocks away from the Oaksterdam campus. That means the effort to legalize marijuana in California has stalled out.

“It’s pretty much dead,” Lee told SF Weekly, speaking of the efforts by the “new Prop. 19 committee,” the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform, to put a successor initiative on the November 2012 ballot. “The funders didn’t come through.” Lee has publicly stated before that he’d be unable to fund Prop. 19’s successor: The $1.5 million “was all my money,” he repeated Saturday (though since it was spent before the IRS could grab it, it’s all good). And others have speculated that a legalization measure in Colorado, gathering signatures and momentum for November 2012 in that state, where running a statewide campaign is much easier and cheaper than in California, would soak up limited resources. But according to Lee, the major backers of Prop. 19 — which included George Soros, several “Facebook billionaires,” Lee said, and other well-heeled philanthropists — have not committed to shelling out the necessary cash this time around. And indeed, no major contributions for any cannabis measure are on file at the Secretary of State.

“There was a draft,” Lee told SF Weekly. “But the funders didn’t come through.” Representatives from the “new Prop. 19” committee, tasked with creating a successor ballot measure, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Lee’s pronouncement. But when responding to earlier rumors in August, both Dale Sky Jones, chairwoman of the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform (CCPR), and board member Dan Rush, a union organizer with UFCW Local 5, which has begun organizing medical cannabis workers, said it was still going full speed ahead for a new legalization measure.

In particular, the backers of “Repeal Cannabis Prohibition,” which was submitted to the ballot last month, said that there had been a disagreement between the Drug Policy Alliance, through which much of Prop. 19’s funding flowed last year, and the CCPR over how best to proceed in California. That prompted the “Repeal Cannabis Prohibition” backers to submit their own measure, which is currently competing with another measure, “Tax Marijuana Like Wine,” for financial backing and for signatures. When reached in August, Rush dismissed the rumors. “I don’t know who’s been blowing smoke up your ass,” he declared, when told that rumors of his committee’s demise were swirling. “But there’s going to be a [new Prop. 19].” And perhaps there will. But it may have to wait until 2016.

Follow us on Twitter at @TheSnitchSF and @SFWeekly

Feds: Drug Cartels Are Here, and They're Taking Our Jobs

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:33:57 GMT

By Chris Roberts Fri., Sep. 16 2011 at 7:50 AM

Categories: Marijuana

Gone the way of UAW ?The Drug War is going the way of the “evildoers,” according to a federal report released last week. Two years ago, foreign drug cartels were in 230 American cities. Today, the cartels — from Mexico, East Asia, and, presumably, Canada — have infiltrated more than 1,000 American cities, according to the 2011 edition of the National Drug Threat Assessment report, created by the Department of Justice. Sounds scary. So where exactly are these cartels? What are they doing? And moreover, what’s the Justice Department doing about it?

“We don’t discuss specifics, or policy,” said Department of Justice spokesman Jack Gillund last week, in response to an inquiry from SF Weekly (further press inquiries have gone unanswered).

What, then, is the public to do? Direct federal agents pounding on your door to the drug house across the street, in one example from this week. And wonder what happened to homegrown American crime lords: If the report is to be believed, foreigners have even taken away our drug-trafficking jobs. In addition to drug dealers working for “transnational criminal organizations” popping up like foreclosed homes in countless otherwise good American cities, drug use is also on the rise. “Overall demand is rising,” the report begins, adding that “abuse … of heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine appears to be increasing, especially among the young.” And why not? Some 8.7 percent of Americans were illicit drug abusers in 2009, the report states, up from 8 percent in 2008. While prescription drug abuse is rampant, with some 7 million people popping pills for fun, medical marijuana gets its share of blame. Though not mentioned by name: Pot use “among adolescent students has begun to increase after a decade of gradual decline … perhaps attributable in part to conflicting messages imparted by national debates,” the report says. But onto the cartels, who, if nothing else, in typical immigrant style, appear to have taken good hardworking American drug dealers’ jobs. “Mexican-based TCOs and their associates dominate the supply and wholesale distribution of most illicit drugs in the United States and will maintain their reign for the foreseeable future,” the report says. They’ve been at work “in more than a thousand U.S. cities during 2009 and 2010,” in all corners of the country, the report adds, though there’s also ethnic Asian, Cuban, Dominican, and West African drug mobs at work. The only mention of homegrown drug slangers is on the retail level, with “criminal gangs” like “outlaw motorcycle gangs … in control of the retail distribution of drugs in the United Sates.”

Mexican cartels — referred to as “drug-trafficking organizations” by the Department of Justice — have often been blamed for the problems proliferating in Northern California’s national forests, namely, the illegal pot grows on public land. Duly, 101 people, including some Mexican nationals, were arrested this summer during Operation Full Court Press, a concerted effort by local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. But are they cartel members? Nobody’s yet been brought through the criminal justice system, so when asked to provide examples of cartel members brought to justice in United States courts over the past few years, neither DEA nor DOJ spokespeople could provide examples to SF Weekly. So where, exactly, has cartel activity intensified? In Oakland, in San Jose, in San Francisco, in Belvedere? And what drug use has intensified — methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine, prescription cough syrup? Gillund, the spokesman for U.S. Attorney for Northern California Melinda Haag, who is responsible for carrying out the federal government’s War on Drugs in the Bay Area, said Friday he’d pass our inquiries onto Haag. No response has yet been received to those questions. Terry Nelson, a former federal agent who now advocates for an end to the Drug War with Law Enforcement Officers Against Prohibition, said the report is yet another example of how the federal status quo has failed. “It is really no surprise to me that our prohibition policy isn’t helping to achieve any reduction in drug trafficking,” said Nelson, a former U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agent. “We should have learned this lesson decades ago with alcohol prohibition, but let’s hope that the data in this new government report helps more members of Congress and Obama Administration officials to realize that their ‘drug war’ strategy is an abysmal failure and that it’s time for a new direction.” The good news is that it’s not our fault: With the exception of MDMA, every other drug — even heroin from Afghanistan, still the world’s largest producer of William S. Burroughs’s onetime tonic — is largely smuggled across the border with Mexico en route to your kids’ pockets. MDMA? Well, that comes from Canada.

Follow us on Twitter at @TheSnitchSF and @SFWeekly

Sales or service? Michigan's Medical Marijuana Dispensary

Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:47:41 GMT

by Andy Balaskovitz

Within two weeks after the state Court of Appeals said on Aug. 23 that selling medical marijuana is illegal, the Greater Lansing Medical Marijuana Business Association held a meeting at the vacant Story Oldsmobile car dealership on Lansing’s east side to try and figure out what to do next.

The association’s attorney had told dispensary owners to promptly close their doors. So they did.

According to accounts from two association members, Detroit attorney Tom Lavigne walked into the meeting and advised the dispensary owners to stay open. He invited them to call him, Shekina Pena recounted. Pena is the owner of Your Healthy Choice Clinic at 628 E. Michigan Ave. in Lansing, a former dispensary that now offers only physician services.

“He showed up to tell people to stay open and offered us his business card. He was trying to hijack the meeting,” Pena said Thursday.

Another association member, dispensary owner Ryan Basore, who said he is “liquidating” equipment at the former Capital City Caregivers on Michigan Avenue, said the association threw the Detroit attorney out of the meeting; Pena said it wasn’t quite that harsh.

“He wasn’t necessarily kicked out,” she said.

But this much is clear: Two of Michigan’s most prominent law firms that specialize in medical marijuana are at odds with each other. One is advising its clients to keep their dispensaries open, while the other is telling its clients to shut down.

Lavigne, who with Matt Abel operate a firm called Cannibis Counsel in offices in downtown Detroit, is telling all 10 of their clients who are dispensary owners throughout the state to stay open. And the clients are heeding their advice — one of which is The Herbal Connection, 4314 S. Cedar St., in Lansing. Lavigne said an association member had invited him. Once he stated his opinion that not all dispensaries should have to close down, he said he left before the association’s board voted on a motion asking him to leave.

Lavigne and Abel think there’s still life left in dispensaries, which is welcome news to patients who depend upon dispensaries for medicine.

“I think the death of dispensaries is highly exaggerated,” Abel said in an interview Friday.

Meanwhile, Lansing-based attorney Matt Newburg, who with Lansing attorney Mary Chartier is representing dispensary owners Brandon McQueen and Matthew Taylor in appealing the ruling to the state Supreme Court, is telling his clients just the opposite.

Abel’s theory is this: Dispensaries do not engage in sales. It’s a service industry, therefore someone behind the counter at a dispensary is being compensated for all that goes into growing the plant — how difficult it is to obtain the strain, how long it takes to grow, equipment and any other costs that go into growing cannabis.

Lavigne, of Cannabis Counsel, cited page 16 of the Court of Appeals ruling: “We hold that a person assists a registered qualifying patient with ‘using or administering’ marihuana when the person assists the patient in preparing the marihuana to be consumed in any of the various ways that marihuana is commonly consumed or by physically aiding the patient in consuming the marihuana.”

Basically, Abel said, a patient is compensating for the costs of being able to use or have administered cannabis from a dispensary. “Why did the Court of Appeals mention all the various ways in which marijuana is commonly consumed if they weren’t giving us a roadmap?” he asked. “Clearly this is a service industry.”

Abel penned his thoughts in a guest column in High Times Magazine last week. He wrote: “The Court held that the sale of marijuana is not allowed in Michigan, and so the defendants´ business model was not permissible. But the good news is that the court did not — contrary to widespread media reports — rule that all dispensaries in Michigan are illegal and must close.

“In fact the Court left open the likelihood that transfers involving compensation for costs may be permitted.”

Newburg did not comment on Abel’s theory, but asked: “How do you get marijuana in the door?” In other words: What did dispensary owners who did not grow what they’re selling obtain the marijuana?

“I think the best thing is to close their business,” Newburg said. Meanwhile, he and Chartier are prepping for a bigger stage: appealing the Court of Appeals ruling to the state Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeals said in its Aug. 23 ruling that Compassionate Apothecary in Mount Pleasant (whose owners, McQueen and Taylor, also have a store on Michigan Avenue in Lansing) was a public nuisance, overturning a Mount Pleasant Circuit Court ruling. The Court of Appeals said in its 17-page ruling that the “medical use” of cannabis does not include patient-to-patient “sales.” Under CA’s business model, caregivers stored medical marijuana for their patients at the business in lockers. If the amount in the locker is more than what the patient needs, the business permits the sale of overages to other patients. CA would take 20 percent of the sale price, charge $5 a month for membership and $50 a month for a locker. Approximately 345 patients and caregivers are members of CA, the ruling says.

Abel, of Cannabis Counsel, said the Court of Appeals ruling only pertained to CA’s model — not all dispensaries. “(CA) was a bad business model.” He added that he is “comfortable with putting our business model on the table” in court.

Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III points to page 10 of the Court of Appeals ruling that says: “Specifically, in regard to this case, the MMMA [Michigan Medical Marijuana Act] does not authorize marihuana dispensaries.”

He said any “alternatives” presented in the future — that dispensaries “transfer” medical marijuana or are based on “donations” — “are going to be found to be wanton.”

Dunnings said he “maintained from the very beginning” that dispensaries are illegal, even though at least two cities — Lansing and Ann Arbor — adopted ordinances to license such businesses. He said the Court of Appeals ruling was “inevitable.”

“I think it’s unfortunate for people who established these businesses in good faith — most of them, not all of them — and they’ve now been hit with having to close their businesses,” Dunnings said. “But I’ve said all along this (dispensaries are illegal) is the law.”

Open for business

It’s safe to say a large majority of dispensaries closed after the Aug. 23 Court of Appeals ruling. But not all of them — at least three Lansing dispensaries are still open.

At The Herbal Connection, 4314 S. Cedar St., it was business as usual on Friday based on Abel’s and Lavigne’s advice, according to a man who answered the phone. He identified himself as the owner but only agreed to speak on the condition that his name not be used. The dispensary’s website identified a man with the same name as the owner.

“We’re here to fight for the patients,” he said, adding that all products are “grinded and pre-rolled before leaving the store.”

The same goes for HydroWorld on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. HydroWorld owner Danny Trevino confirmed to City Pulse last week that he would remain open for business selling medical marijuana and starter plants. Trevino said his shop on Barnes Avenue in Lansing and another in Jackson are open as well. He said authorities closed his shop in Mt. Pleasant — where Compassionate Apothocary, the dispensary in the court ruling is as well — but that he intends to reopen it.

However, open dispensaries — at least in the city — don´t square with City Attorney Brig Smith´s cease and desist order he issued on Aug. 25. Smith said in an e-mail that “enforcement” will come “as warranted.” Smith´s letter reads, in part: “Because this ruling renders illegal the activities occurring at most, if not all, medical marihuana establishments, my office has advised the City Clerk not to issue any licenses for the operation of medical marihuana establishments at this time. Without a license, you are operating illegally under local law. … Medical marihuana establishments that continue to engage in activities that do not comply with the Act will be subject to civil and criminal enforcement and to any penalties provided by law.”

As for Lavigne´s and Abel´s legal opinion: “(I) generally do not find merit in his (Lavigne´s) argument,” he wrote in an e-mail.

Elsewhere, two business owners from Ann Arbor said they would reopen.

Rob Bethke, owner of Ann Arbor Health Collective and also one of Cannabis Counsel’s clients, said after temporarily shutting down, the collective is back open. Bethke didn’t offer specifics about how the collective’s model works, but said it’s a “closed network of patients and caregivers” with more than 2,000 members.

Chuck Ream, who’s Med Mar in Ann Arbor was raided Aug. 25 by a southeast Michigan regional narcotics enforcement team for reasons apparently unrelated to the Appeals Court ruling, said he will reopen his “collective.” Ream said “acquisitions” at Med Mar must occur between members, which he estimated to be at about 900.

“I’m always worried (about being open),” he said. “But I’m willing to die for this struggle. At this point, we’re following the law.”

Ream said he is part of an effort to get the Legislature to amend the Medical Marihuana Act to allow for “local control legislation,” which would permit dispensaries on a localized basis like Lansing and Ann Arbor had already done prior to the ruling. “We want to find the right person, probably a Republican, to take it up,” Ream said. (See related story on this page.)

Pena, who said Friday that Your Healthy Choice in Lansing is still open but only as a health clinic with doctors on hand, said Abel and Lavigne are leading a dangerous effort and are putting patients at risk.

“I don’t want patients to be lured” into dispensaries that may not be legal, Pena said.

(Pena ran into trouble on another front when she was charged Friday under state election law after she offered free marijuana to patients who registered to vote. The offer was coupled with endorsements of Lansing City Council candidates. Pena pled not guilty Monday in Lansing’s District Court to a misdemeanor count of influencing voters with money or other valuable consideration.)

While some news reports since the court ruling said some local prosecutors, like Otsego County’s Kyle Legel, disagree with the court’s decision and may not prosecute cases, Newburg said the attorney general has the authority to do so. Schuette said in a statement following the Court of Appeals decision: “This ruling is a huge victory for public safety and Michigan communities struggling with an invasion of pot shops near their schools, homes and churches.”

So is staying open courageous or foolhardy? Are these businesses the tall, strong kid on the playground, or the puny one picking a fight with the stronger hand — like law enforcement, the county prosecutor or even the attorney general for that matter? Who’s to say law enforcement won’t go break down their doors after reading this, if they haven’t already?

The Herbal Connection’s owner, who spoke on the condition his name not be used, said it comes with the territory.

“There’s always that fear,” he said of getting shut down by the police. “What can we do? Somebody’s gotta fight for it.”

Abel, of Cannabis Counsel, sticks by his advice: “Let’s cut (patients) off so there’s no medicine at all. Is that less riskier for them? I don’t think so.” He, too, said risk comes with the territory of operating a dispensary. “Anyone who thinks they’re gonna run one without risk is deluded.”

Dunnings, the Ingham County prosecutor, said anyone who’s opened is “going to find themselves in court one way or the other. … They’re going to be liable to prosecution,” he said, adding that it’s up to the police to investigate dispensaries. “I don’t control police departments. ”

###

Wheeler Center conference to focus on medical marijuana issue

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:39:05 GMT

Written by ERIN MADISON

Most of the debate surrounding medical marijuana in Montana has been ideological — is it good or bad?, said Ralph Johnson, director of the Bozeman-based Burton K. Wheeler Center.

However, an upcoming conference put on by the Wheeler Center aims to examine the legal and public policy issues surrounding the topic.

The Wheeler Center is holding its fall conference, “Medical Marijuana in Montana: Thoughtful Questions, Responsible Answers,” Monday and Tuesday in Helena.

The event will look at federal law and states’ rights and the effect that has on medical marijuana. Speakers also will discuss the best options for production, distribution and the role marijuana can play in the medical field, Johnson said.

The Wheeler Center, named for Burton K. Wheeler, U.S. senator from Montana who served from 1923 to 1947, was established 20 years ago with the goal of offering nonpartisan education on issues that impact Montana and the region.

The center holds two conferences a year, choosing topics that are of broad interest and of significant importance for public policy, Johnson said.

Wheeler believed that enlightened discussion of public policy was the cornerstone of democracy.

Medical marijuana was approved by Montana voters in 2004. In 2009, registration of medical marijuana users exploded after clinics began traveling around the state giving people access to doctors who see marijuana as a safe alternative to some traditional prescription medications. Around that same time, the Obama administration announced it would not prosecute medical marijuana patients under federal law.

During the 2011 session, legislators passed a law that limited marijuana providers to distributing to a maximum of three patients and barred them from receiving anything of value for their product. In July, a district court judge issued an injunction before the overhaul went into place.

Johnson hopes the conference will attract legislators as well as people involved in some aspect of medical marijuana, including law enforcement, caregivers and health care providers.

The agenda includes speakers from other states where medical marijuana is legal, the producer of a PBS program on medical marijuana, a physician and law enforcement personnel.

The Wheeler Center is absolutely nonpartisan, Johnson said. It will produce a white paper based on recommendations that speakers give during the conference, but the center does not make its own recommendations.

The conference begins Monday at 7 p.m. at the Red Lion Colonial Hotel in Helena and runs Tuesday from 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. The cost to attend is $35. The Monday night discussion is free and open to the public. The registration deadline is Thursday at 5 p.m.

###

Let It Grow - Medical Marijuana

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:30:05 GMT

Fighting back for freedom on two continents

By John Sinclair

Published: September 14, 2011

I left Amsterdam last week, after the shit hit the fan in Michigan, and the Dutch authorities were striving to match the sheer idiocy of the anti-marijuana crusaders in the United States by forcing 58 licensed cannabis coffeeshops out of business pursuant to a recent dictum that weed can’t be offered for consumption within 350 meters of a secondary school. “The cabinet does not want pupils’ education careers going up in smoke,” puffed education minister Marja van Bijsterveldt.

These grandstanding plays aimed at the most regressive sector of the citizenry look noble and civic-minded on the surface, but, in fact, have no actual relevance in terms of public safety. The coffeeshops being shut down have existed in proximity to the schools for 30 or 40 years with no appreciable impact on the student population.

In fact, nothing is more difficult in the Centrum of Amsterdam than minors acquiring cannabis products at a coffeeshop — or even getting up to the hash counter to order up some smoke. Strict ID checks are conducted without fail, because minors on the premises are grounds for immediate suspension of the shop’s cannabis privileges. Even if the school were next door to the coffeeshop, no students would be allowed entry in any event — ever.

Like raiding growrooms and linking growing to “serious crime” and “criminal violence,” shutting down marijuana outlets because of their proximity to a schoolhouse is an entirely cynical political ploy directed at the addled denizens of the religious and secular right in a last-ditch attempt to stave off the ever-encroaching rule of reason. But the real shame is that these small, independent businesses are being hounded out of existence in increasing numbers.

DutchNews.nl reports that there are now fewer than 650 coffeeshops left in Holland, with 214 remaining in Amsterdam itself. Four years ago, when the coffeeshops were ordered to stop serving alcoholic drinks where weed is offered for sale, there were 750 coffeeshops nationally including 250 in Amsterdam, but after the new regulations are effected there’ll be less than 200 left in the capital city.

What is the public benefit of continuing to demonize marijuana and marijuana users — again, even state-certified medical marijuana patients — beyond bolstering the re-election prospects among a deluded electrorate of right-wing demagogues such as Attorney General Bill Schuette, whose rhetoric paints a lurid picture of “Michigan communities struggling with an invasion of pot shops near their schools, homes and churches.”

Maybe these rich nerds haven’t fully noticed that what Michigan communities are actually struggling with is a malfunctioning economic system that’s paying the price of 30 years of unchecked corporate job-slashing as the basis of increasing profitability and the current wave of job elimination among state and local government employees. The reason the unemployment figures don’t go down is because the job slots have been eliminated and the corporations and regressive governmental bodies simply have no intention of replacing them.

Now, by the overwhelming mandate of the voting public, the legalization of medical marijuana has propelled the establishment of somewhere between 300 and 500 dispensaries and cannabis cooperatives and the grow operations that supply them. (Incidentally, why can’t we have a more accurate number for this phenomenon? Does anyone know how many such outlets actually exist at this time?)

Although the statute doesn’t specifically authorize this particular form of delivery system, neither does it specifically forbid the dispensaries that have sprung up to meet the clear demand of the patient community. What the law specifies is that medical marijuana patients are meant to obtain their medicine, and if there aren’t enough letters of the law in the statute as it stands, the intent that medicine be made available should be honored in their breach.

And, beyond these bullshit quibbles about where and how you can get it, any fool should be able to weigh the absolute importance of the emergence of a new industry in this seriously depressed state and figure out ways and means for it to grow even larger.

Even in its fledgling stage, less than three years following the passage of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, the commercial side of the care-giving community has begun to provide employment and the means of a livelihood to hundreds and even thousands of Michigan citizens, and a return on investments by the entrepreneurs and collectives that have responded to the needs of the patient community and opened their over-the-counter operations to registered, legally sanctioned medical cannabis consumers.

This is nothing compared to the potential size and scope of the marijuana industry in Michigan. If there are “nearly 100,000 carriers of medical marijuana cards,” as The Detroit News has reported, how many recreational users do you think there might be? One million? More than a million? That’s a whole lot of pot, and most of it has to be imported through quite strenuous means from other states whose marijuana growing systems are more advanced than ours. Sure it’s illegal, but guess what? People are going to be smoking pot, and there are going to be people who supply them.

These are the facts of life, and stripped of all the quasi-religious and “moralistic” horseshit that fuels the zeal of the anti-pot crusaders, the marijuana industry is just that: an industry. It’s a business, and it provides a living for countless numbers of growers and dealers, and it serves the needs of eager consumers who are willing to risk arrest, loss of job, imprisonment, seizure of personal property and all the other heinous measures devised by the alcohol-and-pill zealots to punish us.

And that’s another chapter in the book of life, because any citizens of a certain age may acquire just as much alcohol, beer and wine as they may desire. In a social system where marijuana smokers are ruthlessly demonized and relentlessly persecuted under the phony banner of the War on Drugs, you can get your drinks damn near anywhere … and damn the consequences. Just plop your money down and take away as much booze as you wanna.

This was a ridiculous picture when the drug authorities had the wool fully over people’s eyes and sold them the vile notion that marijuana was a narcotic, and it’s even more nonsensical now that nearly two out of every three Michigan voters have recognized the efficacy of marijuana as a medicine and nearly half of citizens nationwide favor the full leglization of weed.

At least people in Michigan aren’t taking the latest anti-marijuana atrocities sitting down, as last week’s protest on the lawn of the state Capitol demonstrated. The “largest pro-medical marijuana rally in Michigan” was credited with an attendance of 1,500 “young, old and sick in wheelchairs,” as the News put it.

One protest is not going to do the trick, and as Curt Guyette pointed out in last week’s Metro Times, “there are some activists who are already looking ahead to the possibility that another ballot measure will be necessary to set things right here in Michigan. …

“[But] no change … is going to be achieved without an outpouring of public support. That means patients, their families and caregivers. It also means the accountants and lawyers and plumbers and electricians and grow shop owners and all the others who have seen the economic benefits that the law has already brought.”

Amen, brother, amen. Let it grow!

—London Sept. 9, 2011

> Email John Sinclair

Not My Kid: Parents Severely Underestimate Teens' Drug and Alcohol Use - Teens, Substance Use & Parental Awareness

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:52:52 GMT

More than 50 percent of surveyed 10th-graders reported drinking alcohol in the last year and 28 percent reported using marijuana within the last year.
CREDIT: Katseyephoto | Dreamstime

Few parents of teens who drink or smoke pot are aware of it, suggests a new study that also finds that most parents are concerned about substance use by teenagers and believe that more than half of 10th-graders drink alcohol (just not their own 10th-grader).

Only 10 percent of parents think their own teens drank alcohol within the last year, and 5 percent believe their teens smoked marijuana in the last year, according to the latest poll by the University of Michigan’s C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital.

These low numbers severely clash with the university’s 2010 Monitoring the Future survey, in which 52 percent of surveyed 10th-graders reported drinking alcohol in the last year and 28 percent reported using marijuana within the last year. Those numbers were based on an annual survey of about 420 public and private high schools and middle schools that are selected to provide an accurate representation of U.S. students at each grade level.

“There’s a clear mismatch between what parents are reporting in terms of their children’s possible use of substances and what teenagers report themselves,” said study researcher Bernard Biermann of the department of psychiatry at the University of Michigan. He is also a medical director of the university’s Child/Adolescent Inpatient Unit.

The C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health was administered in May to a group of 667 parents with a child between the ages of 13 and 17.

While most parents seem to assume their own kids aren’t trying alcohol or drugs, they certainly don’t think their child’s peers are as innocent. In the poll, researchers found that many parents of teens are very likely to believe that within the last year at least 60 percent of 10th-graders drank alcohol and 40 percent of 10th-graders used marijuana.

That parents are more likely to expect drug and alcohol use by other teenagers than by their own indicates a need for awareness about teenage substance use, the researchers said. They suggest parents broach the subject with their teens in a nonthreatening way and speak to them about the importance of resisting peer pressure.

“Awareness is a means of opening the door to communication. If parents acknowledge the possibility — and in fact, the likelihood — that their child may have experimented with or used alcohol or marijuana, they can begin to talk to them more about it, provide some guidance, and allow their kids to ask questions,” Biermann said in a statement.

The researchers also suggest that parents carefully monitor their kids and look for signs of substance use. They warn parents not to overreact over a single instance of substance use, and to instead use the experience as an opportunity to talk to their teen in a nonjudgmental way.

###

You can follow LiveScience writer Remy Melina on Twitter @remymelina. Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook.

California Hemp Bill Awaits Governor’s Signature

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:48:31 GMT

10:51 pm

By Phillip Smith

A bill that would allow farmers in four California counties to grow industrial hemp has passed the state legislature and now sits on the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown (D) awaiting his signature. The bill, Senate Bill 676, the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act, passed the Senate earlier this year, then passed the Assembly last week. [image:1 align:left caption:true]Sponsored by state Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), the bill would allow farmers in those counties to grow industrial hemp for the legal sale of hemp seed, oil, and fiber to manufacturers. The bill specifies that hemp must contain less than 0.3% THC, the primary psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, and farmers must submit their crops to testing before it goes to market.

The eight-year pilot program would end in 2020, but not before the California attorney general would issue a report on law enforcement impact and the Hemp Industries Association would issue a report on its economic impact. “California is one step closer to building a successful hemp industry in the Central Valley,” said Leno after the Assembly approved the bill on a vote of 49-22 last Wednesday. The Senate gave its final approval to Assembly amendments the following day.

While hemp bills have passed the state legislature previously, SB 676 is the furthest reaching yet and managed to pick up support from businesses, farming groups, local government, labor, even law enforcement. Supporters ranged from the California Grange and the California Certified Organic Growers to the United Food and Commercial Workers to the Kern County Board of Supervisors and the Kern and King county sheriffs, both of whom wrote letters of support in favor of the bill.

“Hemp is a versatile cash and rotation crop with steadily rising sales as an organic food and body care ingredient. Today, more than 30 industrialized nations grow industrial hemp and export it to the US. Hemp is the only crop that is illegal to grow yet legal for Americans to import,” explained Eric Steenstra, president of Vote Hemp and executive director of the Hemp Industries Association.

The US hemp market is now estimated to be about $420 million in annual retail sales, but manufacturers must turn to foreign suppliers because the DEA, which refuses to differentiate between industrial hemp and recreational and medical marijuana, bars its import.

Phillip Smith is a contributor to StoptheDrugWar.org. StoptheDrugWar.org articles are available for reprinting under a modified version of the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License. 4 views

A Decade After 9/11, Police Departments Are Increasingly Militarized

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:40:24 GMT

New York magazine reported some telling figures last month on how delayed-notice search warrants — also known as “sneak-and-peek” warrants — have been used in recent years. Though passed with the PATRIOT Act and justified as a much-needed weapon in the war on terrorism, the sneak-and-peek was used in a terror investigation just 15 times between 2006 and 2009. In drug investigations, however, it was used more than 1,600 times during the same period.

It’s a familiar storyline. In the 10 years since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the government has claimed a number of new policing powers in the name of protecting the country from terrorism, often at the expense of civil liberties. But once claimed, those powers are overwhelmingly used in the war on drugs. Nowhere is this more clear than in the continuing militarization of America’s police departments.

POLICE MILITARIZATION BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11

The trend toward a more militarized domestic police force began well before 9/11. It in fact began in the early 1980s, as the Regan administration added a new dimension of literalness to Richard Nixon’s declaration of a “war on drugs.” Reagan declared illicit drugs a threat to national security, and once likened America’s drug fight to the World War I battle of Verdun. But Reagan was more than just rhetoric. In 1981 he and a compliant Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act, which allowed and encouraged the military to give local, state, and federal police access to military bases, research, and equipment. It authorized the military to train civilian police officers to use the newly available equipment, instructed the military to share drug-war–related information with civilian police and authorized the military to take an active role in preventing drugs from entering the country.

A bill passed in 1988 authorized the National Guard to aid local police in drug interdiction, a law that resulted in National Guard troops conducting drug raids on city streets and using helicopters to survey rural areas for pot farms. In 1989, President George Bush enacted a new policy creating regional task forces within the Pentagon to work with local police agencies on anti-drug efforts. Since then, a number of other bills and policies have carved out more ways for the military and domestic police to cooperate in the government’s ongoing campaign to prevent Americans from getting high. Then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney declared in 1989, “The detection and countering of the production, trafficking and use of illegal drugs is a high priority national security mission of the Department of Defense.”

The problem with this mingling of domestic policing with military operations is that the two institutions have starkly different missions. The military’s job is to annihilate a foreign enemy. Cops are charged with keeping the peace, and with protecting the constitutional rights of American citizens and residents. It’s dangerous to conflate the two. As former Reagan administration official Lawrence Korb once put it, “Soldiers are trained to vaporize, not Mirandize.” That distinction is why the U.S. passed the Posse Comitatus Act more than 130 years ago, a law that explicitly forbids the use of military troops in domestic policing.

Over the last several decades Congress and administrations from both parties have continued to carve holes in that law, or at least find ways around it, mostly in the name of the drug war. And while the policies noted above established new ways to involve the military in domestic policing, the much more widespread and problematic trend has been to make our domestic police departments more like the military.

The main culprit was a 1994 law authorizing the Pentagon to donate surplus military equipment to local police departments. In the 17 years since, literally millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a foreign battlefield have been handed over for use on U.S. streets, against U.S. citizens. Another law passed in 1997 further streamlined the process. As National Journal reported in 2000, in the first three years after the 1994 law alone, the Pentagon distributed 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers, and 112 armored personnel carriers to civilian police agencies across America. Domestic police agencies also got bayonets, tanks, helicopters and even airplanes.

All of that equipment then facilitated a dramatic rise in the number and use of paramilitary police units, more commonly known as SWAT teams. Peter Kraska, a criminologist at the University of Eastern Kentucky, has been studying this trend since the early 1980s. Kraska found that by 1997, 90 percent of cities with populations of 50,000 or more had at least one SWAT team, twice as many as in the mid-1980s. The number of towns with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 with a SWAT team increased 157 percent between 1985 and 1996.

As the number of SWAT teams multiplied, their use expanded as well. Until the 1980s, SWAT teams were used almost exclusively to defuse immediate threats to the public safety, events like hostage takings, mass shootings, escaped fugitives, or bank robberies. The proliferation of SWAT teams that began in the 1980s, along with incentives like federal anti-drug grants and asset forfeiture policies, made it lucrative to use them for drug policing. According to Kraska, by the early 1980s there were 3,000 annual SWAT deployments, by 1996 there were 30,000 and by 2001 there were 40,000. The average police department deployed its SWAT team about once a month in the early 1980s. By 1995, it was seven times a month. Kraska found that 75 to80 percent of those deployments were to serve search warrants in drug investigations.

TERROR ATTACKS BRING NEW ROUND OF MILITARIZATION

The September 11 attacks provided a new and seemingly urgent justification for further militarization of America’s police departments: the need to protect the country from terrorism.

Within months of the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, the Office of National Drug Control Policy began laying the groundwork with a series of ads (featured most prominently during the 2002 Super Bowl) tying recreational drug use to support for terrorism. Terrorism became the new reason to arm American cops as if they were soldiers, but drug offenders would still be their primary targets.

In 2004, for example, law enforcement officials in the New York counties of Oswego and Cayuga defended their new SWAT teams as a necessary precaution in a post–September 11 world. “We’re in a new era, a new time,” here,” one sheriff told the Syracuse Post Standard. “The bad guys are a little different than they used to be, so we’re just trying to keep up with the needs for today and hope we never have to use it.” The same sheriff said later in the same article that he’d use his new SWAT team “for a lot of other purposes, too … just a multitude of other things.” In 2002, the seven police officers who serve the town of Jasper, Florida — which had all of 2,000 people and hadn’t had a murder in more than a decade — were each given a military-grade M-16 machine gun from the Pentagon transfer program, leading one Florida paper to run the headline, “Three Stoplights, Seven M-16s.”

In 2006 alone, a Pentagon spokesman told the Worcester, Massachusetts Telegram & Gazette, the Department of Defense “distributed vehicles worth $15.4 million, aircraft worth $8.9 million, boats worth $6.7 million, weapons worth $1 million and ‘other’ items worth $110.6 million” to local police agencies.

In 2007, Clayton County, Georgia — whose sheriff once complained that the drug war was being fought like Vietnam, and should instead be fought more like the D-Day invasion at Normandy — got its own tank through the Pentagon’s transfer program. Nearby Cobb County got its tank in 2008. In Richland County, South Carolina, Sheriff Leon Lott procured an M113A1 armored personnel carrier in 2008. The vehicle moves on tank-like tracks, and features a belt-fed, turreted machine gun that fires .50-caliber rounds, a type of ammunition so powerful that even the military has restrictions on how it’s used on the battlefield. Lott named his vehicle “The Peacemaker.” (Lott, is currently being sued for sending his SWAT team crashing into the homes of people who appeared in the same infamous photo that depicted Olympic gold-medalist swimmer Michael Phelps smoking pot in Richland County.) Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio also has a belt-fed .50-caliber machine gun, though it isn’t connected to his armored personnel carrier.

After 9/11, police departments in some cities, including Washington, D.C., also switched to battle dress uniforms (BDUs) instead the traditional police uniform. Critics says even subtle changes like a more militarized uniform can change both public perception of the police and how police see their own role in the community. One such critic, retired police sergeant Bill Donelly, wrote in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post, “One tends to throw caution to the wind when wearing ‘commando-chic’ regalia, a bulletproof vest with the word ‘POLICE’ emblazoned on both sides, and when one is armed with high tech weaponry.”

Departments in places like Indianapolis and some Chicago suburbs also began acquiring machine guns from the military in the name of fighting terror. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick actually suspended the Pentagon program in his state after the Boston Globe reported that more than 80 police departments across the state had obtained more than 1,000 pieces of military equipment. “Police in Wellfleet, a community known for stunning beaches and succulent oysters, scored three military assault rifles,” the Globe reported. “At Salem State College, where recent police calls have included false fire alarms and a goat roaming the campus, school police got two M-16s. In West Springfield, police acquired even more powerful weaponry: two military-issue M-79 grenade launchers.”

September 11 also brought a new source of funding for military-grade equipment in the Department of Homeland Security. In recent years, the agency has given anti-terrorism grants to police agencies across the country to purchase armored personnel carriers, including such unlikely terrorism targets as Winnebago County, Wisconsin; Longview, Texas; Tuscaloosa County, Alabama; Canyon County, Idaho; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Adrian, Michigan; and Chattanooga, Tennessee. When the Memphis suburb of Germantown, Tennessee — which claims to be one of the safest cities in the country — got its APC in 2006, its sheriff told the local paper that the acquisition would put the town at the “forefront” of homeland security preparedness.

In Eau Clare County, Wisconsin, government officials told the Leader Telegram that the county’s new APC would mitigate “the threat of weapons or explosive devices.” County board member Sue Miller added, “It’s nice, but I hope we never have to use it.” But later in the same article, Police Chief Jerry Matysik says he planned to use the vehicle for other purposes, including “drug searches.” It may not be necessary, Matysik said, “But because it’s available, we’ll probably use it just to be cautious.”

The DHS grants are typically used to purchase the Lenco Bearcat, a modified armored personnel carrier that sells for $200,000 to $300,000. The vehicle has become something of a status symbol in some police departments, who often put out press releases with photos of the purchase, along with posing police officers clad in camouflage or battle dress uniforms.

HuffPost sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Homeland Security asking just how many grants for the vehicles have been given out since September 11, how much taxpayer money has been spent on them, and which police agencies have received them. Senior FOIA Program Specialist Angela Washington said that this information isn’t available.

The post-September 11 era has also seen the role of SWAT teams and paramilitary police units expand to enforce nonviolent crimes beyond even the drug war. SWAT teams have been used to break up neighborhood poker games, sent into bars and fraternities suspected of allowing underage drinking, and even to enforce alcohol and occupational licensing regulations. Earlier this year, the Department of Education sent its SWAT team to the home of someone suspected of defrauding the federal student loan program.

Kraska estimates the total number of SWAT deployments per year in the U.S. may now top 60,000, or more than 160 per day. In 2008, the Maryland legislature passed a law requiring every police department in the state to issue a bi-annual report on how it uses its SWAT teams. The bill was passed in response to the mistaken and violent SWAT raid on the home of Berwyn Heights, Maryland mayor Cheye Calvo, during which a SWAT team shot and killed his two black labs. The first reports showed an average of 4.5 SWAT raids per day in that state alone.

Critics like Joseph McNamara, who served as a police chief in both San Jose, California, and Kansas City, Missouri, worry that this trend, now driven by the war on terror in addition to the war on drugs, have caused police to lose sight of their role as keepers of the peace.

“Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed,” McNamara wrote in a 2006 article for the Wall Street Journal. “An emphasis on ‘officer safety’ and paramilitary training pervades today’s policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn’t shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed.” Noting the considerable firepower police now carry, McNamara added, “Concern about such firepower in densely populated areas hitting innocent citizens has given way to an attitude that the police are fighting a war against drugs and crime and must be heavily armed.”

In 2009, stimulus spending became another way to fund militarization, with police departments requesting federal cash for armored vehicles, SWAT armor, machine guns, surveillance drones, helicopters, and all manner of other tactical gear and equipment.

Like McNamara, former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper finds all of this troubling. “We needed local police to play a legitimate, continuing role in furthering homeland security back in 2001,” says Stamper, now a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. “After all, the 9/11 terrorist attacks took place on specific police beats in specific police precincts. Instead, we got a 10-year campaign of increasing militarization, constitution-abusing tactics, needless violence and heartache as the police used federal funds, equipment, and training to ramp up the drug war. It’s just tragic.”

###

Smoking Dope at City Hall with the Cops' Protection: Welcome to Cannabis Expo - San Francisco Art - The Exhibitionist

Fri, 09 Sep 2011 10:54:29 GMT

By Todd Anthony Thu., Sep. 8 2011 at 1:00 PM

It’s just what it looks like (if you recognize Oakland City Hall, that is). ?A telltale stench filled the air as thousands of stoners milled around Frank Ogawa Plaza at the foot of Oakland City Hall. Brazen hustlers openly hawked pot seeds, clones, cannabis-infused slushies and pot-chocolate-covered bananas while onlookers hit joints and bongs and vaporizers - even a reverse gas mask.

A few feet away, tight-lipped Oakland PD officers busied themselves with the logistics of traffic flow, indifferent to the flagrant, widespread consumption of a Schedule I controlled substance. Welcome to Oaksterdam, circa 2011, site of the third annual International Cannabis and Hemp Exposition.

Recession? What recession?

On this glorious three-day weekend throngs of medical marijuana patients, activists, workers, and curiosity seekers eagerly paied $20 (or $60 for VIP access) to run the gauntlet of bong vendors, dispensaries, hemp clothiers, and food trucks that lined the five-block open air street fair. Vendors, for their part, paid anywhere from $1,000 to $6,000 to pitch their tents, then pitch their wares.

In most cases those wares were predictable: Bongs, bongs, and more bongs. Hemp fashion. Medicated edibles. Hash bags and hydroponic equipment. More subtly but no less abundantly were Proposition 215-friendly doctors, lawyers, and accountants who advertised their availability.

Viewed from that perspective, it was easy to conclude that if you’ve seen one overpriced cannabis convention, you’ve seen them all.

But the real draw took a little more walking, up the block and around the corner to the designated outdoor “215 area” where patients could choke with relative impunity. With City Hall as a symbolic backdrop, this fenced-off urban park and pro-smoking zone was the pot of gold at the end of the expo rainbow.

Oakland native Nigel Ayres, 41, waited a long time to get there - 40 minutes to enter the expo grounds, another half-hour in line to verify his med-pot card and, finally, a third line to enter the 215 area.

At first he was disappointed.

“There was supposed to be a hash bar where you could smoke on the steps of City Hall,” he explained. “But there was never any hash bar that I saw. When I first got to the smoking area there were a couple of vendors selling hash, but somebody squashed that real quick.”

Nonetheless, in Ayres’ estimation, “The event itself was cool.” The opportunity to medicate and socialize with so many fellow patients offset all the waiting and the sales pitches.

Next: “The Man” is just down the block — but today it doesn’t matter.

1 | 2 | Next Page »

Colo. cancer patient faces incarceration for medical marijuana

Fri, 09 Sep 2011 10:43:11 GMT

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

By Scot Kersgaard | 09.09.11 | 9:10 am | More from The Colorado Independent

Bob Crouse has leukemia. He used to have medical marijuana. Then the police came to his house and took it away. Today, he faces felony charges for cultivating marijuana with the intent to distribute.

He has a medical marijuana card as well as a doctor’s recommendation to grow as many as 75 plants. He needs that much, he says, because smoking the occasional joint or eating the occasional brownie has never been known to cure cancer. What many proponents of medical marijuana believe does cure cancer–at least in some cases–is the oil that can be created by boiling a pound or more of bud at a time and reducing that pound to about one ounce of oil. Many in the medical marijuana field swear that ingesting about a gram a day of this oil–commonly known as phoenix tears–can have a profound effect on cancer and some other serious medical conditions.

Bob Crouse, right, with Chaz Moore aka Bill Smith and Shan Moore outside the El Paso County Courthouse before Crouse’s araignment. (Image: Cannabis Therapy Institute)

Buying medical marijuana in such quantities is not only nearly impossible, but is also prohibitively expensive for many ill people. Hence the grow your own culture of phoenix tears users.

“Buying it was not an option,” Crouse says.

“I was just trying to grow the quantity of medicine I needed to medicate myself. I never had any intent to distribute,” Crouse told the Colorado Independent. “They think I was part of an underground network, but I think I was within my rights. They thought I was a criminal. I tell you it was real intimidating when they showed up with eight or ten agents. I’m a sixty-three-year-old leukemia patient fighting for the right to fight for my life.”

Crouse says it wasn’t just his medicine the police took in May, it was also his therapy.

“You can lose yourself in a little garden. When I was in there working with my plants I would forget all about what was going on inside my body,” he recalls.

“I was beating it,” he says of the cancer. “The effect medical marijuana had on me, on my life, was huge. I felt like I was being healed. I could feel it working in my body.

“A cancer patient has to hope if he is going to make it,” Crouse says. “The medical marijuana gave me hope. Stress makes cancer worse. Everyday I try to eliminate stress from my life. I am fortunate to have a relationship with God. I am a man of faith. I have a strong faith in my creator. I couldn’t get out of bed in the morning without that faith.

“This is a journey I didn’t choose,” Crouse said. “If I wasn’t sick I wouldn’t be using marijuana and I wouldn’t be facing incarceration.”

Looking back on the day his home was raided, he says, “I know now never to invite the police into your home. When I was a kid, the police were there to serve and protect. It’s totally different now,” he says.

When the police left that day, they took his plants, but it wasn’t until two weeks later that Crouse was arrested.

When he faced the judge for the first time in August, he was greeted out in front of the courthouse by a throng of supporters including Chaz “I am Bill Smith” Moore, and fellow prosecutee Jason Lauve of Boulder who has been acquitted of similar charges. They marched in front of the courthouse, waving signs and giving speeches before jamming the small courtroom to overflow status, all to no avail as judge Tim Schultz set the case for trial later this year.

“I’m here to support the right of cancer patients everywhere,” said Lauve from his wheelchair. “People have a right to health. They have a right to follow their doctor’s recommendation. They have a right to choose how to take care of their health. This is not an issue that should come before the courts. We know what cannabis can do. It is disheartening to see the DA going after cancer patients,” Lauve said.

Lauve uses marijuana both for the pain associated with a broken back and also because he believes that in high enough doses it can heal the nerves in his back. He has also counseled Crouse both on the medical uses of cannabis and on legal points.

Lauve said he uses doses that are “ten times what is in a brownie. “It has a tremendous effect on my health, said Luave, adding that because of cannabis he has been able to get off of pharmaceuticals.

“Why is the government telling us what we can put in our bodies?” he asks. “Using cannabis is not wrong,” he said.

“He has the right to make a choice. He has the right to follow the recommendations of his doctor,” Lauve insists.

Crouse was in the restaurant business until he became too ill to work, having owned Yakibob’s in Colorado Springs for about a dozen years. When he couldn’t do it anymore, he was pleased to turn the restaurant over to a friend and fellow restaurateur who kept the business going.

“My employees kept their jobs and my landlord kept the space rented, so I’m grateful for that,” he says. Prior to opening Yakibob’s, Crouse was an Arby’s franchisee, running restaurants in several nearby states.

Since his marijuana plants were confiscated, Crouse has been relying on friends and people in the medical marijuana community to provide him with medicine, but the supply has not been consistent. He’s also been getting angry. “I try not to spend time in anger because it doesn’t serve anything.”

“My whole goal is to cure the cancer that I’ve got. I am out begging for medicine, and that is so frustrating because I had my own medicine. My friends have been coming through, but I can’t count on that forever.”

He consults with a well know physician, who like him, is convinced that cannabis can cure his cancer.

Crouse notes that if nothing else, his case does seem to rattle cages. “My situation has started a lot of conversations. People are voicing their outrage, and I guess that’s good. I do a lot of soul searching, trying to make sure I’m in a good place faith-wise. This whole situation just doesn’t make any sense to me.”

####

After stumbling into pot club, Pacifica officials weigh response

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:00:21 GMT

Mary Ann Nihart has had some surprises since becoming mayor of Pacifica. Stumbling into a pot dispensary was, by far, the weirdest.

Not that it took her long to work out what kind of business she, the chief of police, and a county supervisor had randomly discovered while touring some local businesses in the city’s Palmetto neighborhood last month.

“Let’s just say it’s a distinctive odor that if you ever went to college, you won’t forget,” Nihart said. “The look on everybody’s face was pretty priceless.”

Ever the politician, Nihart politely introduced herself to Ruben Salvatierra on Aug. 19 as she and the other officials walked into the unmarked storefront on Palmetto Avenue. Over her shoulder, she glimpsed a barred door and a screen hiding 15 different varieties of pot, including edible merchandise.

That very day, the Wellness Solutions Group was handing out free hash lollipops to new customers. Salvatierra didn’t offer any to the police chief or mayor.

“She asked me what type of business it was,” Salvatierra recalled Wednesday. “I explained to her it was a cannabis collective, and she was a bit surprised.”

Supervisor Don Horsley, the former sheriff of San Mateo County, explained what happened next. “I could tell by the look on Mary Ann’s face that she realized this was not a kosher operation. Then Chief (Jim) Tasa went up to the guy and said, ‘Where’s your use permit; what kind of a business is this?’”

That’s how officials discovered that the Wellness Solutions Group had been operating since Aug. 1 under the guise of a flower shop — or at least that’s what it says on the business license application filed with the city.

The setup is funny, but the outcome was not. Six days later, the medical-marijuana dispensary’s business license was revoked. The Police Department opened an investigation into whether Salvatierra and his partner obtained a business license through fraud.

“This entire situation has nothing to do with whether we’re allowing medical marijuana to be sold in Pacifica,” said Pacifica police Capt. Dave Bertini. “It has to do with the fact that they lied.”

But it’s not possible to apply for a business license for a pot dispensary in Pacifica, because the city has never had one. Salvatierra is unapologetic.

“If I had gone in and asked for a permit for a dispensary, I would have been denied before I was even given an application,” he said.

Salvatierra is now fighting for his business, and he has some Pacifica residents on his side. He appealed his license revocation to the City Council, and a hearing is scheduled for Monday. His dispensary is closed, so he’s using his free time to collect signatures for a petition he’ll deliver.

“I’ve had both patients and nonpatients — people who don’t even consume cannabis — say they feel the city needs this,” he said.

The dispute has exposed Pacifica’s unwillingness to take sides on the pot club issue, since there’s no official policy in place. Many of the city’s immediate neighbors, including San Bruno, Millbrae, Colma and South San Francisco, have banned medical-marijuana collectives outright.

Passing a similar ban in Pacifica would prove unpopular. The Coastside is a liberal place, and ballot returns show Pacifica voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 19 last November, which would have legalized retail sales of cannabis for personal consumption.

Nihart said the city will deal with those issues in the long term, but they won’t play into the City Council hearing on Salvatierra’s appeal.

She cautioned against taking a “knee-jerk response” to the question of pot in Pacifica.

For her, wider questions take precedence.

“If it’s already a legal substance in the state that’s one thing, but what does it mean in terms of monitoring — like how safely do they have to lock everything up at night, how often are they getting broken into in San Francisco?” she said. “How is it going to tax a local police force?”

In the 25 days the pot dispensary was open, it served 400 clients who found it just by word-of-mouth — many of them seriously ill.

Salvatierra owns another medical marijuana dispensary in Vallejo and is familiar with the politics. He’s chagrined that he surprised so many public officials but welcomes the result.

Salvatierra said the uproar is evidence that Peninsula residents need access to a medical marijuana dispensary close to home.

Currently, San Mateo County residents with a valid medical-marijuana card have to drive to San Francisco or East Palo Alto, which has the only dispensary within county lines. They can also place an order with one of more than a dozen medical cannabis delivery services that advertise on the Peninsula, but these are technically outlawed within the county and only exist because sheriff’s officials have other priorities.

“I was hoping for a change. I wasn’t hoping to fly under the radar,” he said. “Pacifica had 15 years to come up with some sort of ordinance protecting access and they never did, and from the sound of it they never will and don’t want to. I’m here to prove that a well-run dispensary can exist.”

###

Contact Julia Scott at 650-348-4340.

Feds want to ban medical pot references at trial

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 09:27:35 GMT

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Federal prosecutors pursuing drug charges against Montana medical marijuana operators want to keep jurors from hearing any evidence at trial about the state’s medical pot law or whether the operators were complying with it.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have made motions in at least two cases stemming from federal raids on dozens of pot operations this spring, asking those judges to forbid any testimony or evidence at trial about medical marijuana or related issues involving state and federal laws.

“Montana’s medical marijuana laws have no relevance to the present prosecution, which consists of various charges the defendants violated federal law in relation to a marijuana manufacture and distribution scheme,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thaggard wrote in an August court filing.

The question will go unanswered in one case, after Ryan Blindheim and Evan Corum of the Black Pearl dispensary in Olney recently pleaded guilty — Blindheim to a charge of conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and both to money laundering charges.

But attorneys for a Miles City family of medical marijuana operators plan to fight the prosecutors’ attempt to keep the question of what’s allowed under Montana’s medical marijuana law out of their trial.

“There are enormous issues in the fight against the federal government versus states’ rights in these cases,” Billings attorney Brad Arndorfer said in a recent email to The Associated Press.

Arndorfer represents Richard Flor. He argues that Flor, his wife, Sherry, and son Justin were in compliance with state law and conducted their operations in full view of law enforcement.

“Evidence concerning the fact that medical marijuana is a legal drug in Montana, and that Mr. Flor was not some nefarious drug dealer, should be allowed at trial,” Arndorfer wrote in his reply to Thaggard.

But federal prosecutors said the Flors shouldn’t be allowed to use that defense because they didn’t comply with state law — they are accused of selling more than the state’s legal limit to an undercover agent who was not registered as a Montana medical marijuana patient. More importantly, Thaggard said, the Flors are accused of violating federal law, meaning that it’s irrelevant whether they complied with the state law.

The Flors are scheduled to appear Wednesday before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch to plead to a new indictment that alleges manufacture and distribution of marijuana, plus money laundering, weapons and conspiracy charges.

Each charge carries a minimum penalty of five years in prison and a fine. The maximum penalty for possession of a weapon during a drug trafficking offense is life in prison.

The Flors have pleaded not guilty to a previous indictment. Arndorfer indicated that they planned to plead not guilty again on Wednesday.

Richard Flor was a partner in Montana Cannabis, one of the largest medical marijuana growers and distributors targeted in a series of raids carried out in March by the FBI, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and other federal law enforcement agencies.

Agents executed 26 search warrants at medical marijuana operations across the state as the state Legislature was considering repealing or adding restrictions to the state’s medical marijuana law. U.S. Attorney Michael Cotter has said the raids were part of a long-term drug trafficking investigation.

Besides the Flors, at least eight other medical marijuana operators involved in those raids face federal drug charges.

Montana Cannabis provided pot for about 300 people and had locations in Helena, Missoula, Billings and out of the Flors’ Miles City home.

Richard Flor’s partners were Tom Daubert, a medical marijuana advocate who was a leader in the 2004 voter initiative to legalize medical marijuana in Montana, and Chris Williams, who was responsible for the operation’s large growing warehouse in Helena.

Flor is the only one of the three who has been charged, and prosecutors call the other two partners “unindicted coconspirators” in their brief.

Williams is suing the U.S. government over the raids. Federal prosecutors have said Daubert was responsible for the operation’s daily distribution of marijuana until he had a falling out with Williams.

DEA and state officials have been investigating the Flors since 2007, according to an affidavit by DEA special agent Wesley Smith that accompanied an application for a search warrant for the Flors’ home.

Then, Smith said undercover agents bought marijuana and a rifle from Sherri and Richard Flor. An undercover officer in March also bought marijuana from Justin Flor in the operation’s Billings office, according to the affidavit.

An inventory returned after the March raids said agents seized marijuana, hashish, computers, cell phones, a vehicle and more than 20 rifles and handguns from the Flors’ Billings and Miles City locations.

All three have been released from prison on the condition that they disengage from medical marijuana activities and not leave Custer County except for court appearances and medical trips.

###

By Matt Volz, Associated Press

Ground-Breaking Victory For the Common Man: First Circuit Court Rules Videotaping Cops Is Protected By First Amendment

Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Mac Slavo

September 2nd, 2011
SHTFplan.com

Whip out those cell phones and video cameras – we have great news!

It’s official, and the message to public servants is clear – Americans’ right to video record police while they are executing their duties in a public venue fits comfortably within first amendment activity:

Hear ye, hear ye!!

The First Circuit Court of Appeals–the highest federal court for New England just below the U.S. Supreme Court–last Friday handed down a ground-breaking decision defending our right to videotape the police and other public officials as they engage in their official duties…

…

On Friday, the First Circuit agreed. In a decision that reads like an ode to the First Amendment as key to both liberty and democracy, the court wrote:

“The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity]. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs.”

…

“Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative.”

The Court further stated that such protections should have been clear to the police all along, noting that the right to videotape police carrying out their duties in a public forum is “fundamental and virtually self-evident”

…

“The public’s right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press.”

“Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw,” the Court continued. “The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”

Source: Boston.com

It’s possible that the case, or a case of a similar nature, will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court eventually, but we are hard pressed to find a legitimate argument to the contrary, and thus believe that the Supreme Court would uphold the decision of the lower First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Of course, public officials, namely those who are themselves breaking the law and violating the rights of others, will continue to attempt to intimidate the general public – but only for a bit longer. Take, for example, the case of Michael Allison, who faces life in prison on multiple counts of wiretapping in Illinois for recording law enforcement officers in public. The Illinois Attorney General continues, at least as of this writing, to pursue the case after Allison refused a plea bargain that would have left him with no jail time. Allison rebelliously responded to the plea offer by saying, “if we don’t fight for our freedoms here at home we’re all going to lose them.”

The First Circuit Court’s decision would override any decision by a State judge, as it falls under the umbrella of the US Constitution, so we have no doubt Allison’s charges will be dropped, or simply overruled by a Federal court if it comes to that.

Once it becomes broadly known that this decision has set a ground breaking precedent and that there can be no criminal liability, Americans all over the country will undoubtedly begin documenting law enforcement activity and making that documentation available on the internet for all to see.

An open society, and one that is legally protected from the threat of intimidation and unwarranted arrest for simply making a record of police activity, is a freer society and this recent decision from the First Circuit Court of Appeals helps to ensure that freedom.

This is true transparency in government, an example which should be carried on to the U.S. Congress, where it would be in the best interests of the people to have cameras and microphones in any and all meetings where legislation or negotiation is taking place.

###

Author: Mac Slavo
Date: September 2nd, 2011
Website: www.SHTFplan.com

Infoporn: The Price of Pot

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:54:21 GMT

The US is still of two minds on marijuana: While 16 states now consider it a medicine, others continue to hand down heavy sentences—including jail time—for simple possession. The result is a fractured market with prices that vary wildly by region. Not surprisingly, the actual numbers are hazy; there’s no price index for pot as there is for hops or tobacco. But a collective of geographers called Floatingsheep recently set out to clear the air. They gathered more than 14,700 consumer reports submitted anonymously on the site PriceOfWeed.com, stripped out the outliers, and created a map that interpolates the range of prices across the contiguous US. Here’s a look at the sprawling gray market that gets some high and others heated.

MARKET HIGHLIGHTS

WEST COAST

California’s so-called Emerald Triangle—Humboldt, Mendocino, and Trinity counties—is the center of a coastal green rush. Mendocino officials estimate that pot cultivation accounts for up to two-thirds of the local economy, and plentiful supply means low prices throughout the Pacific Northwest. See Change Strategy forecasts that the medical-marijuana markets in California, Oregon, and Washington will bring in more than $1.3 billion this year.

UPPER MIDWEST

Some of the highest prices in the country are found in an L-shaped swath running through the Dakotas and into southern Minnesota. The reasons for that are uncertain, but the DEA has seized or eradicated fewer cannabis plants here than almost anywhere else in the country. Either the agency is soft on cowboy cartels or, more likely, folks just don’t grow a lot of weed up here. The prospect of a year’s hard time for lighting up in South Dakota could be a factor.

EAST COAST

Prices are steep, but several mid-Atlantic states and the nation’s capital now allow medical use. Although New York has partially decriminalized low-level possession, cops in the Big Apple arrested some 50,000 people last year for having pot “open to public view”—a 69 percent jump from 2005. The Department of Justice estimates that 20 percent of high-potency pot produced in Canada each year passes through the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation in New York state.

*Punishable amounts vary
Map: Monica Stephens, Mark Graham, and Matthew Zook (floatingsheep.org)

###

Medical pot, subsidized housing clash

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:17:47 GMT

Kathy Heller may lose her subsidized housing because she is permitted to use medical marijuana (Aug. 30, 2011)

The section about medical marijuana on the Michigan Department of Community Health’s web site (file photo)

Updated: Tuesday, 30 Aug 2011, 6:35 PM EDT
Published : Tuesday, 30 Aug 2011, 4:27 PM EDT

By Henry Erb

SPARTA, Mich. (WOOD) - Kathy Heller has degenerative discs in her back and has been controlling the pain with medical marijuana. She applied for and received a medical marijuana permit from the state of Michigan.

She lives in subsidized housing, utilizing a Section 8 rent supplement through the Wyoming Housing Commission which governs her area. She showed them her medical marijuana card and they made a copy.

A year later, they sent her a letter terminating her rent subsidy for her apartment.

Michigan is one of 15 states , plus the District of Columbia, that permits the legal use of medical marijuana. But the federal government maintains pot is illegal, and its rules are clashing with state law.

“We’re federally funded,” said Rebeca Geerling of the Wyoming Housing Commission, “and federal rules (and) regulations pretty much supercede or govern what our agency does.”

But Target 8 investigators found the federal government does give local agencies leeway to allow medical pot users to keep their subsidies.

Geerling, though, said, “We try to stick closely to our policy.” And that policy is to terminate anyone using drugs.

“I figure if the state says it’s OK, then the government should say it’s OK, too,” Heller told Target 8.

Without her nearly $600-per-month subsidy, she said, her apartment would use up her whole disability check.

“I’d probably have to move back in with somebody, like I was before I lived here.”

She said the Wyoming Housing Commission told her they’d let her keep her rent subsidy if she did not renew her medical marijuana card.

“So what do I do then?” she asked. “Go back to the doctor and get all those pain killers all the time and be hopped up on pills in front of my kids? Or smoke a joint in my bedroom and come out and be sociable with with kids and not laid up on the couch on muscle relaxers?”

Heller hopes to hear the results of her appeal by mid-September.

###

ACLU appeals medical pot ruling

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:12:44 GMT

By Ken Abramczyk

Observer Staff Writer

The American Civil Liberties Union has appealed a Wayne County Circuit Court ruling that supported the city of Livonia’s ban on medical marijuana facilities.

The ACLU of Michigan filed an appeal Monday with the Michigan Court of Appeals and the city of Livonia received notice of the claim of appeal Tuesday.

The ACLU is appealing the ruling by Circuit Judge Wendy Baxter, who granted the city’s motion for summary disposition last month. “We think that she made a wrong decision,” said Dan Korobkin, staff attorney with the ACLU.

State law vs. federal law

At the heart of the case is whether the voter-approved state law permitting medical marijuana use or sales pre-empts federal law banning marijuana or whether the federal Controlled Substances Act pre-empts state law.

The ACLU filed a suit in December on behalf of Linda and Robert Lott of Birmingham against the cities of Livonia, Bloomfield Hills and Birmingham regarding the authority of communities to prohibit medical marijuana use or sales on the grounds that marijuana possession violates federal law. The Lotts own a portion of a property in Livonia where they said they wanted to grow medical marijuana, according to the ACLU. The ACLU argued in court that Livonia could not enact laws that violate state laws.

Michigan voters approved the use of medical marijuana in 2008. The city of Livonia later enacted an ordinance that did not mention medical marijuana, but prohibited activities that violate federal law.

Linda Lott is a registered medical marijuana patient with multiple sclerosis. She uses medical marijuana to get rid of back spasms. Prescription drugs don’t work on the pain, according to her husband Robert.

Korobkin said the question was whether local governments had a right to punish people who had the right to use medical marijuana, such as the Lotts.

“The facts and the legal questions speak for themselves,” Korobkin said. “The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act says that someone who engages in medical marijuana use can’t be arrested, punished or prosecuted in any way.”

Korobkin said the Livonia ordinance allows the Lotts to be punished and that state voters did not intend for that to happen when they voted in 2008.

City will defend ordinance

Don Knapp, Livonia’s city attorney, said he expected the appeal. “We intend to vigorously defend the city’s zoning ordinance,” he said. “The ACLU even agrees that pre-emption is the critical issue and the federal law conflicts with the state law. You can’t ask local governments to be complicit in violating a federal law.”

Korobkin said there is “no actual conflict” between the laws, but that they “say two different things.”

While the pre-emption is a separate issue, attorneys and medical marijuana supporters and opponents are watching other legal developments.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the law allowed the medical use of marijuana in limited circumstances, but not the sale of it.

The court ordered that a Mt. Pleasant dispensary should be closed. The dispensary was selling marijuana to people certified to buy it for medical purposes.

The court ruled that the facility’s operators have no authority under the law to operate a dispensary that “actively engages in and carries out patient-to-patient sales” of marijuana.

The legal discussions and arguments continue in California courts, a state in which voters passed a medical marijuana initiative 15 years ago.

A Superior Court judge in Orange County decided recently that Anaheim’s ban on dispensaries does not violate state law. The judge concluded that neither the medical marijuana initiative passed by voters in 1996 nor a state law that followed pre-empted local ordinances intended to regulate the distribution of the drug.

That case is headed to the state Court of Appeal.

kabramcz@hometownlife.com (313) 222-2591 . Twitter: @KenAbramcz

###

Paula Holmes-Greeley: State needs meeting of minds on pot

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:02:00 GMT

By Paula Holmes-Greeley | The Muskegon Chronicle The Muskegon Chronicle

There’s no other way to describe it, Michigan is schizophrenic about marijuana.

Voters clearly want marijuana available for medical use, but local officials, politicians, law enforcement agencies and many in the medical community appear to be uncomfortable with the new law.

And there’s no shortage of reasons why, starting with loopholes in the law that some critics say essentially legalize the drug.

For three years, officials and marijuana supporters have been debating how to implement the law with marijuana dispensaries or clubs sprouting in our communities while officials use moratoriums and develop zoning ordinances to ban them. Many communities, including Muskegon Township, are in court to stop dispensaries from operating. And the state Supreme Court will hear two cases on the issue this fall.

Between 80,000 and 100,000 Michigan residents have registered as medical marijuana users but many are afraid to be identified as such. Additionally, those “caregivers” who grow marijuana under the law to provide to others are in danger of arrest both from the state and the federal governments.

So what’s it going to be? Can Michigan residents use marijuana to relieve nausea, increase appetite and deal with pain, or not?

All of this was brought to a head last week by an appeals court ruling that banned medical marijuana sales at a facility in Mount Pleasant and prompted the estimated 400 to 500 dispensaries in Michigan to shut down or risk being treated like criminals. But I’ve been thinking about this issue since a former high school classmate shared her story.

She has developed fibromyalgia, which is quite painful. She was uncomfortable with the narcotic painkillers she had been prescribed and was looking for alternatives. Although she had never used marijuana in her life, she decided to give pot a try.

She dutifully collected her medical records and took them to a “dispensary” in a seedy part of Lansing to start the process to be a registered user. As she sat in the waiting room, she realized that no one else seemed to have any medical records with them or appeared to be sick. And they all seemed to be quite a bit younger than her, college students she thought.

When it was her turn, the “doctor” took a cursory look at her records, took her hundred bucks and she was good to go. She ended her story by saying that after that experience she never used marijuana, it seemed criminal, she said as she showed us her official looking registered user’s card.

I didn’t tell her that a Michigan court had recently ruled that all records of Michigan medical marijuana users had to be turned over to the federal government, which does treat marijuana use as a crime.

I’m not ready to join fellow Chronicle columnist Steve Gunn in calling for the legalization of marijuana for all uses. But his argument is making more and more sense.

Are the long-term effects of marijuana any worse than those of beer, wine and liquor, which are legal? If marijuana was legalized would Michigan immediately turn into a state of potheads? What about all the money spent on what appears to be a losing battle in the war on drugs? In this economy there are many competing uses for such huge sums.

Gov. Rick Snyder wouldn’t go there when the Chronicle Editorial Board asked him about the issue, not even to talk about the potential economic benefits of taxing marijuana sales. “It’s my job to enforce the laws of the state,” he told us. “The voters clearly want medical marijuana, but that’s not my issue. That’s not why I ran. I’m focused on jobs and kids.”

And that’s where our focus should be. The distraction and expense of the medical marijuana debate does nothing to create jobs nor does it help patients who should be having a legitimate discussion under the law with their doctors instead of being forced to skulk around like criminals.

Paula Holmes-Greeley is the editorial page editor at The Muskegon Chronicle. She can be reached weekdays at (231) 725-6354. Email: pholmes@muskegonchronicle.com. Cindy Fairfield’s column returns on Sept. 4.

###

After court decision, medical marijuana rules hazier than ever

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:52:19 GMT

By Ed Golder | The Grand Rapids Press The Grand Rapids Press

In 2008 Michigan voters passed a ballot measure that allows for the use of marijuana by people with certain medical conditions. With the new law came a haze of confusion about the scope and limits of marijuana use and distribution.

In this week’s Michigan Politics Minute, Press Editorial Page Editor Ed Golder and Press politics reporter Jim Harger talk about medical marijuana in Michigan — especially in light of a recent court decision.

Last week the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled against a medical marijuana dispensary, that sold medical marijuana to registered users. The court ruled that nowhere in the voter-approved Michigan Medical Marijuana Act does it provide for the sale of the otherwise illegal drug. (The court decision spells the drug with an ‘h’ throughout; I’ll stick with the conventional spelling.)

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel said a Mount Pleasant dispensary, Compassionate Apothecary, should be shut down. The “’medical use’ of marijuana, as defined by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, does not include patient-to-patient sales of marijuana, and no other provision of the MMMA can be read to permit such sales,” the court ruled. “Therefore, defendants have no authority to actively engage in and carry out the selling of marijuana between (apothecary) members.”

The decision puts in doubt some 300 to 400 dispensaries across the state, and leaves at least some patients without access to the drug. Two dispensaries in Washtenaw County were raided by law enforcement and shut down. Others continue to operate, though with uncertain legal status.

The 2008 law allows people to register with the Michigan Department of Community Health to become sanctioned medical marijuana patients. A registered patient must have a condition defined under the law — including AIDS, glaucoma, cancer, chronic pain and others — and be certified by a physician.

Patients are allowed to possess up to 2.5 ounces of the drug at one time and grow 12 plants in “an enclosed, locked facility.” Qualified “caregivers” can grow plants for up to five patients. To date, nearly 100,000 people have registered to be medical marijuana patients.

Lacking more specific guidelines from the state, local communities have enacted their own ordinances. Regulations vary wildly. The City of Wyoming has banned medical marijuana altogether because the use of marijuana is against federal law.

The city of Grand Rapids enacted regulations that treat medical marijuana growers as home-based businesses. The result is a hodgepodge of local regulations. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has expressed concern the law opens the door for illegal use of marijuana not intended by voters. A variety of legislative fixes are in the pipeline, including one that would require a stricter doctor-patient relationship before someone is authorized to use the drug.

Final word, however, will likely rest with the state Supreme Court, which frequently becomes the ultimate arbiter of voter initiatives. There is no word yet on whether this Court of Appeals ruling will go there.

###

DEA Upholds Federal Marijuana Monopoly, Obstructing Privately-Funded FDA Research -- WASHINGTON, Aug. 24, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:19:16 GMT

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) delivered yet another blow to privately funded medical marijuana research last week, despite the Obama administration’s promises to prioritize science over politics when it came to medical marijuana.

On Monday, August 15, 2011, the DEA issued its final order rejecting DEA Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner’s recommendation that it would be in the public interest to grant University of Massachusetts, Amherst Prof. Lyle Craker a license to grow marijuana for federally regulated research. The rejection preserves the monopoly held by National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) on the supply of marijuana for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-regulated research.

Prof. Craker first applied for the license in June 2001, over ten years ago. The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), a non-profit pharmaceutical company working to develop whole-plant marijuana into a prescription medicine, would provide the financial support for the proposed facility and FDA-regulated research. MAPS and Prof. Craker’s efforts are an attempt to bridge the gap between the 16 states that have legalized medical marijuana through political initiatives and federal policymakers who maintain that there is not enough FDA-regulated research to justify legal access.

ALJ Bittner issued her recommendation to license Prof. Craker on February 12, 2007, after extensive hearings. On January 14, 2009, almost two years later and six days before President Obama’s inauguration, DEA Acting Administrator Michelle Leonhart rejected the ALJ recommendation. In response, Prof. Craker’s lawyers filed a series of objections, which were denied in Monday’s final order. Prof. Craker’s only recourse is to appeal the DEA final ruling in the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

According to the DEA’s interpretation of the Single Convention, there can be only one legal provider of marijuana for research in the United States, and this role is presently filled by NIDA. ALJ Bittner’s 2007 recommendation, however, concluded that the DEA’s interpretation was flawed. Four other co-signors to the Single Convention—England, Canada, Israel, and the Netherlands—permit the private production of marijuana for research.

The DEA’s refusal to break NIDA’s monopoly on the supply of marijuana for research has direct implications for non-government-funded research. On April 28, 2011, the FDA cleared MAPS’ proposed study of marijuana for U.S. veterans with chronic, treatment-resistant posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). That same day, MAPS submitted the protocol for review by the Public Health Service (PHS) and NIDA, a procedure required for marijuana research because of the NIDA monopoly (but not for studies of any other controlled substance). Almost four months later, NIDA is still silent about whether it will agree to sell MAPS marijuana for the study. Without it, the study cannot go forward.

The DEA’s protection of NIDA’s monopoly has blocked privately funded medical marijuana research for four decades. Until the Obama administration instructs the DEA to change its tune, state-level medical marijuana reform efforts are the only way for patients to get safe and legal access to the medicine their physicians recommend.

For more information on MAPS’ and Dr. Craker’s efforts to obtain a DEA license, please visit http://www.maps.org/research/mmj.

CONTACT: Rick Doblin, Ph.D.
Executive Director
rick@maps.org
(617) 276-7806

SOURCE Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies

Colorado NASCAR driver suspended for medical marijuana use

Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:53:59 GMT

DENVER - A NASCAR driver has been suspended indefinitely after testing positive for marijuana. But Ronnie Hults says he got the drug legally, as a prescription for chronic pain.

While the state constitution allows people to smoke and buy medical marijuana, those rules may not apply to your workplace.

More than 127,000 people have medical marijuana cards in Colorado, but all can be suspended or fired if their employer has a policy against drug use.

That is what happened to Hults and now his NASCAR career could be over.

“Since I was a kid I’ve always told everybody I’m going to be a racecar driver,” he said.

Hults, whose nickname is “speedy,” says his doctor prescribed him medical marijuana for chronic back pain from a car accident.

“I’m only using medical marijuana at night to sleep when my hips are on fire and I have back pain,” he said.

Three weeks ago, before a big race, NASCAR officials told Hults there was a problem.

“They drug tested me at 8 a.m. that morning,” he said. “They said somebody called to complain that I was a ‘nemesis’ to the race track.”

Hults says he was not high when he got behind the wheel.

“I am sober at the time when I race a car,” he said.

“Ronnie is not doing this at the track or before a race. He’s not endangering anybody,” Gabriel Schwartz, Hults’ attorney, said. “We’re a medical marijuana state. It’s in our state constitution.”

Scwartz wants NASCAR to change its drug policy.

However, Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution, which covers medical marijuana, says: “Nothing in this section shall require any employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any work place.”

“As it stands right now, the employer’s got all the cards,” Curtis Graves, an attorney with the Mountain States Employers Council, said.

Graves says that means your boss can punish you, even if you have a prescription.

“If [an employer] says you’re fired for testing positive for marijuana, then that’s the way it goes,” he said.

Graves says that may change as the law evolves.

“Medical marijuana is like any other prescription drug. It’s going to have side effects,” 9Health Reporter Dr. John Torres said.

Dr. John says the affects after 12 hours, when Hults was going to drive, depends on your metabolism.

“Somebody like this is driving at high speeds and could endanger other people,” he said.

Hults insists he’s not a danger to anyone.

“It all comes down to justice and what’s fair,” he said.

He wants to continue using medical marijuana and continue his racing career.

“That is my dream. It has been stolen from me,” he said.

9NEWS contacted NASCAR for comment on Tuesday. A spokesman issued a statement, and then later retracted it, saying the suspension of Hults speaks for itself.

###

Push to Legalize Medical Marijuana in Arkansas Causing Concern

Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:45:27 GMT

An effort to legalize medical marijuana in Arkansas is causing concern for the Family Council Action Committee (FCAC).

On Tuesday, FCAC President Jerry Cox issued a statement regarding the push by Arkansans for Compassionate Care, which is gathering signatures for a ballot proposal in 2012.

"This is about legalizing marijuana," Cox said. "It's just a matter of legalizing it in degrees. I think you'd find, if you asked around, that a lot of the same folks who support this support total legalization of marijuana for any purpose. I believe their real agenda is to have marijuana be as legally available as tobacco."

Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel certified Arkansans for Compassionate Care's initiative in April, meaning advocates can begin collecting the 62,507 valid signatures they'll need to place the initiative on the November 2012 ballot. They'll have until July 6, 2012 to do it.

According to the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) website, the initiative would allow patients with serious illnesses like cancer, multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, and PTSD whose doctors recommend medical marijuana to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana. It would also allow patients to buy marijuana from one of up to about 30 dispensaries in the state, and allow patients who don't live near a dispensary to grow their own or designate a caregiver to grow it for them.

Cox said lifting restrictions on controlled substances poses a risk to families. "Substance abuse creates very real problems for families," Cox said. "If a husband or wife is addicted to something, it's going to put a strain on that marriage. It's going to put a strain on their kids. If you think we have problems with marijuana now, just wait until it becomes legally available."

Cox pointed out marijuana has been a Schedule I controlled substance for forty years. "This law would make Arkansas one of the most liberal states in the nation, where marijuana is concerned. And there are too many unanswered questions. How are we going to be sure medical marijuana grown in Arkansas isn't sold illegally across state lines? I've read marijuana can be cultivated with varying levels of active ingredients in it much the same way nicotine levels can be manipulated in tobacco. How are they going to keep marijuana growers from using that to make their product more potent or addictive?"

Cox pointed out that medical marijuana is a very unique approach to treating illness. "It's the only medicine you smoke," Cox said. "The health community has spent almost fifty years trying to stop smoking. Now a group of people wants Arkansas doctors to start encouraging just that: Smoking for your health. It just doesn't make sense."

Cox said he has not decided whether his group will file as a ballot question committee in opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment.

###

REPEAL CANNABIS PROHIBITION Act of 2012 Initiative filed 8/19/11 in Sacramento

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:04:31 GMT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Committee Contact: Joe Rogoway Esq.
Co-Proponent, Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012
The Committee to Repeal Cannabis Prohibition
PO Box 282
Santa Rosa, CA 95402
(707) 520-4205
joerogoway@cannabislawinstitute.com
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Repeal-Cannabis-Prohibition/256264247726059

Re: “Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012” filed in Sacramento, California

SACRAMENTO CA, August 19, 2011—In a historic moment of cannabis policy reform, the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 is now filed with the California Attorney General for title and summary. We are working to place this measure on the November 2012 ballot.

The RCPA 2012 repeals all criminal prohibitions on cannabis related conduct for adults while mandating strict rules against contributing to the delinquency of minors and driving while impaired. This is all accomplished while maintaining medical rights for patients and vesting the California Department of Public Health with the regulation of commercial cannabis.

The most recent polling shows that 55% of Americans support marijuana legalization (http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/2011.08.09_Drugs_USA.pdf) . In this era of fiscal pragmatism and social responsibility, the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 will once again make this Golden State green.

Co-proponents Joe Rogoway Esq., Frank H. Lucido M.D., PebblesTrippet, William Panzer Esq., and Omar Figueroa Esq. comprise The Committee to Repeal Cannabis Prohibition and can be contacted at (707) 520-4205.

Additional Information can be found at:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Repeal-Cannabis-Prohibition/256264247726059

http://www.economist.com/node/18118857?story_id=18118857

http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/2011.08.09_Drugs_USA.pdf

###

Full text:

Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012

This initiative measure is submitted to the People of the State of California in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution.

This initiative measure adds Chapter 6.7, entitled “Repeal of Cannabis Prohibition,” to Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code.

PROPOSED LAW

SECTION 1. Sections 11420, 11421, 11422, 11423, 11424, 11425, 11426, 11427, and 11428 are added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:

11420(a). This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012.

(b)(1) The People of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 are as follows:

(A) To ensure that adults have the right to obtain and use cannabis.

(B) To ensure that adults who participate in cannabis related activities are not subject to criminal arrest, prosecution, or sanction.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from driving impaired, nor to condone the diversion of cannabis to minors.

(c) “Cannabis” means “marijuana” as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11018 and “concentrated cannabis” as defined in Section 11006.5.

11421(a). The following statutes are hereby repealed from the Health and Safety Code: Section 11054(d)(13), Section 11054(d)(20), Section 11357, Section 11358, Section 11359, Section 11360, and Section 11361. Section 23222(b) of the California Vehicle Code is hereby repealed. Cannabis related activities are hereby removed from the prohibitions contained within Health and Safety Code Sections 11364.7, 11365, 11366, 11366.5, 11379.6 and 11570.

(b). The repeal of Health and Safety Code section 11360, as related to sales only, will be effectuated within 180 days of passage of the Act in order to allow the California Department of Public Health the opportunity to enact commercial cannabis regulations.

11422. It shall not be a crime or public offense for an adult to use, possess, share, cultivate, transport, process, distribute, sell or otherwise engage in cannabis related activities.

11423(a). The California Department of Public Health shall oversee the regulatory system for the commercial cultivation, manufacturing, processing, testing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis. This shall include promulgation of regulations to control, license, permit, or otherwise authorize the commercial cultivation, manufacturing, processing, testing, transportation, distribution and sales of cannabis. These regulations shall include appropriate controls on the licensed premises for commercial cultivation, sales and on-premises consumption of cannabis including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties, and other environmental and public health controls. These regulations may not include bans of the conduct permitted by this Act.

(b) Any regulations created by the California Department of Public Health may not impede on the individual rights set forth in this Act. Any taxes, regulations, fines and fees imposed pursuant to this section shall not be imposed on personal amounts of cannabis below 3 pounds of processed cannabis and 100 sq. ft. of cannabis plant canopy provided that the processed cannabis was not sold or purchased pursuant to subdivision (a).

(c) The California Department of Public Health may regulate the smoking of cannabis in public and where minors are present.

11424. This Act, and all state implementations of this Act, shall preempt enactments of local jurisdictions with the exception that local jurisdictions may enhance the rights and protections of persons involved in cannabis related activities beyond what is delineated by the state or this Act.

11425. This Act shall not adversely affect the individual and group medical rights and protections afforded by California Health and Safety Code §11362.5 through §11362.83.

11426. Cannabis related conduct that contributes to the delinquency of a minor shall remain punishable by Penal Code section 272. Driving while impaired by cannabis shall remain punishable by Vehicle Code Sections 23103, 23152(a) and 23153. Impairment occurs when a person's mental or physical abilities are so impaired that he or she is no longer able to drive a vehicle with the caution of a sober person, using ordinary care, under similar circumstances.

11427. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

11428. The provisions of this Act shall become effective November 7, 2012.

####

Save the Date for our first benefit for the RCPA of 2012:

Saturday October 1, 2011, 7pm- Midnite

East Bay Location "to be announced"

We will be looking for people who can donate time, skills, or money to this historic race over the next 15 months. The first part will be the hardest, and most telling: the signature drive.
We estimate we will need $1.25 million dollars for the signature gathering drive and lots of grass roots volunteers, to show the bigger money people that we Californians are ready to Repeal Cannabis Prohibition!

We will have a campaign website up and running soon, but we need funds NOW
I suggest our sliding scale for this first benefit get-together should be $25.00-$1,000.00 (and upwards for those who have the means). The sliding scale can be lower for those who have the time to seriously volunteer for this historic campaign. Are you ready for the next 15 months leading up to the November 6, 2012 election? I am, and I'm excited!

Untile we get the campaign website up and running, we'll take initial pledges/RSVP's by email at:
info@DrLucido.com or call my office at 510-848-0958 ext 0, speak to Melissa or Shante

Excitement is building! Initiative Fever: Catch it! (with apologies to Major League Baseball!)

Frank H. Lucido MD
Family Practice since 1979
Medical Cannabis Consultation
Expert Witness
Berkeley Ca
510.848.0958 (by appointment only)
www.DrFrankLucido.com
(formerly MedicalBoardWatch.com)
www.AIMLegal.org
www.DrFrankLucido.blogspot.com
Michigan office: 877-787-6900
(24 hr message line)

ps: New Primary Care Patient introductory rate now extended until October, 2011
http://drfranklucido.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-primary-care-patient-special-as-of.html
We are not on any insurances; a deal-breaker for some, but the uninsured think we're a good deal.
NOTE: our Primary Care patients also get a steep reduction in their Medical Cannabis Evaluation fee.
Your Family Doctor in Berkeley since 1979!

DrFrank will also meet with any physicians who would like to be part of AIMLegal.org and take my certification training.
http://aimlegal.blogspot.com/
http://aimlegal.org/
http://www.drfranklucido.com/pages/aimlegal.org-expert-witness-locator.php

Student drug testing may have only small effect in reducing use

Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:12:25 GMT

By Shari Roan, Los Angeles Times / For the Booster Shots blog

11:19 AM PDT, August 17, 2011

Student drug testing has been a hot-button issue in high schools for the past decade. But a new study joins a growing pile of research papers that describe student drug testing as failed policy.

The study, published online in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence, was based on a nationally representative sample of 940 high school students across the country. The teens were surveyed by telephone in 2007 and 2008.

Overall, 27% of the students said their schools engaged in drug testing. However, the survey showed no evidence that drug-testing policies led male students to avoid drug use or engage in less drug use. Drug-testing policies seemed to have a slight impact on influencing female students not to use drugs, but the effect was found only in schools that have otherwise healthy social climates in which school rules are clear and enforced and student-adult relationships are based on respect.

The Supreme Court has backed the practice of student drug testing for students in sports and other extracurricular activities. And, the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, part of the Department of Education, encourages schools to adopt drug testing.

But school administrators should review the body of literature on the programs’ effectiveness, said the lead author of the new study, Dan Romer, director of the Adolescent and Health Communications Institutes at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

“This study sends a cautionary note to the estimated 20% or more of high schools that have joined the drug testing bandwagon,” Romer said in a news release. “We find little evidence that this approach to minimizing teen drug use is having the deterrent effect its proponents claim… Schools that have joined the rush to implement testing should ask themselves whether this strategy has been oversold.”

Follow me: twitter.com/LATShariRoan

What symptoms do patients treat with medicinal cannabis?

Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:25:43 GMT

One question the 2011 Medical Marijuana Survey (sponsored by Legalize Utah) queried which received some of the most detailed responses was” “Do you use Medical Marijuana to treat any physical or psychological conditions and if so, which conditions”.

The first responses were “To treat Asperger’s syndrome” while the next response indicated “For severe Anxiety and Depression.

Glaucoma, chronic pain and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder all respond to treatment, according to the survey.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Anorexia, Insomnia, Social Anxiety, stress and chronic back pain along with Temporomandibular joint disorder (TMJ) are also treated with cannabis. .

Fibromyalgia, nerve pain, Multiple Sclerosis and the associated pain of all these conditions are also treated throughout the county, whether medical marijuana is legal or not.

Chronic pain from Scoliosis, degenerative disc disease, arthritis, hip prosthesis, and DeQuerin’s are also treated by a survey respondent. Another participant stated: “I’m diagnosed with biological depression and I suffer from severe migraines. I also use it when I have an upset stomach when i can’t keep food down it’s amazing how just one or two hits destroys your stomach is queasy.

Another participant treats a “dead nerve”, that was cut during surgery. It is extremely painful every day and all night. Had a doctor that offered to give me shots to hopefully be able to hit the nerve and deaden it. Which he said was highly unlikely, but was all he could do for me since I smoke. When I went back, I had to go to local office and a different doctor seen me. He retested me and refused my shots because of it. But at least I don’t have to take pills all of the time”.

Pain and spasms associated with neck and back injuries, stress and alcoholism are also effectively treated with cannabis.

Another participant stated: “I have digestion and appetite issues, as well as chronic back pain, and neuropathy in my feet. Marijuana helps a great deal with my appetite. Depending on the severity of the chronic pain on a particular day, marijuana can really help take the edge off, especially if I eat it rather than smoke it”.

More comments include: “It isn’t legal in my state. I have used it for severe and chronic as a complimentary therapy to occipital nerve blocks and daily preventative. Also for chronic, profound kidney stone former”.

It is clear that there are multitudes of symptoms which respond extremely well to treatment with cannabis and legal or not, medical marijuana patients will continue to utilize their choice of herbal medicine, even in states like Utah.

If you would like to participate in this confidential survey, simply click here.

A wide variety of symptoms and diseases are well managed with medical cannabis

###

Spliff decision: Angel of medical-marijuana mercy, or drug dealer?

Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:18:44 GMT

BY JASON NARK
Philadelphia Daily News

narkj@phillynews.com 215-854-5916

FACEDOWN ON the pavement with two pounds of pot in her trunk and a cop punching her in the side, Colleen Begley could have packed her bohemian lifestyle away and called it quits.

The Moorestown native could have dimed out all her longtime friends for a lesser sentence, with the hope of someday returning to a cozy life in that affluent suburb, where she could finish college and get into her family’s law business. At the very least, she could have moved to Northern California, where there’d be less heat.

“My parents told me to grow up to be anything but a drug dealer,” the 30-year-old medical-marijuana activist said one recent summer afternoon on a dock overlooking a small creek in Burlington County. “I never felt like I was one.”

In the eyes of law-enforcement officials, though, Begley is very much a drug dealer, a woman who allegedly picked up a package of “high-grade” marijuana shipped from California to a home in Burlington Township on Feb. 11, then led police on a short chase.

She was charged with possession with intent to distribute, eluding and resisting arrest. Her co-defendant John Claudy, who lived at the home in Burlington, was charged with possession and conspiracy, while Russell Forchion, brother of the infamous Ed “NJ Weedman” Forchion, was charged with conspiracy, accused of acting as a lookout.

Out on bail after spending 11 days in jail, Begley has taken a roundabout route into law, challenging the Garden State’s stance on a drug it will soon make available to sick and dying residents, while still prosecuting those arrested with pot as if it were angel dust or Ecstasy.

She feels that public sentiment is on her side, even if prosecutors aren’t.

“It does get harder and harder for the state to say you are a drug dealer in this environment,” she said. “I’ve never wanted to go steal money to go buy more weed. It’s not a sickness.”

No room for home grown?

Former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine signed the New Jersey Compassionate Use of Medical Marijuana Act into law on his last day in office, and Gov. Chris Christie finally agreed in July to start implementing the program, which will make medical marijuana available at a handful of facilities for doctor-approved patients with dire medical issues.

New Jersey’s program will be arguably the strictest in the nation, with no place, at least legally, for a homegrown medical-marijuana merchant like Begley.

“I don’t see the network of people like Colleen going away, though” said Chris Goldstein, a spokesman for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). “If you have a major medical condition, like AIDS or MS, you’re lucky to know someone like Colleen.”

The biggest issue with Begley’s arrest and prosecution, according to her attorney and marijuana activists, is that New Jersey is acknowledging that marijuana has some medical value for “compassionate care relief” while still classifying the plant as a Schedule I narcotic. Schedule I narcotics, according to the DEA, could be habit-forming and “have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” Schedule I includes drugs like LSD and peyote, while cocaine and Oxycodone are both on Schedule II.

“Begley is caught in the middle of the State’s transition between attempting to regulate illicit marijuana use and medical marijuana use,” Begley’s attorney, Dan Rosenberg, wrote in a motion to dismiss charges.

A spokesman for Christie and the state Attorney General’s Office said that the state has no plans to change the criminal code.

“The Legislature established a very specific, comprehensive scheme for the restricted medical use of marijuana and for its prescription and distribution in that context,” Peter Aseltine, a spokesman for the AG’s Office, said in a statement. “It did not consider it necessary to reclassify marijuana in a different schedule.”

William Buckman, a civil-rights attorney from Moorestown who is representing Claudy, said that the state’s stance is “schizophrenic.”

“It’s a dinosaur of a law,” he said.

Claudy has pleaded not guilty, Buckman said, and was simply an “innocent bystander.”

Begley, who claims that she has sold or given marijuana to people with issues ranging from migraines to HIV, is also asking the court for permission to introduce expert testimony about the benefits of medical marijuana.

Waiting on a jury

A confidential informant told police about the marijuana shipment to Claudy’s home, on Pinewald Lane in Burlington Township, police reports say, and officers set up surveillance on Feb. 11 to see who was going to pick it up.

While Russell Forchion allegedly acted as a lookout, Begley allegedly picked up the package, put it in her Jeep Wrangler and left.

According to the reports, undercover police motioned for Begley to pull over on Route 130 and made eye contact with her via her rear-view mirror, but they claim that she fled, eventually crashing into an auto-body shop in Burlington City.

Begley claimed that she didn’t know that the men were cops and got scared, but once she crashed, she got out, put her hands on her head and got down. One officer, in his written report, agreed. Others said that she resisted and admitted kicking her and striking her in the side “three to four times with a closed fist.”

Begley’s family couldn’t be reached for comment, and she admittedly has a strained relationship with them after multiple arrests for marijuana possession. Although they don’t approve of her lifestyle, they’re paying her legal fees, lending her a car and sending her back to Rutgers, where she’s studying psychology. They’re also paying rent for the small, picturesque house she lives in on the wooded banks of the north branch of the Rancocas Creek, in Hainesport.

“I really have been very blessed by my parents,” she said on the deck, smoking a joint as long and thick as a pinkie.

Begley lives in that idyllic setting with her two dogs, attending NORML meetings and medical-marijuana events when she can and consulting with Rosenberg often, hoping that her case will go before a jury. She’s remarkably relaxed for a woman who could spend more than a decade in prison if convicted.

“I’m not scared of going to prison,” she said. “The arrest has killed my love life, though.”

Genetic research has gone to pot

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:01:04 GMT

By Christine McConville
Thursday, August 18, 2011 - Updated 7 hours ago

A Marblehead biotechnology company has cracked the code on cannabis, and will roll out the first-ever sequencing of the entire pot genome today.

Weed may be better known as the stuff of Cheech and Chong comedies and finger-wagging flicks such as “Reefer Madness.” But the genetic mapping of Mary Jane is serious business, conducted by Medicinal Genomics in a joint effort with pharmaceutical giant Roche, and is sure to stoke the flames of the medical marijuana fire.

Yesterday, Medicinal Genomics founder Kevin McKernan told The Pulse that the potentially huge medicinal herb industry could use this data to offer cancer patients and others in constant pain new, better kinds of curative cannabis scientifically designed to target their specific conditions.

“We’re out to measure the plant, at a genetic level, so we can put a label on it,” a hopeful McKernan told The Pulse yesterday. “We’ll be able to tell people, ‘This has this much (cannabidiol) and a couple of other compounds as well.’ ”

First, though, there needs to be some federal consensus on the health benefits of ganja.

So far, 16 states — Massachusetts is not one of them — have legalized prescription pot.

But the federal government remains a total buzzkill on the issue, and there is no regulatory oversight of an industry that some analysts say could reach $45 billion a year in the United States alone. McKernan says his company, which has a satellite office in Amsterdam, has the data to create a well-regulated system of dosages — now only loosely defined by terms ranging from “bong hit” to “bogart.”

McKernan said the Drug Enforcement Agency “says we need more data, and we’re saying, ‘Let’s start actively looking at medical qualities of this. Let’s do everything we can to understand the qualities of this drug.’ ”

The new genome sequencing will play a big role in that.

Before Medicinal Genomics completed its sequencing, the National Center for Biotechnology Information had a seemingly gnarly 2 million bases of cannabis sequence in its database. But with this new information, the bank will contain a mind-blowing 131 billion bases of cannabis’ components.

Apart from its traditional recreational uses, cannabis may have great potential for managing pain, curbing anxiety and depression, and even battling cancer, some researchers say. Others believe medical marijuana advocates are just potheads, looking for a legal way to grow and sell contraband. But McKernan says that after all his research into cannabis, he’s convinced prescription pot supporters aren’t just blowing smoke.

“There’s real potential there,” he said.

-— christine.mcconville@ bostonherald.com

Photo by Gordon Swanson

HIGH TIME: Some researchers believe marijuana gene mapping may one day yield better cancer drugs.

The Real Deal Behind Obama's 'Yes We Cannabis!' Rhetoric

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:32:35 GMT

The DEA is cracking down hard on legal mom-and-pop medical marijuana dealers and disingenuously declaring pot for pain doesn’t work. Over at the FDA, the first medication made straight from the plant is sailing toward approval to treat ”you guessed it!”pain. Is the method to Obama’s reefer madness to enrich Big Pharma?

Image:

Obama admitted to inhaling during his college days. Photo via

By Dirk Hanson

08/17/11

It’s hard to contest the claim that the Obama administration has given the shaft to advocates of medical marijuana. Hitting the re-election trail this week, the president had to duck a question about his record on pot-for-pain at a Minnesota town hall meeting, leaving unresolved ”after more than two and a half years”his campaign promise to respect the right of patients to make decisions about their own care. What’s harder to credit is the criticism that Obama has handed Big Pharma the medical marijuana market on a plate, while thousands of patients using state-licensed cannabis live under the threat of federal intervention, even arrest.

Critics liken Obama’s cannabis conundrum to the way he dealt with the financial crisis ”bailing out Wall Street while leaving millions of homes on Main Street to fall into foreclosure. If this sounds too harsh on a president that the Republicans have done nothing but hate on, try making sense of recent news in federal medical-marijuana policy.

Back in March, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) exercised its emergency authority to outlaw the use of five fake marijuana products like Spice and K2. These products consist of plant materials that have been coated with research chemicals that claim to mimic THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, and are sold at a variety of retail outlets, in head shops and over the Internet, the DEA said in a prepared statement.

And in July, DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart rejected a longstanding request to downgrade pot’s Schedule I drug status, saying marijuana should remain in the same category as heroin because of its high abuse potential ”while arguing, despite an overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary, that marijuana “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” and “lacks an acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision. ” Yet even the National Cancer Institute begs to differ, listing medical marijuana as a potential treatment for cancer-related pain and nausea.

In between these two high-profile DEA actions, Britains GW Pharmaceuticals received U.S. patent approval for the use of Sativex, its nasal spray for treatment of advanced cancer pain composed of ”yes, thats right”an organic combination of the two primary chemicals found in cannabis. Furthermore, Sativex has made it all the way to Phase III clinical testing in a bid for FDA approval, and so far, the companies chances look good.

The Obama administration seems to want to have it both ways: Weed has medical benefits, but then again it doesn’t; it’s as dangerous as heroin, but safe enough to give to sick patients in medical experiments. And what about the right of the consumer to decide for herself? Whose interests are being served here, and who’s getting the shaft?

Obama seems to want to have it both ways: Weed has medical benefits, but then again it doesn’t; it’s as dangerous as heroin, but safe enough to give to sick patients in medical experiments. Whose interests are being served here, and who’s getting the shaft?

Sativex was first approved in 2005 in Canada for the relief of spasticity in multiple sclerosis”you spray the cannabis mist under your tongue for a concentrated dose of THC and cannabidiol (CBD), marijuanas top two active ingredients. To oversimplify the science, the THC molecule is responsible for getting you high and the CBD molecule for dulling pain.

If approved, Sativex will be labeled an add-on treatment for symptom improvement, according to The Pharma Letter, in patients who have not responded adequately to other anti-spasticity medication. But once it’s on the market, doctors will be free to prescribe it off-label for use in pain caused by other conditions and indeed for other medical problems. Our neighbor to the north was also the first to grant Sativex a conditional license for use in two of the most severe forms of pain: neuropathic, or nerve, and cancer related. Since then, Britain, Spain, Germany and other countries have given it the OK, and several giant pharmaceutical firms bought distribution rights, indicating that the industry expects this (and presumably future) treatments derived from the cannabis plant to get the legal and regulatory green light.

Add to that the fact that GW Pharmaceuticals, which grows its weed in undisclosed locations in Britain, recently wrapped up a licensing agreement with drug giant Novartis for distribution of Sativex, and the timing last month of the Justice Departments warning of the potential for criminal prosecutions of state employees who go anywhere near the medical marijuana business begins to look all the more curious. It’s a fair question whether the Obama administration is subtly signaling that if there are any medical spinoffs to be discovered and delivered to citizens, the Food and Drug Administration will take it from here: Safety first. But for the thousands of Americans who already use marijuana medicinally, Sativex represents a cynical end run around the medical-marijuana establishment.

Sativex is a proprietary extract of the marijuana plant, while Spice, K2 and the other cannabis substitutes are synthetic versions of various molecules found in marijuana. Sitting uneasily between these two extremes is medical marijuana, which, like Sativex, uses the whole plant in organic form. The Sativex sell is that smoking the plant is a crude and unhealthy method of drug delivery, and that the companys special blend delivers relief without an accompanying psychoactive high. Whether that’s a plus depends upon your feelings about the relatively freewheeling approach taken by the medical marijuana movement: Try smoking some of this.

The progressive website Firedoglake summed up the darker view of the feds strategy recently: Demonize it, prosecute it, shut it down, then grab the market. For legalizers, Sativex is the Trojan Horse the government will use to destroy any chance that anybody besides Big Pharma will get more than a sliver of the marijuana market when all the dust settles. They point to statements by former deputy drug czar Andrea Barthwell, who denounced medical marijuana on the grounds that any prescriptive medicine should depend on years of careful scientific scrutiny, not whims at the ballot box by individuals who lack the qualifications to make such decisions.

In other words, whats wrong with medical marijuana is that the federal government does not regulate it. Thats not, by definition, an unreasonable assessment. We make the same assumption when we differentiate between hospital morphine and street heroin. But a group called Americans for Safe Access (ASA) is challenging that attitude in court. The advocacy group has spent years petitioning to change marijuana’s designation so that doctors can prescribe it to patients. “The federal government is making no bones about its aggressive policy to undermine medical marijuana,” says ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer. “And we’re prepared to take the Obama administration to court over it.”

The problem isnt only that all these policies, taken together, are inherently contradictory. The problem is that each agency is right, up to a point. Justice and the DEA are correct to insist that certain combinations of the dozens of synthetic ingredients found in fake cannabis are not at all user-friendly, and that when marketed over the counter as Spice, K2, herbal incense, or bath salts, may land a consumer in the emergency room.

Yet agencies like the FDA and entrepreneurs like GW Pharmaceuticals are also right to insist that certain medical applications lurk within the chemical heart of the marijuana plant. In the last three years alone, writes Maia Szalavitz on her blog at Time Healthland, cannabinoids have been found to help kill breast cancer cells, fight liver cancer, reduce inflammation, have antipsychotic effects and even potentially help stave off the development of Alzheimer’s disease and reduce progression of Huntington’s disease. Further, a 2011 review of the effectiveness of cannabinoids for non-cancer pain found no significant adverse effects and ˜significant analgesic effects.

Its laudable that one department of the federal government wants to protect us from potentially harmful synthetic cannabinoids. Its also understandable that another agency of the government wants to investigate legitimate medical applications for cannabis-based medicines. Whats confusing is the renewed fervor the Obama administration has shown for cracking down on pot-for-pain clinics in the 16 states that have legalized them. Nor is there any ready explanation for the DEAs bad-faith declaration concerning medical marijuana, at a time when the FDA is actively testing and approving medicines based on both organic and man-made cannabis products.

The DEAs intent [may be] to expand the federal governments schedule III listing to include pharmaceutical products containing naturally derived formations of THC while simultaneously maintain existing criminal prohibitions on the plant itself.

Although not well known, there are already several synthetic versions of cannabis available to medical patients in the U.S. HU-211, for example, a synthetic version of THC marketed as dexanabinol, is in clinical trials for glaucoma and stroke damage. THC is also found as an ingredient in some versions of Spice. Dronabinol, marketed as Marinol, is a form of synthetic THC prescribed as an appetite stimulant for people with AIDS wasting or on chemotherapy, as is another form of synthetic cannabis called Nabilone. Even the governments putatively well-meaning attack on fake marijuana is not entirely free of conflicts of interest.

In a pill or a spray, its OK. In a doobie, no way.

Back in 2005, when Canada certified Sativex, AlterNet declared: Make no mistake: Sativex is liquid marijuana. It is nothing like Marinol, the synthetic THC pill sold in the US and sometimes falsely touted as an adequate substitute for marijuana….By approving liquid marijuana, the Canadian government has just certified that virtually everything our own government has been telling us about marijuana is wrong. And all of this comes as the DEA and the Office of National Drug Control Policy have furiously redoubled their efforts to put a stake through the heart of the medical marijuana movement, which is attempting, more or less, to sell the same medicine.

Here is GW Pharmaceuticals position, which, if the FDA approves Sativex, will tacitly become the position of the US government: GW has never endorsed or supported the idea of distributing or legalizing crude herbal cannabis for medical use. In both our publications and presentations, we have consistently maintained that only a cannabinoid medication one that is standardized in composition, formulation, and dose, administered by means of an appropriate delivery system, and tested in properly controlled preclinical and clinical studies can meet the standards of regulatory authorities around the world, including those of the FDA….In GW’s opinion, smoking is not an acceptable means of delivery for a medicine.

There may be another big reason why smoking is not an acceptable means of cannabis delivery: Its too cheap. NORMLs Paul Armentano, who frequently writes for AlterNet, says that the DEAs intent was to expand the federal governments schedule III listing to include pharmaceutical products containing naturally derived formations of THC while simultaneously maintain existing criminal prohibitions on the plant itself. If that is truly the plan, then the conspiracy buffs have been right all along: Uncle Sam wants to be your one and only dealer on behalf of its supplier, Big Pharma.

And with President Obama battling hard-right mudslingers in his campaign for re-election, expect him to burnish his “hard on drugs” credentials with further medical-marijuana crackdowns. For now, advocates can only hope for change in his second term. In their dreams.

####

Dirk Hanson has written extensively about addiction and recovery issues. He is a regular contributor to The Fix, has published The Chemical Carousel: What Science Tells Us About Beating Addiction and blogs daily at The Addiction Inbox.

Obama Is Asked To Defend His Administration’s Opposition To Medical Cannabis — He Can’t

Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:22:18 GMT

Regardless of one’s opinion of President Obama as a political figure, it is hard to deny his skill as an eloquent orator. So it is notable, even newsworthy, when the Commander and Chief is publicly at a loss for words.

Such was the case yesterday at a Presidential Town hall in Cannon Falls, Minnesota when a flustered, tongue-tied Obama attempted in vain to explain why his administration continues to oppose efforts to allow for the legal use of cannabis as a doctor-recommended medicine. (The full video of the Town hall is below. The medical marijuana question and Obama’s response comes at the 49-minute mark.)

Confused? Perhaps this transcript will help to better articulate the President’s position:

Audience member: “If you can’t legalize marijuana, why can’t we just legalize medical marijuana, to help the people that need it?”

Obama: “Well, you know, a lot of states are making decisions about medical marijuana. As a controlled substance, the issue then is, you know, is it being prescribed by a doctor, as opposed to, you know — well — – I’ll — I’ll — I’ll — I’ll leave it at that.”

And leave it at that he did.

It is curious that President Obama — someone who is use to speaking extemporaneously in public — could not articulate one single legitimate reason (nor could his former Press Secretary) why his administration believes in continuing the federal ban on marijuana, including the use of medical marijuana for ill patients. Obama’s failure to communicate becomes even more surprising when one considers that within just the past few weeks, high-profile members of the Obama administration have publicly put forward several alleged ‘justifications’ for why the federal government ought to be in the business of denying medical marijuana to sick people.

For instance, the White House’s 2011 National Drug Control Strategy, released in July, devoted an entire section to rebuffing the notion of cannabis’ use as a legitimate therapy, stating:

Marijuana and other drugs are addictive and unsafe, especially for use by young people. Unfortunately, efforts to “medicalize” marijuana have widened the public acceptance and availability of the drug.

There is no substitute for the scientific approval process employed by the FDA. For a drug to be made available to the public as medicine, the FDA requires rigorous research followed by tests for safety and efficacy. Only then can a substance be classified as medicine and prescribed by qualified health care professionals to patients.

In the wake of state and local laws that permit distribution of “medical” marijuana, dozens of localities have been left to grapple with poorly written laws that bypass the FDA process and allow marijuana to be used as a so-called medicine. … Outside the context of federally approved research, the use and distribution of marijuana is prohibited in the United States.

In addition, less than one-month ago, Obama’s hand-picked DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart formally denied a nine-year-old petition calling on the agency to initiate hearings to reassess the present classification of marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance without any ‘accepted medical use in treatment.’ Leonhart’s justification, as stated in in the July 8, 2011 edition of the Federal Register:

[Cannabis possesses] a high potential for abuse; … no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; … [and] lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision. … [T]here are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving its efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts. … At this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy.

So if the Obama administration is willing to make such allegations in writing, then why is the President afraid to own up to and repeat these claims in public? Likely because he, like a majority of Americans, are aware that there isn’t a shred of scientific support for the administration’s ‘Flat Earth’ position.

So if the President of the United States can’t publicly articulate why we continue to arrest over one-half million Americans each year for possessing marijuana, then why are we as a nation continuing to engage in this destructive and illogical policy?

####

Drug enforcement checkpoint on I-25: Could narcotics stops become commonplace?

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:00:20 GMT

On Tuesday night just shy of midnight, a Westword reader was traveling on Interstate 25 near the 144th Street exit when he saw an electronic sign that read: "DRUG ENFORCEMENT CHECKPOINT AHEAD (Canines in Use)." Also nearby -- a squad car and a cone zone.

What's the story?

Figuring out the outfit involved wasn't easy. The Adams County Sheriff's Office, the Colorado State Patrol and the Drug Enforcement Administration had no knowledge of the operation, and calls to the North Metro Drug Task Force weren't returned.

Finally, however, Colorado Department of Transportation spokeswoman Stacy Stegman confirmed that the sign in question belonged to CDOT -- and that the agency had allowed it to be used by the Westminster Police Department, whose public information officer, Investigator Trevor Materasso, provides some background.

"It was specifically a drug interdiction checkpoint set up similar to a DUI checkpoint," he says, adding that "this was the first drug-specific interdiction that we set up in this format. Some of our officers recently were trained on some new methods to use in doing drug interdiction -- so this is something we haven't done before."

At this point, Materasso doesn't have many details from the operation, beyond noting that several tickets were written for what he calls "traffic-related issues." In addition, he says, "we did recover a small amount of cash that was associated with drugs -- marijuana and ecstasy."

Materasso says more information should be available next week -- at which point we'll update this post. In the meantime, consider the checkpoint to be a sign of the times.

Is Marijuana really the Wonder-Drug that could Help Millions or actually a Menace of Society?

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:40:40 GMT

Many say marijuana is the most beneficial of all the substances known to man, while others claim it is the scourge of mankind.

Regardless that the Journal of Health and Social Behavior found that Marijuana is not a “gateway” drug, that the Global Commission on Drug Policy report describes America’s “war on drugs” a total failure, and all the scientific research supporting the medical benefits of marijuana, America continues its witch hunt on marijuana.

In fact, the US DEA has the audacity to decree that marijuana has no accepted medical use. This decision by the DEA comes almost nine years after medical marijuana supporters asked the government to reclassify cannabis to take into account a growing body of research that shows its effectiveness in treating certain diseases, is clearly a self-serving act to keep their funds coming and their agents busy.

Marijuana has been used for medicinal purposes for over 4,000 years. Manuscripts from ancient India confirm that marijuana’s psychoactive properties were used by doctors for treating a variety of ailments and illnesses, including gastrointestinal disorders, headaches, insomnia and as a pain reliever during childbirth.

In 2009, the American Medical Assn. urged the government to review its classification of marijuana “with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines, (such as Marinol, a synthetic version of THC, the active ingredient of marijuana, which was synthesized as far back as in the 1970s because research had already shown the usefulness of marijuana based medicine) and alternate delivery methods.”

Only recently, Marijuana has been approved by California and many other states to treat a range of illnesses, because of the continued success of treatment, studies and trials including marijuana. Many state’s government legislation has made both marijuana and Marinol more available to patients. Though still illegal on a federal level, many patients are now finally able to apply for personal possession from their sate of residency.

Poll results concerning the legalization of marijuana

Popular opinion has also swung behind marijuana. Americans overwhelmingly support it in national polls. Gallup’s latest poll finds 44% of Americans in favor of legalization and 54% opposed. US public support for legalizing pot was fixed at about 25% until 2000 when acceptance jumped to 31%.

However, because of the prohibition of marijuana, mostly due to the pharmaceutical and alcohol industries, as well as anti-drug activists and religious crusaders, the use of both marijuana and Marinol as a medicine remains restricted.

Dr. Igor Grant, a neuropsychiatrist who is the director of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at UC San Diego, said state-supported clinical trials show that marijuana helps with neuropathic pain and muscle spasticity. However, still the federal government’s position discourages scientists from pursuing research needed to test the drug’s medical effectiveness, he said. “We’re trapped in kind of a vicious cycle here. It’s always a danger if the government acts on certain kinds of persuasions or beliefs rather than evidence,” Dr. Grant concluded.

The studies showing treatment success of marijuana are overwhelming. Just check out the success ratios recorded from studies by Daily Strength in the chart bellow! How can the US government ignore these stats?

Overall, 90% (1,080 Members) find Marijuana helpful

Studies to Discover the Full Potential of Marijuana’s Benefits

Its time we put aside old bias and prejudices and study marijuana with all our resources, so we can harness the full potential of its benefits!

Already scientists, researchers and doctors have discovered a wide range of benefits unequaled by any other natural or chemical medication, ever. Period.

No other medication or herb offers relief from symptoms like these:

Relief of muscle spasms
Relief of chronic pain
Reduction in interlobular pressure inside the eye
Suppression of nausea
Weight loss - increase and restore metabolism

No other medication or herb offers treatment from a wide variety of diseases like these:

AIDS - Marijuana can reduce the nausea, loss of appetite, vomiting from the condition itself and the medications as well.
Glaucoma - Marijuana relieves the internal eye pressure of glaucoma, and therefore relieving the pain and slowing or even stopping the condition.
Cancer- Many side effects of the medication to stop cancer can be relieve with Marijuana, some studies suggest that Marijuana tends to slow down the progress of some types of cancer.
Multiple Sclerosis - Muscle pain, spasticity, tremors and unsteadiness are some of the effects caused by the disease that can be relieved by Marijuana.
Epilepsy - in some patients, epileptic seizures can be prevented with Marijuana use.
Chronic pain - Marijuana helps to alleviate the pain caused from many types of injuries and disorders.
Anxiety, Depression or Obsession - Even though mild anxiety is a common side effect in some users, cannabis can elevate your mood and expand the mind

Medical Marijuana can Treat a Variety of Serious Diseases

Cannabis also acts as an antispasmodic and anticonvulsant and is indicated for neurological conditions such as epilepsy especially complex partial seizures, multiple sclerosis, and spasms. As an analgesic and an immunomodulator it is indicated for conditions such as migraine, arthritis, spinal and skeletal disorders.

As a bronchodilator it is beneficial for asthma. It also reduces the intraocular pressure and is indicated for glaucoma.

It is useful in treating premenstrual syndrome, hypertension, insomnia, constipation and alcohol hangovers.

Marinol, is now becoming widely available through prescription. It comes in the form of a pill and is also being studied by researchers for suitability via other delivery methods, such as an inhaler or patch. The active ingredient of Marinol is synthetic THC, which has been found to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to assist with loss of appetite with AIDS patients.

Medical Marijuana can Help with Physical Addictions

There have been testimonies from opiate users that report an easing of addiction cravings. Some cannabinoids in cannabis are believed to have similar effects as ibogaine, a medication used to treat heroin addiction.

The cannabinoids in Marijuana mimic the healing effects of a naturally occurring chemical in the brain called Anandimide. However, this naturally occurring cannabinoid also produces the negative effects that one would experience from high concentrations of cannabinoids in marijuana.

Medical Marijuana can Benefit Psychologically and Spiritually.

Recent studies have shown marijuana to be effective in treating mood disorders and mental health issues such as depression, post traumatic stress disorder, clinical depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, and bipolar disorder.

Many obsessions or quick fixes to psychological problems can be alleviated by Marijuana as well. Many people eat because they’re depressed. If the depression is treated, the obsession to eat should be gone as well.

Marijuana should be offered as an alternative therapy, used in conjunction with psychiatric therapy.

Marijuana can be used to enhance personal Spirituality. The herb tends to reveal your true self. It uncovers inner confusion and reveals your true direction - if you let it. Marijuana offers an effect that is both energizing and relaxing at the same time. This balanced effect will help some to think more clearly and more efficiently afterwards.

Joan Bello, author of The Benefits of Marijuana, wrote, “with the expansiveness that occurs with marijuana, the subject may begin to notice infinite possibilities to raise the quality of his/her life that would otherwise have remained hidden from normal, defensive consciousness. And feelings of health and happiness naturally lead to hope, which of itself can be curative.”

Joan Bello also writes,“Marijuana will not tolerate repression. Tranquillizers and depressants relax the body and release tension, but the state of mind associated with these drugs is ‘unconsciousness’ whereby we escape rather than resolve our dilemmas. Alcoholism is an extreme need of both the body and personality sometimes to release the nervousness that has accumulated and continues to build up to an unbearable degree. It serves the same function for the collective personality for the society, as well A culture in which alcohol and tranquillizers are the prevalent form of release prefers not to witness internal confusion and actually choose to act without conscious participation, maintaining a semi-numb condition.”

Apparently, considering the US DEA decrees that marijuana has no accepted medical use, they want you to use their drugs which are far worse! Have you ever read the side effects of some of the prescription drugs used to treat the diseases and ailments I outlined above, that could be treated just as well if not better, with marijuana?

When will lawmaker stop listening to religious crusaders and self-righteous fanatics to do what is right, in legalizing a natural herb that can potentially cure, or at least help millions from suffering needlessly?

When will lawmaker stop listening to those who profit from keeping marijuana illegal and do what is right, in legalizing a natural herb that has been used in societies longer than this society has even existed?

Do you believe that marijuana is a legitimate medicine? Do you believe it should be legalized? Please leave your opinions in the form of a comment bellow. Addicts Not Anonymous readers and I would really like to know what you think about America’s (and the world’s) marijuana policies.

###

Written By: Tom Retterbush

This article is actually an updated, more complete version of my earlier article, Is Marijuana the Wonder Drug that could Help Millions of People?, which appeared on Health-be.com, Sunday, May 8, 2011.

Legislators seek changes in medical marijuana law

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:29:37 GMT

LANSING (AP) — Prompted by an abundance of pot-oriented shops, confused law enforcement officials and numerous legal disputes, some Michigan lawmakers are planning a major push to change or clarify a voter-approved state law allowing marijuana to be used for medical purposes. New bills are being drafted for introduction to the state Legislature within the next few months, joining some that already have been introduced. The bills would require stricter doctor-patient relationships before a patient could get authorization to use the drug and likely cut down on the number of marijuana dispensaries in the state.

The law, approved by Michigan voters in 2008, has sparked confusion as local governments, police, patients and businesses try to sort out exactly what’s legal. Some of the legislative changes proposed since would require support from three-fourths majorities in both the Republican-led House and Senate.

“The intent here is to define and fill in the holes,” said Rep. John Walsh, a Republican from Livonia and one of the main architects of the upcoming legislative package.

“Today, there’s not enough definition in the law,” said Rep. Richard LeBlanc, a Democrat from Westland. “Law enforcement needs some definition so they know what’s legal and what’s not.” Lansing’s Michigan Avenue, within a few miles of the State Capitol, offers a glimpse of why some lawmakers say the medical marijuana program has spiraled beyond the voters’ intent of offering pain relief to patients with debilitating conditions. More than a half-dozen, easily visible storefronts connected to medical marijuana have opened in a two-mile stretch within walking distance of schools, churches and homeless shelters.

“Dispensaries — pot shops, drug houses, whatever you want to call them,” said Attorney General Bill Schuette, who worries the state law has so many holes it allows drugs to get into the wrong hands. “This law has been hijacked by drug dealers who want to make money, line their pockets, by selling drugs and making a huge profit.” Sixteen states have legalized the medical use of marijuana, with programs in various phases of development. Other states have seen similar confusion over their laws, including raids and debate over local regulations in California and disputes over which doctors can recommend medical marijuana in Colorado.

Michigan has issued more than 80,000 patient registrations for medical marijuana. Patients can possess up to 2½ ounces of usable marijuana and have up to 12 plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility — or have a registered caregiver grow the drug for them.

Business owners contend dispensaries and collective growing facilities are legal because nothing in the law prohibits them. Some local communities have decided dispensaries should be illegal or heavily zoned because state law is largely silent or unclear, and federal law continues to ban possession of the drug. Court cases that could provide a precedent-setting legal interpretation are pending, and new legislation is expected to include zoning guidelines.

Toni Tripp, a caregiver and owner of a medical marijuana business in Lansing, says state law should be strengthened to make sure caregivers distribute the marijuana to their patients as required. But she worries state lawmakers might go too far and restrict access to medical marijuana for patients and legitimate caregivers who do follow the rules.

“I’m scared they’re going to make it harder on people like us,” Tripp said. “If they close down shops that are really trying to abide by the law, where are these patients going to go?”

The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear two criminal cases about medical marijuana, including one in which it will consider just what’s meant by keeping marijuana in an “enclosed, locked facility.” A second case could touch on the doctor-patient relationship required to get authorization to use the drug for medical purposes.

The relationship required under the law is vague, critics say, and should be strengthened to prevent certifications from being issued without examinations. They point to the case of a Saginaw doctor accused of certifying about 1,900 people for medical marijuana during visits that cost at least $150. Investigators say she didn’t do thorough exams.

Caregiver rules are so muddled the state doesn’t even have a count of how many are working with patients. Critics of the current system want to prohibit felons from being certified as caregivers.

Schuette wants to make it a felony for physicians to knowingly give false certification of a patient’s debilitating condition and to knowingly submit false information on an application for a patient or caregiver card. Other developing ideas call for cracking down on drivers who get behind the wheel with marijuana in their system.

Some police agencies want a better system to verify the authenticity of authorization cards, concerned that it’s difficult to tell fakes from legitimate ones.

“Changes are long overdue,” said Michael Thomas, the prosecuting attorney from Saginaw County. “It’s left police officers, it’s left prosecutors with a lot of confusion over what the law is.”

###

There's Something to Be Said for States' Rights

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:20:35 GMT

Majorities in liberal states often back policies that most folks in conservative states abhor — and vice versa. The difficulty of reaching accord among warring but heartfelt views partly explains Washington’s paralysis.

But note this: New York recently legalized gay marriage without having to consult with Tennessee, Nebraska and Idaho. Alabama limited the right to abortion without having to compromise with California, Massachusetts and Hawaii. With Washington, D.C., in disarray, this has been a busy time for states going their own way.

Does the trend represent federalism at its best or growing national disunity and polarization? The answer to both questions is “yes.” And the first may offer a solution to the second. For controversies around such matters as guns, marriage and voter ID, having the states choose their own path in harmony with local sensibilities acts to release tensions.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a likely Republican candidate for president, recently raised some conservative hackles by saying it was “fine” for New York to legalize gay marriage. But then he lowered some conservative hackles by characterizing abortion as a states’ rights issue. Perry deems himself “pro-life,” and we know that letting states ban abortion requires first overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that effectively legalized the procedure.

Perry rests his case on the 10th Amendment, which says: “The powers not delegated to the (federal government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This division of powers underlies the principle of federalism.

“You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues,” Perry said, “and then, (for) something that doesn’t suit you, say, ‘We’d rather not have the states decide that.’” That principled statement is one drug war advocates should recall when federal agents invade the backyards of Californians growing medical marijuana consistent with their state laws.

Of course, such states’ rights arguments have been used to defend such evils as legalized racial discrimination. And a patchwork of 50 different sets of laws on the same matter can cause headaches.

For example, some states allow gay marriage, some civil unions, some domestic partnerships (similar to civil unions) and some none of the above. Both Washington state and Oregon ban same-sex marriage while permitting domestic partnerships. But gay couples wanting full marriage can tie the knot on the tribal land of the Suquamish in Washington’s Kitsap County or of the Coquille in Coos Bay, Ore. Both tribes have legalized same-sex marriage.

Opinions that reflect local conditions often contradict the partisan stereotypes attached to them. Gun rights are supposed to be a conservative passion, but fairly liberal Maine recently eased its gun laws. Maine is largely rural with a strong hunting tradition and relatively little crime. Practical considerations ruled the day. One of the most left-leaning states, Vermont (also rural), has among the most lax gun laws in America.

Many pro-choice people, your author included, would not be dismayed were Roe v. Wade overturned. Letting the states make their own abortion law would release our national politics from a never-ending war between irreconcilable views. One fewer area for strife in a presidential election should be welcome.

In the end, no one would have to live in a state that forbids abortion. No one would have to live in a state that lets illegal immigrants pay in-state tuition to attend public colleges, if that’s something he or she can’t abide. We refer to Connecticut, Illinois and Maryland.

Washington, D.C., hasn’t been doing a great job of late handling its enumerated powers. Asking the states or the people to deal with the rest may not be a bad idea.

A few bugs in medical marijuana garden plot

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:00:00 GMT

TED S. WARREN

Medical marijuana is grown in Seattle in 2009 for distribution to members of a cooperative of medical patients who have doctors’ authorization to use the drug to treat their illnesses, such as AIDS and multiple sclerosis.

By Columbian Staff

Originally published August 15, 2011 at 9:50 p.m., updated August 16, 2011 at 2:23 a.m.

Three weeks after state law began allowing gardens with up to 45 marijuana plants for medical use, Clark County leaders are still struggling with sticky issues associated with the new law.

The Clark County commissioners scheduled a public hearing for 10 a.m. Tuesday. They were expected to either extend their 60-day ban on collective gardens for the county’s unincorporated areas or end the ban, officials said.

Clark County cities such as Vancouver, Camas, Washougal and La Center already have six-month bans in place. Ridgefield, Woodland and Yacolt do not.

Change in state law

Cities rushed to declare temporary bans last month after the state Legislature approved collective gardens. Officials said they needed time to study where the gardens should be placed, how the crop would be distributed and other details, officials said. The state law, which took effect July 22, is at odds with federal law that bans all marijuana use.

State law allows for up to 10 people to grow up to 45 plants in collective gardens.

State law also gives cities and counties the authority to establish zoning regulations for the gardens but not to ban them outright.

“It’s not an issue whether medical marijuana is legal or not,” Washougal Mayor Sean Guard said, pointing to Senate Bill 5073. “The question has to do with the collective farms and what areas they should be in.”

Gov. Chris Gregoire axed portions of proposed legislation allowing dispensaries for medical marijuana. Her decision to allow collective gardens caught many local lawmakers off guard, they said.

“Not only was there little warning, but also little direction,” WSU Vancouver sociology professor Clayton Mosher wrote in an email. He added, “This really is a political hot potato, and one might argue that in some respects, the state (and particularly Governor Gregoire) punted on this one.”

Medical marijuana advocates would have preferred that Gregoire allow regulated dispensaries.

Collective gardens are a worthwhile and necessary option for medicinal users who do not grow their own product, advocates say.

But the gardens are not the best-case solution because people belonging to the garden often don’t know everyone else involved, raising questions about how much their partners are involved and whether they are selling their marijuana on the side.

“Collective gardens are a creative stopgap measure,” said Keith Stroup, legal counsel and founder of the Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Temporary bans do not mean “discretion is unlimited” with regards to zoning laws nor do they allow cities to use such laws as a form of long-term prohibition, Stroup added.

The best-case scenario, according to Stroup, would be the legalization and regulation of medical marijuana.

That option is not on the table.

For the time being, leaders like Guard and others are deciding what steps to take, if any.

Battle Ground action

The Battle Ground City Council asked its staff Monday night to draft a resolution to extend the city’s 60-day ban on medical marijuana gardens to six months.

Individuals have grown medical marijuana in Battle Ground homes for years, said Robert Maul, the city’s community development director. But the prospect of gardens raises potential nuisance concerns regarding the area’s smell, noise levels and the potential for added traffic.

“The city of Battle Ground does not have a groundswell of interest in terms of people wanting to set up commercial (medical marijuana) operations,” Maul said. Even so, the zoning issues need to be addressed because the city does not “want to put ourselves in an awkward situation with the federal government,” which bans marijuana, he added.

Camas and Washougal each passed temporary bans July 16.

Camas Mayor Scott Higgins said his city council took “the cautionary approach” that other cities did. He mentioned that the thought of something being legal in his town that was illegal federally gave him pause.

Federal sanctions for collective gardens appear unlikely based on the experiences of other states, such as Colorado, that have them, Stroup said.

“The federal government hasn’t taken any steps to prosecute or indict them and I don’t think they will,” Stroup said.

Cities can act before the six-month temporary bans run their course. Washougal will address the zoning issues associated with gardens as soon as officials have had enough time to properly research them, Guard said.

“We don’t want to come up with something so vastly different that it confuses the public or anyone else who goes into that business,” Guard said.

###

Ray Legendre: 360-735-4517; http://facebook.com/raylegend; http://twitter.com/col_smallcities; ray.legendre@columbian.com.

Gary Johnson on Tim Pawlenty

Sun, 14 Aug 2011 00:00:00 GMT

GOVERNOR PAWLENTY SHOULD BE APPLAUDED FOR A GREAT EFFORT; TOO EARLY TO BE PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS

Aug. 14 – Presidential candidate Gary Johnson issued the following statement on Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s withdrawal from the 2012 Presidential race:

“Gov. Pawlenty’s decision to end his campaign is his to make, and I respect
that decision. He and his many supporters have put forth a great effort, and
should be applauded for it. As Republicans survey a new list of candidates today,
including the departure of a candidate who is credible, experienced and who had a
real record to run on, it is appropriate to question the inflated role of an event
like the Ames Straw Poll in the process. That a pay-to-play gathering in Iowa six
months before the first real ballots are cast can be such a qualifying – or
disqualifying – event is something the media and tens of millions of Republican
voters need to think about. A lot of voices have not been heard yet, and it is far
too early for the ‘system’ to be picking winners and losers.

“If there is a message from Ames, it is that this race is wide open and that the
vast majority of Republicans and Independents are still looking for the candidate
who can win the White House in 2012.”

[Ed. Note: Pawlenty placed third in the straw poll behind Reps. Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul . Johnson did not participate in the poll.]

Sheriff offers to collect extra pot plants under new rules - Local & Regional News

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:48:30 GMT

By Carol Ferguson, Eyewitness News and BakersfieldNow.com Published: Aug 11, 2011 at 7:01 PM PDT

File photo

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — The next battles are already starting over the new county rules on medical marijuana. Supporters said they have petitions ready to challenge the bans on storefront dispensaries and large outdoor grows. Meanwhile, the Kern County Sheriff’s department said growers with more than the new 12-plant limit can turn that in, with no fear of prosecution.

Kern County Supervisors passed the new ordinances on Tuesday, and Thursday a spokesman said medical marijuana supporters hope to start gathering petition signatures on Friday.

“Right now we’ll have community effort doing it,” California Cannabis Coalition president Craig Beresh told Eyewitness News. “Then we’re going to have paid signature-gatherers in town.”

Beresh said the fight may cost up to $60,000, but the funds are there. He said organizations like his are putting in money, as well as local dispensaries and patients. He said they also plan to file a lawsuit Friday against the ban on collectives, and on Friday they’ll file for a temporary restraining order trying to stop the new ban on outdoor grows of more than 12 plants.

That ban is already in effect, because it was passed as a “urgency ordinance.” Supervisors said they took that immediate action, convinced by law enforcement that most marijuana crops are nearly ready for harvest, and that the large pot gardens are a target for violence.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood showed the board photos of a very large grow raided this week, which included 17 booby traps, according to officers.

The sheriff’s department announcement on taking in plants said anyone can call 391-7580 for more information. “Arrangements will be made to accept their excess plants for destruction and/or to answer any questions regarding compliance issues,” the statement read.

Eyewitness News had questions about how long that offer will be available, and what penalties growers would face later. But no one was available to answer questions on Thursday afternoon.

Meanwhile, Beresh said the groups supporting medical marijuana will circulate petitions asking voters to sign for a simple referendum on both new county rules, basically whether they don’t want the new ordinances.

The spokesman said if voters approve that, the groups then want to work with county leaders. They hope a task force of appointed community members could then come up with alternatives to the ban. Beresh said many medical marijuana collectives and patients think there should be changes to the current situation.

“We need to regulate it, we need to come down with some rules,” Beresh said. Asked for examples of better rules? “We need to know where they’re going to be allowed,” he responded. “We don’t want to be on top of each other, we don’t want to be close to schools, we want to do it the right way.”

Beresh said they also want a task force to come up with different rules on medical marijuana grows.

But, getting the new county rules tossed out requires the groups to get enough signatures on the petitions. If that happens, the just-passed county ordinance to shut down the dispensaries would be automatically suspended, according to Kern County chief elections clerk Karen Rhea. She said the groups must get 17,350 signatures in 30 days.

“September 8 is the last day for the protest to be filed with the Board,” Rhea told Eyewitness News. If the groups get enough signatures, Rhea said the ordinance is set back to the supervisors for consideration. The board can repeal the ordinance or put the question to the voters.

Beresh said if it goes to the voters, the board must set an election within 88 days. But Rhea said that’s not correct. An election has to be held “not less than 88 days” later.

“Should the protest be sufficient and the Board decides to put it to a vote, the election may either be called as a special election to be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled county election,” Rhea said.

Can they get enough signatures in 30 days? Beresh is convinced the supporter groups can do it.

“This is not going to be a problem. In fact, I feel this is going to be about the easiest county,” he said. “I’ve talked to many people throughout town, and I don’t find many people that are against it.”

###

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette wants medical marijuana law modified

Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:23:14 GMT

Attorney General Bill Schuette

BY KATHLEEN GRAY

DETROIT FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

LANSING — Michigan’s medical marijuana law has been abused, exploited and hijacked by pot profiteers and needs fixing, Attorney General Bill Schuette said Wednesday.

Flanked by a dozen legislators, police officers, prosecutors and doctors Wednesday, Schuette announced several bills that will be introduced in the Legislature this fall to close loopholes in a law he says was intended to provide marijuana as pain relief to people with terminal, debilitating and chronic diseases.

“This law has as many holes as Swiss cheese,” Schuette said. “It’s out of control, and we need to fix it.”

Medical marijuana advocates said it was telling that Schuette invited no patients to his news conference.

“I can guarantee that none of the people at that press conference voted for this law in 2008,” said Rick Thompson, editor of Michigan Medical Marijuana Magazine. He said the Republican majorities in both chambers of the Legislature “don’t represent the true feelings of Michigan’s citizens.”

The bills the group intends to introduce would:

• Prohibit felons from becoming certified caregivers, and establish penalties for doctors who falsely certify a patient’s condition and patients who submit false information or use someone else’s card.

• Clarify what represents a debilitating medical condition.

• Prohibit driving under the influence of any amount of marijuana.

• Prohibit marijuana dispensaries within 500 feet of a church, school or day care center.

• Require photographs on all medical marijuana patient and caregiver certificates and an in-person visit with a physician with full medical histories before a certificate can be approved.

“We have a goal of protecting public safety while preserving the legitimate right of people who need medical marijuana,” said state Rep. John Walsh, R-Livonia.

State Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, said he’d like to see a simple saliva test developed, similar to a portable Breathalyzer test, that would immediately show whether a person is under the influence of pot.

Thompson said there are commonsense changes that can be made, including the photographs on certificates.

But he disagrees with revoking a driver’s license if a patient is found with marijuana in his or her system.

“Detectable amounts of marijuana remain in the system for 30 days or more, far longer than any impairment,” he said.

Dr. Steven Newman, president of the Michigan State Medical Society, said the law passed in 2008 is poorly worded and led to confusion.

Changing the law won’t be easy. Many of the bills would require a three-fourths majority in the state House and Senate. Voters passed the law 63%-37%. Some 80,829 Michigan residents are certified to receive medical marijuana, according the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

####

AZ's top cop tries to shutter 'cannabis clubs'

Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:30:14 GMT

PHOENIX — Arizona’s attorney general on Monday asked a judge to shut down four so-called cannabis clubs that he said have been illegally providing medical marijuana to patients with cancer and other diseases.

Attorney General Tom Horne’s civil action asks a Maricopa County Superior Court judge to issue an opinion on the legality of the clubs’ operations and to stop them from giving marijuana to patients for a “membership fee.” Horne says it’s illegal under Arizona’s medical marijuana law to exchange pot for money, even if it is between approved patients.

The law, narrowly passed by state voters in November, is in disarray after Horne sued the federal government in May to find out whether state employees regulating the program would face prosecution.

That action essentially put the law on hold, although the state still is handing out medical marijuana cards to patients with qualifying diseases for fees of $150 each.

The Arizona Department of Health Services was set to accept the applications of would-be pot shops starting June 1, but Horne’s suit stopped that. No marijuana dispensaries have been approved to operate in the state and won’t be until the federal court action is decided, which could take months.

Horne told The Associated Press that he could order the cannabis club operators arrested, but he decided to give them the benefit of the doubt because it’s a new law that’s difficult to understand.

The clubs will be allowed to continue to operate until the Phoenix judge issues an opinion, possibly within the next few weeks.

“Once we get a civil judgment and it becomes clear to everyone, then they would be subject to arrest,” Horne said.

A spokesman for one of the clubs said they are excited to finally have a judge to weigh in on the issue. “We are adamant in our position that this is absolutely legal,” said Allan Sobol, a spokesman for The 2811 club in Phoenix. “And we’ll prove that in court.” The club’s roughly 500 members, who all have medical marijuana cards, exchange pot among themselves without paying each other, he said Club members pay $75 to use the facilities for the day and have access to various classes, such as those that teach patients how to make marijuana food products, he said. “They have to pay a club fee to get in the door, but they’re not paying for the marijuana,” Sobol said. “If that judge tells us we’re wrong, we’ll close up that day, but I don’t believe that’s going to happen.”

Sobol said Horne and other state officials are effectively stopping Arizona’s medical marijuana law from being carried out, while Horne said the clubs simply found a way to skirt the law. The department so far has approved more than 8,600 patients to have and use medical marijuana. Of those, more than 6,900 have been approved to grow up to 12 plants each.

###

Medicinal-marijuana growers troubled at lack of organic oversight - Wire

Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:24:42 GMT

WATSONVILLE, Calif. Want to buy organic carrots? No problem. Organic strawberries? Widely available. Organic honey? Try your local grocery store. But organic medicinal marijuana? Doesn’t exist - at least not in any official sense.

Organic crops and products are certified by private agencies through the U.S. Department of Agriculture - a program developed after decades of advocacy by organic farmers and their allies. Pot - medicinal or otherwise - need not apply.

“What the USDA doesn’t recognize as a legal crop, we can’t certify because we’re certifying to their standards,” said Jane Wade, development specialist at Santa Cruz, Calif.-based California Certified Organic Farmers, the largest organic certification agency in the country. “That leaves medical marijuana out in the cold.”

It also puzzles consumers interested in making sure they’re not ingesting pesticides or other toxins along with their chosen pain reliever.

Wade, who gets calls about organic marijuana certification “a few times a month,” said people are frustrated by her response.

“They ask, ‘Why can’t you fix this?’ ” she said.

Wade said California Certified Organic Farmers worked for nearly three decades to get the USDA program in place. She suggested the medical marijuana community can take action as well.

“The path is already trodden,” Wade said. “As long as they don’t call it organic, there’s no reason they can’t adopt the rules already in place.”

That’s just what Crescent City, Calif., lawyer and USDA organic inspector Chris Van Hook thought when he was approached about the question in 2003.

Van Hook has launched a certification service called “Clean Green.” Modeled on the USDA program, Clean Green certifies cannabis crops are produced to similar standards. As a lawyer specializing in medical marijuana law, Van Hook also provides review of legal compliance, and the shield of attorney-client privilege to ensure an open discussion of issues.

Van Hook said it’s crucial for the survival of medical marijuana to develop standards since no official agency is taking on the task.

Though California law permits the cultivation and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, like the USDA, doesn’t regulate it.

“We regard this as a law enforcement issue,” said California agriculture department spokesman Steve Lyle.

Van Hook said because the industry is unregulated, anything can get into the “stream of commerce.”

He pointed to examples from his own inspections of crops growers said were organic. There was the woman who wanted to know if it was OK to use human manure for fertilizer, and the guy who set off a bug bomb in a small indoor grow room a few days before harvest. On one farm, dust from piles of chicken and goat manure was blowing onto sticky buds.

“We’re just one spinach fiasco from the hand of Thor coming down,” Van Hook said.

Colin Disheroon, the founder of Santa Cruz Mountain Naturals, also is concerned with the lack of standards. The recently opened dispensary in Aptos, Calif., is the only one in Santa Cruz County with Clean Green certification.

Disheroon said he is unable to stock only Clean Green certified cannabis due to insufficient supplies, but everything sold at the dispensary is tested at SC Laboratories in Capitola, Calif.

SC Laboratories, which opened in April, also is on the cutting edge of industry self-regulation. It’s one of a handful of labs in the state that tests medical marijuana for mold, mildew, pesticides and potency.

Disheroon favors putting regulations into place to build patients’ confidence and provide standards that he hopes will lead to national reform.

“This is an industry where we’re really at the front edge of regulation right now,” Disheroon said. “If this industry is going to emerge into the light of day across the nation, it has to have the right things in place for that to happen.”

###

Willie & Roger Goodman

Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Willie & Gary Johnson

Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 GMT

JOHNSON: Hitting the cartels where it hurts

Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:57:55 GMT

By Gov. Gary Johnson

The Washington Times

6:15 p.m., Friday, August 5, 2011

Illustration: Legalization by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times

Imagine you are a drug lord in Mexico, making unfathomable profits sending your illegal product to the United States. What is the headline you fear the most? “U.S. to build bigger fence”? “U.S. to send troops to the border”? “U.S. to deploy tanks in El Paso”? No. None of those would give you much pause. They would simply raise the level of difficulty and perhaps cause you to escalate the violence that already has turned the border region into a war zone. But would they stop you or ultimately hurt your bottom line? Probably not.

But what if that drug lord opened his newspaper and read this: “U.S. to legalize and regulate marijuana”? That would ruin his day, and ruin it in a way that could not be fixed with more and bigger guns, higher prices or more murder.

As a Republican presidential candidate, especially one who served as governor of a border state, I hear a lot from people - all across the country - about the crisis along our border with Mexico. People are often surprised when they hear me say that the “border problem” is generally misconstrued and widely blamed on the wrong things.

Make no mistake. There is a war going on along our southern border. An estimated 28,000 people have lost their lives to border violence over the past six years, and there is no end in sight. It is, without question, a more serious threat to U.S. interests than anything we are facing in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.

But having lived most of my life in New Mexico, done business there for decades and served two terms as governor, I will say with great confidence that just about everything we are doing to deal with “border issues” is wrong.

First, inflamed by politicians who have chosen to use illegal immigration as the ultimate wedge issue, far too many people see a connection between a lack of so-called border security and border violence. Let us be clear: The border war is not an immigration problem - illegal or otherwise - and even if it were, fences and troops would not solve it. If anything, the crackdown measures of recent years, while doing little or nothing to address illegal immigration, have had the unintended consequence of upping the ante for the cartels trying to move drugs across that same border, resulting in greater crime and violence.

Immigration is a different issue - and one that must be addressed not with fences, but with a system for legal entry and temporary work visas that works. Real border security is knowing who is coming here and why.

Border violence, on the other hand, is a prohibition problem. Just as we did for Al Capone and his murderous colleagues 90 years ago, our drug laws have created the battlefield on which tens of thousands are dying. By doggedly hanging onto marijuana laws that make criminals out of our children while our leaders proudly consume wine at state dinners, we have created an illegal marketplace with such mind-boggling profits that no enforcement measures will ever overcome the motivation, resources and determination of the cartels.

There are ample reasons why millions of Americans, the Global Commission on Drug Policy and, just recently, former Mexican President Vincente Fox are calling for legalization of marijuana as an alternative to the failed and ridiculously costly “war on drugs.” Twenty-eight thousand deaths along the border are certainly among those reasons.

Will legalizing marijuana put the criminal cartels out of business? No. But it will immediately deny them their largest profit center and dramatically reduce not only the role of the United States in their business plans, but also the motivation for waging war along our southern border.

Our federal government has spent 40 years and a trillion dollars on a failed war on drugs. The real and societal costs of treating drug abuse as a crime problem rather than what it is - a health problem - are inestimable. Add to that reality the tragedy our laws are fueling along the border, and it clearly is time to end this prohibition, just as we ended the last one.

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is a Republican candidate for president.

###

Department of Justice Tells AZ Governor Jan Brewer To Dismiss Medical Marijuana Lawsuit

Mon, 08 Aug 2011 11:25:27 GMT

Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, has been dragging her feet ever since medical marijuana was legalized last year, using a lawsuit against the Department of Justice as an excuse not to authorize the 100 dispensaries that by rights should be up and running in the state. It looks like even the DoJ thinks this is absurd:

A funny thing happened on Monday. The Department of Justice filed a brief regarding state medical marijuana laws in Arizona … and it was a good thing, and was met with appreciation from the medical marijuana movement! Seriously. After the disappointments of the vague, not very helpful Cole memo, and the expected but still disappointing DEA denial of marijuana’s medical value, it was great to see the Department of Justice (DoJ) doing the right thing regarding medical marijuana, even if it was only in a limited way.

As you may know, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, last seen promoting states’ rights and vowing to fight on when it comes to illegal immigration, and her Attorney General, Tom Horne, had filed a suit as plaintiffs against the federal government, requesting permission to move ahead with Arizona’s medical marijuana program implementation. This was ridiculous, since no other governor has needed federal permission to move ahead with medical marijuana implementation, even though some others have also tried to use the red herring threat of federal action to slow implementation. Apparently, the DoJ also thinks Brewer’s claims are ridiculous, and it said as much in its withering Motion to Dismiss brief, in which it took apart each of the state of Arizona’s arguments, urging the court to dismiss the case. If the court dismisses the case, Brewer’s logical course of action would be to fully implement Arizona’s medical marijuana law, including licensing more than 100 dispensaries, though given her intransigence, that course of action is sadly not a given.

So will Arizona have medical marijuana soon? If the courts agree with the DoJ, then yes. Whether Brewer and Horne find some other way to drag this out, however, remains to be seen.

###

Ed Kain , Contributor to Forbes

Medical marijuana: The Justice Department speaks – again

Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:59:08 GMT

By Jonathan Caulkins
posted August 8, 2011 at 9:45 am EDT

Medical marijuana advocacy groups are howling that a new memo from the Justice Department on medical marijuana enforcement represents a major and unfair policy shift. But they are being disingenuous.

The June 29 memo largely reaffirms one from October 2009 – known as the "Ogden" memo. If, after the authorities said, "Don't do 'X,' " as they did in Ogden, but people continued to do "X" with a nod and a wink, then they now have no right to complain when the authorities remind them that they could be prosecuted.

What exactly is the "X" that they are not supposed to do?

It is making a living by supplying marijuana to large numbers of healthy, recreational users who meet the letter of state medical marijuana laws, but not their spirit – which is to provide compassionate recourse to people with serious diseases.

Both memos advise US attorneys that individual marijuana users with serious illnesses – and their caregivers – are not an enforcement priority, but those in the business of cultivating, selling, or distributing marijuana are.

Whether people ought to be legally treated with marijuana for cancer, AIDS, or certain other illnesses is a separate matter, worthy of its own debate but not one I will take up here. The majority of the American public say the answer is "yes"; the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) says "no," most recently in a June 21 letter denying a request to reclassify marijuana to allow medical use.

Obama administration's position is not to interfere with medical marijuana growth and use that comply with the letter and spirit of state and local laws.

The problem comes when the letter of the law is inconsistent with the spirit. Many – though not all – of the 16 state medical marijuana statutes (plus the District of Columbia) make it easy for recreational users to obtain medical recommendations.

Whether those loopholes came from good-faith but incompetent efforts to implement a responsible system, or whether they deliberately exploited medical marijuana to achieve de facto legalization, can be known only to those who wrote the laws. It is clear, though, that such laws often allow far more than the public realizes or the Justice Department will tolerate.

For instance, the demographics of California medical marijuana users – mostly young, healthy males with long histories of marijuana use – resemble those of recreational marijuana users, not of people receiving traditional health-care services. In one study of 4,117 individuals, the typical person seeking medical marijuana was a 32-year-old male who started using marijuana as a teenager.

A similar study obtained data from medical charts and physician interviews for 1,655 consecutive applicants. Fewer than 5 percent were diagnosed with the diseases that motivate voters to support medical marijuana programs (HIV/AIDS, cancer, or glaucoma). Applicants most commonly reported seeking marijuana to relieve pain, improve sleep, or relax. Yet because California allows medical marijuana for any "illness for which marijuana provides relief," the denial rate was less than 2 percent.

It is hard to move beyond anecdotes in California because the state does not require patients to register. Montana is more instructive. Until recently, when Senate Bill 423 dramatically revised the state's 2004 Medical Marijuana Act, Montana had both a mandatory registry and lax criteria for determining who was eligible.

Under the original law, almost half of all marijuana users in Montana had obtained medical authorization (30,036 registered users out of an estimated 66,000 past-month users of all kinds). If the nation as a whole had the same number of patients per capita as Montana, that would be 9.5 million medical marijuana users, compared with 16.7 million people using marijuana in the past month for any reason.

It is no mystery how so many recreational users could obtain medical recommendations in Montana and elsewhere. The statutes are written to enable it, sometimes with subtle word changes like replacing "and" with "or."

Montana's old law, for instance, had defined qualifying patients as those who had a specified disease or any one of a range of symptoms, including pain that is severe or chronic. Michigan, Rhode Island, and Arizona, by contrast, require that the pain be both severe and chronic.

In Canada, patients generally must not only have the symptom, but that symptom also has to arise from one of a set of specifically listed diseases. (Exceptions are made for end-of-life care and conditions that a specialist verifies have been resistant to conventional treatments.)

Likewise, Montana's law had defined written certification concerning the disease and symptom to be a signed physician recommendation or the patient's medical records alone. Rhode Island, in contrast, defines written certification as the patient's medical records and a statement signed by a medical practitioner.

Federal prosecutors and enforcement agencies are unlikely to use scarce resources to arrest individual users, regardless of whether or not they have a medical recommendation, or whether the recommendation pertains to AIDS or anxiety.

However, suppliers are a legitimate target. Some dispensaries operate under state laws that protect "caregivers." But they are caregivers only in the sense that pharmaceutical companies and drug store chains are care-givers, which is to say only in a truly tortured sense of the term. The plain reading of "caregiver" is not a business but an individual, such as a friend or family member who is caring for the person who is ill.

That may be a warning to state and local governments not to plan on collecting taxes on medical marijuana - and perhaps an advanced warning not to expect to collect taxes if a state legalized marijuana more generally, as California's failed Proposition 19 almost did last year.

The nation is trying to sort out whether it wants marijuana to be a medicine, a legal intoxicant that businesses can produce for recreational users, or both – or neither. And if a medicine, is it only for certain serious conditions, or for run-of-the-mill stresses, aches, and pains?

The Justice Department is accommodating local autonomy with respect to medical use by grievously ill individuals, but not for businesses trying to supply the general marijuana market. Those who want to exploit medical marijuana to achieve backdoor legalization may be disappointed, but they really have no cause to be surprised – let alone outraged – by the Justice Department's position.

###

Jonathan Caulkins is Stever professor of operations research and public policy at Carnegie Mellon Univeristy's Heinz College. He is also coauthor, with Mark Kleiman and Angela Hawken, of the recent book "Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know."

Medi-Pot Most Often Consumed For Pain, Muscle Spasms, Study Says

Sat, 06 Aug 2011 13:01:40 GMT

“These data suggest that the patient population has evolved from mostly HIV/AIDS and cancer patients to a significantly more diverse array”

Santa Cruz, CA: Patients in California with a physician’s recommendation are predominantly using cannabis to treat symptoms of pain, insomnia, and anxiety, according to population data published in the present issue of the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs.

Researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz analyzed data from 1,746 consecutive admissions to nine medical marijuana assessment clinics operating throughout California.

Authors reported, “[R]elief of pain, spasms, headache, and anxiety, as well as to improve sleep and relaxation were the most common reasons patients cited for using medical marijuana.” Patients typically reported that cannabis provided them with more than one therapeutic benefit, and four in five (79.3 percent) reported having first tried other medications prescribed by their physicians, almost half of which were opiates.

Of those sampled, three-fourths of the patients were male and three-fifths were Caucasian. Compared to the US Census of California, the patients in this sample were on average “somewhat younger, report[ed] slightly more years of formal education, and [were] more often employed.” Two-fifths of patients in the sample “had not been using marijuana recreationally prior to trying it for medicinal purposes.”

Investigators also reported that patients’ use of tobacco was “somewhat higher than in the general population, but [that their] prevalence of alcohol use was significantly lower” than that of the general population. Patients use of other illicit substances, including cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin was also lower than that of the general population.

Over 80 percent of the patients in the sample reported consuming cannabis via inhalation (86.1 percent). Twenty-five percent of patients sampled consumed cannabis orally. Twenty-two percent vaporized cannabis and approximately three percent said that they used the substance topically.

Most patients (40.1 percent) reported consuming up to three grams of cannabis per week. Thirty-six percent of patients reported using four to seven grams of cannabis, and 23.3 percent said they consumed more than seven grams of marijuana per week. A majority of respondents (56.1 percent) said they used cannabis prior to sleep.

Authors concluded: “Compared to earlier studies of medical marijuana patients, these data suggest that the patient population has evolved from mostly HIV/AIDS and cancer patients to a significantly more diverse array. … This suggests that the patient population is likely to continue evolving as new patients and physicians discover the therapeutic uses of cannabis.”

For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org. Full text of the study, “Who are medical marijuana patients? Population characteristics from nine California assessment clinics,” appears in The Journal of Psychoactive Drugs.

updated: Aug 04, 2011

How Many Medical Marijuana Patients Are Fakers? Does It Matter?

Sat, 06 Aug 2011 12:51:56 GMT

A recent survey of 1,746 patients at nine medical marijuana evaluation clinics in California indicates that "the patient population has evolved from mostly HIV/AIDS and cancer patients to a significantly more diverse array." University of California at Santa Cruz sociologist Craig Reinarman and his colleagues, who report their results in the Journal of Psychoactive Studies, say "this trend toward increasing therapeutic uses is bringing marijuana back to the position it held in the U.S. Pharmacopeia prior to its prohibition in 1937."

Reinarman et al. found that "relief of pain, spasms, headache, and anxiety, as well as to improve sleep and relaxation, were the most common reasons patients cited for using medical marijuana." The top three reasons physicians gave for recommending marijuana were "back/spine/neck pain" (31 percent), "sleep disorders" (16 percent), and "anxiety/depression" (13 percent). Although those may sound like easy-to-fake symptoms, four-fifths of the patients reported trying other, doctor-prescribed medications (most commonly opioids) before marijuana. They could have been malingering then too, of course, and it may be easier to get a recommendation for marijuana than it is to get a prescription for Vicodin or Valium. But on the whole, it does not look like allowing the medical use of marijuana has fundamentally changed the nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Doctors do, after all, commonly prescribe psychoactive pharmaceuticals to treat not only pain but also sleep disorders, anxiety, and depression—all with the government's blessing. If some people find that marijuana works better for these purposes, there is no rational reason to prevent them from using it.

"While it is true that the great majority of our respondents had used marijuana recreationally," Reinarman et al. write, "over two-?fths...reported that they had not been using it recreationally prior to trying it for medicinal purposes." The authors are keenly aware of the widepread impression that a large portion of California's medical marijuana patients are using phony or exaggerated ailments as an excuse to get high. They note that it is hard to measure the extent of such "diversion" and that the phenomenon is not limited to marijuana. More fundamentally, they suggest that the distinction between medical and nonmedical use of drugs is becoming increasingly difficult to draw:

Beyond the spread of [medical marijuana], Prozac and other SSRI-type antidepressants, for example, are often prescribed for patients who do not meet DSM criteria for clinical depression but who simply feel better when taking it. Such "cosmetic psychopharmacology"...is likely to grow as new psychiatric medications come to market. The line between medical and nonmedical drug use has also been blurred by performance enhancing drugs such as steroids, so-called "smart drugs" that combine vitamins with psychoactive ingredients, and herbal remedies like mahuang (ephedra) available in health food stores.

These examples suggest that despite the best intentions of physicians and law makers, much drug use does not ?t into two neat boxes, medical and nonmedical, but rather exists on a continuum where one shades into the other as patients' purposes shift to suit situational exigencies in their health and their daily lives. It is not clear where a border line between medical and nonmedical marijuana or other drug use might be drawn nor how it might be effectively policed.

If you believe the government has no business drawing or policing this line, it is hard to get worked up about people who fake their way to a medical marijuana recommendation. But as I argued back in 1993, reformers could pay a price if all the talk about relieving the suffering of cancer and AIDS patients is perceived as a cover for recreational use. Politicians in other states commonly cite the California example as a reason to block medical use or restrict it to a short list of conditions. Then again, the perception that California's current law encourages dishonesty (much as the medical and religious exceptions to alcohol prohibition did) may strengthen support for outright legalization, which last fall attracted support from 46 percent of California voters.

[via NORML]

Reason needs your support. Please donate today

Ballot initiative would tax marijuana like wine

Fri, 05 Aug 2011 09:55:40 GMT

August 5, 2011 | Joshua Emerson Smith, California Watch

Pauk/Wikimedia Commons

Supporters are gathering signatures for an initiative that would decriminalize marijuana in California for those older than 21. The measure, dubbed the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act [PDF], would tax and regulate the cultivation, production and sale of cannabis using grape and wine industry standards.

“We’re taking something that’s unregulated and we’re replacing it with a known successful program implemented by the California alcohol beverage control board,” said co-author Steve Kubby, who also helped draft and promote Proposition 215, California’s first medical cannabis law. “We know it works great with wine. It’s already in place.”

The measure currently is written to exempt people from permitting fees who are growing up to 25 plants, but Kubby said he and others have decided to amend that to 12 plants per parcel. Commercial growers exceeding that limit would be subject to regulations and fees similar to those for grape farmers. Those selling cannabis products would be taxed and regulated under state rules that currently apply to wine and other alcoholic beverages, with an exception for hemp products with no hallucinogenic properties.

“If you’re going to treat it like wine, you have to have an exemption for people who make their own wine or make their own cannabis,” Kubby said. “Now, if they sell it, then they have to pay tax on it. The intent really is for your own stash at home.”

The initiative also bars state government and law enforcement officials from assisting the federal government in prosecuting individuals for marijuana use or cultivation.

“We all understand that federal law will trump state law in this regard,” said Jim Gray, a former judge and co-author of the measure. “So we’re telling the federal government, ‘We know you can enforce it, but if you’re going to, you have to do it by yourself. And by the way, you’re going to have to come to a jury of Californians, and I think getting a conviction would be problematic.’ ”

Concerns over federal opposition helped defeat Proposition 19 [PDF], a measure on a 2010 ballot that would have legalized cannabis, said Dale Jones, chairwoman of the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform. She said the group has been collecting polling data in preparation for an initiative of its own.

“We asked for a tremendous amount of feedback,” she said, explaining that many people were apathetic about Prop. 19 because they believed federal intervention would have been inevitable. She also said the campaign was significantly hurt because it didn’t have have the full backing of the medical cannabis community.

The Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act prohibits commercial advertising for the sale or use of marijuana, but exempts medical cannabis. And the initiative explicitly states that it would “not repeal, modify, or change” Prop. 215 or any related laws.

“We’re not touching anything that goes on with medical,” Kubby said. “That stays the way it is. We don’t touch that. If it’s a medical grow and they sell to a dispensary, that’s outside of our initiative.”

Jones said the Prop. 19 campaign tried similar tactics but was unsuccessful. She said there is a common fear among medical cannabis dispensary owners and the people who grow for them that legalization would hurt their business.

“We did have some (medical cannabis) growers that understood that their profit margin wasn’t worth putting people in prison, but I don’t know if we will ever get them all,” she said. “I’d rather focus on getting the mainstream voters. The growers could vote yes, go legit, continue to make a living, and also pay a little more in taxes for their kids’ public education.”

Gray also sees the challenge of getting the medical cannabis community’s vote. But he said he thinks the initiative can win without their support.

“Yes, some people presently in the medical marijuana dispensary business will vote against our initiative because they want to protect their market share,” he said. “And from an economic standpoint, they may be right. But the vast number of people who are involved in this, from a patient standpoint, from a law enforcement standpoint, from a parental standpoint, they will see the benefits from the strictly regulated sale of marijuana. And they will vote for this if we do our jobs right.”

The Legislative Analyst’s Office said that depending on the response of the federal government, the proposed law could save tens of millions of dollars annually by lowering incarceration rates and raise hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes.

In June, U.S. Reps. Ron Paul of Texas and Barney Frank of Massachusetts introduced legislation that would allow states to tax and regulate cannabis without interference from the federal government. However, as California Watch recently reported, the Department of Justice has intensified its efforts to crack down on cannabis production in California.

Supporters have until Dec. 19 to collect the more than a half-million signatures needed to put the initiative on the ballot. If passed in the November 2012 election, using cannabis while driving a car or at work, or providing cannabis to a minor, would remain illegal.

###

Tiny town tops in medical marijuana

Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:38:36 GMT

WILLIAMS, Ore. (AP) — Medical marijuana has taken root in this idyllic town like nowhere else in Oregon.

Nearly 20 percent of the population is registered to grow pot legally, and an untold number deals it illegally, creating stark contrasts in a bucolic burg where children still ring the bell to start the school day and pancake breakfasts draw a crowd at the local community center.

The Associated Press analyzed the locations of registered pot grower in Oregon based on their ZIP codes and found that Williams by far has the heaviest concentration. More than 400 of the town’s 2000 residents are authorized by the state to grow up to six plants each.

The proliferation of pot became the talk of the town last summer when new Google Earth satellite images showed little green circles in neat rows all over the valley.

“My daughter showed me on her iPhone,” said Neil Sinnott, owner of a local café. “She said, ‘Dad, look what your neighbors are doing.’”

Six-foot-tall fences that screen marijuana gardens from public view have become so common that a local pastor uses them as landmarks for giving directions. One resident is trying to capitalize on the growing popularity of medical marijuana by starting a testing lab. A variety of marijuana grown here, called Williams Wonder, is cherished among pot connoisseurs.

Though big-city Portland has cafes where medical marijuana users smoke pot while singing karaoke, it is the rural communities of southwestern Oregon like Williams that have the highest percentages of folks smoking it, growing it and caring for others who use the drug.

Neighboring towns in Josephine County have high rates of pot growers similar to the 19.5 percent in Williams: O’Brien was at 15.2 percent; Selma at 10.5 percent; and Cave Junction at 9.9 percent, according to the AP analysis.

One ZIP code covering mostly rural residences shows 60 out of 80 residents with permits. The Oregon Health Authority will not provide any identifying information of pot growers and patients beyond their ZIP codes for patient confidentiality reasons. It will not provide information on ZIP codes with fewer than 50 cardholders, also for confidentiality reasons.

Medical marijuana has been growing in popularity statewide since becoming legal in 1999. The number of residents registered as patients, caregivers and growers this year hit 120,945, nearly four times the number five years ago. Few who ask to register are turned down. Only 950 applications — less than 1 percent — were terminated, denied or suspended.

The number of people authorized to grow for others has also mushroomed, from 12,274 in 2006 to 26,734 in 2010. In Williams, the number jumped from 122 to 301 in the same period.

Why has pot become so big in Williams? The reasons seem to be a combination of an ideal climate, remote and rural location and a willingness to live and let live.

Southwestern Oregon sits at the northern tip of the Emerald Triangle, one of the nation’s best marijuana growing regions, which stretches into Northern California. Pot has been grown here since California hippies started moving in during the 1970s. When Oregon’s medical marijuana law took effect in 1999, “a lot of those guys got their cards and came out of the woods and started doing it legally,” said Keith Mansur, editor of the Oregon Cannabis Connection, a newspaper devoted to marijuana issues based in nearby Medford.

Laird Funk is a longtime activist who lost his job running the sewage treatment plant in nearby Grants Pass several years ago after testing positive for marijuana. Funk, now the chairman of the state medical marijuana advisory committee, says the weather is conducive to growing pot, but securing the crop can become complicated.

“It’s not hard to do out here in the sunshine,” he said. “Everybody does some variation of security. Some people use chain link. Some solid wood. Some people dress up like Vietnam and walk around with guns. But you could kill people like that, so I don’t.”

Williams took its name from an Indian fighter during the Gold Rush of the 1850s. After the gold played out, logging and dairy farms also waned. Now the valley is a mix of organic farmers, people cobbling together a living from odd jobs, mushroom picking, and California retirees and commuters.

Williams Community Church Pastor Rob Culton said he can feel community tensions rise at harvest time in the fall, when the threat increases of someone stealing a crop. But he does not condemn anyone. His wife took doctor-prescribed pills with a cannabis extract while having chemotherapy for cancer in the 1980s.

“I wouldn’t want that to be something where a person would say, ‘I can’t go to that church because I have a medical marijuana permit,’” he said.

A few long-time residents like Ben Watts remember when as many as four sawmills were running in Williams before they all shut down in the 1980s. A logger all his life, at 83 he still cuts firewood from the gold claim his grandfather worked. He is no fan of police, he says, but he would like for them to crack down on growers, particularly those selling pot illegally.

In 2009, a Williams couple growing for 11 patients was busted for having 220 pounds, far in excess of the 16.5 pounds allowed by law. Police said they learned of the site from a man stopped on Interstate 5, who said he was taking $9,100 there to buy marijuana. Because it was a first offense, the couple served just a month in jail after pleading no contest to delivery of drugs.

Just how much marijuana is being sold illegally by medical marijuana growers in Willliams, or anywhere in Oregon, is impossible to say. Police keep no statistics.

Mansur said marijuana growing is adding “big time” to the local economy through sales of potting soil, fertilizer, special pots that won’t constrict the roots — even vacuum sealing machines to package the dried buds.

The prevalence of medical marijuana led Richard Reams, who teaches the art of growing trees into living sculptures, to open OregonGreen Lab. For $120 he will test a gram of marijuana and tell you the potency and active ingredients. One large grower has already signed up.

“I believe that in a short amount of time we will have legalized marijuana,” Reams said. “The economic opportunities in that field could be large.”

John Rickert worked for a health insurance company in San Diego before retiring to Williams. He regularly writes grants to fund programs for the elementary school.

Rickert said many people are just getting by economically, with most kids qualifying for free school lunches, but he sees a lot of people paying cash for dinners out and vacations when a credit card would be more convenient.

Still, Rickert said he’s not bothered about the shift in the local economy from timber to pot.

“Everybody wants to cut the trees” to increase revenues for the county and schools, he said. “Forget cutting the trees. Let’s legalize marijuana.”

Jeff Barnard can be reached at http://twitter.comJeffBarnardAP

Could New York State Legalize Medical Marijuana? - The Measure

Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:12:04 GMT

“Um, hello, it’s a public health issue”

State Senator Diane J. Savino (a Democrat representing Sunset Park, Coney Island, Bensonhurst and part of Staten Island) doesn’t want New York to fall behind the Garden State. Now that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has green-lighted his state’s medical marijuana program—stalled for over a year after it was signed into law by his predecessor—she has co-sponsored medical marijuana legislation in Albany, drawing on her own experience of losing both parents to cancer. We spoke to her over the phone about what medical marijuana in New York would look like, when we should expect a corner Canna-bakery, and whether she’d take a blunt, bong, bowl or brownie.

Why sponsor such legislation now? Is it just becoming politically feasible?
Well, it’s always been important to me. It’s one of the issues that when I got to legislature—I didn’t spearhead this. It was already something being pushed by Senator Tom Duane and Assemblyman Gottfried and I immediately saw the wisdom of this bill and I signed on as a co-sponsor. And, for the first couple of years there was almost no activity on it because, you know, there are still a lot of misconceptions about marijuana. Certainly there’s a tremendous amount of misconceptions about addiction still, to this day, that continue to criminalize behavior, which, you know, hasn’t really turned the tide of drug abuse. But, what makes this more possible and more feasible now is that other states have done it. And New York sometimes is a leader; sometimes it’s a follower; sometimes we’re in the middle. We tend to be somewhere in the middle on this issue.

As you know probably from your research, a couple of other states have already adopted a medical marijuana program, and I think what made it really jump to the forefront is when New Jersey signed it, allowing it to go foreword. Chris Christie is, by anybody’s definition, one of the most conservative governors in the country, both fiscally and on social policy. And, Andrew Cuomo is still a Democrat—a little fiscally conservative, but still a Democrat. And on social-justice issues, he is far more progressive than his neighbor to the west. So to see Chris Christie, who, it’s not in his interest really, politically, to support this issue, say that it’s the right thing to do, kind of gives us the impetus that we might need now to kind of push New York foreword. And so, when he announced it, I immediately jumped on it and said, “congratulations, New Jersey”—something I never thought I’d do. It’s time for New York to set aside our misconceptions and our fear about what this can lead to, and let’s look at it for what it is, a public health policy, a humanitarian policy that will allow people who are chronically ill, terminally ill, who are in constant pain, for whom traditional medicine is not working, to have another option. And this would provide that option.

You mentioned misconceptions. Federal agencies, including the DEA, have steadfastly denied any medicinal benefits from marijuana.
Well, you know, when you’re talking about a law enforcement agency—and the DEA is a law enforcement agency, first and foremost—their concern is, of course, over keeping illegal drugs off the streets because of the social impact of the “war on drugs”—or, the “war against drugs,” whatever—and that’s their concern, and they’re right to be concerned about that. But morphine is far more addictive than marijuana and, in fact, most medical scientists will tell you that marijuana in and of itself is not an addictive substance. Morphine is. Oxycontin is tremendously addictive, almost instantaneously to people. Vicodin is addictive. What’s the difference between these two [classes of] drugs? One is dispensed by a pharmacy and one isn’t. But if marijuana has a more palliative treatment to people, why would we not figure out a way to control the distribution of it, the way that we attempt to control the distribution of other controlled substances?

And I think it also depends on what we’re trying to accomplish. If the purpose behind providing medical treatment to somebody to alleviate their pain is to put them in a comatose state, almost, so that they’re unaware of their pain, well then morphine is the drug for you, you know, or Oxycontin is the drug for you, if that’s what you want. If you want a sedative effect and dull the pain, there you go. But it also robs people of whatever quality of life they have left. Marijuana will not do that. We do know that it eases anxiety and it also stimulates your appetite—for people who are on chemotherapy that’s even more important. For people who’s quality of life has diminished tremendously, this could help alleviate their pain, alleviate their symptoms, stimulate their appetites and still allow them to be part of the world that surrounds them, for however long they have.

So what are going to be some of the biggest challenges in moving this legislation foreword? Are there moneyed interests at play? The pharmaceutical companies? Well, I’m not really sure. Up until now, they’ve never really taken a position on this. And I think if it moved foreword, they would probably look to be a company that could manufacture and distribute it. I don’t think the objection is going to come from the pharmaceutical industry. They will make whatever it is that the law will allow them to distribute. Opposition will come from people who completely misunderstand what medical marijuana would be used for. The drug-addiction and drug-treatment facilities, they have some concern about it, and rightfully so because they deal with the impact of drug addiction everyday. Their concern is justifiable, but again, they would never stand in the way of a cancer patient being given a prescription for morphine. So if you are a recovering addict, when you’re in chronic pain, there’s not a drug treatment program in the world that would say you can’t avail yourself of what modern science will grant you in an effort to alleviate your pain. People should start looking at medical marijuana as another medication that’s available to patients. Stop looking at it as a drug and look at it for what it could be. At the end of the day, they’re all drugs.

If this legislation passes, will Brooklyn look like Berkeley?
No, I think one of the arguments is that the California model has been still problematic. We don’t need to replicate what’s out in California. Like I said earlier, there are 21 states that have adopted this. We should look at the best practices and adopt them here in New York. This bill that Senator Duane introduced and I’m co-sponsoring, we would have the most conservative medical marijuana program in the country.

What does that mean?
The plan that would be designed under this particular bill would have the most restrictions on the distribution, on who would have access to it, how it gets dispensed, how often it gets dispensed. It’s far more restrictive than other states.

So you’re planning on restricting the amount of dispensaries? Are you zoning it to particular neighborhoods?
It would be restricted: who gets to manufacture it, how it gets delivered, the transfer of it, and the transportation of it. There would be a very conservative approach to it, much different than California’s.

What about who actually writes the prescriptions? Would it be any doctor?
Obviously we wouldn’t want dentists prescribing it. There has to be some connection between the underlying medical condition and the physician who’s prescribing it.

I had a root canal once that was pretty painful. Why not a dentist?
Because that’s not a chronic medical condition, and that’s what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about episodic incidents. It’s not pain that comes about because of a particular illness or an occurrence in your life that is going to be gone in a few days. It wouldn’t be utilized for that. We’re talking about people who are suffering from chronic, debilitating pain from either things like MS, people who are terminally ill, people that are going to be in this condition of pain in perpetuity.

OK, but how do you justify a cancer patient being able to spark up to alleviate pain but not someone suffering from a more common ailment like a migraine, which can also be chronic?
Well, migraines can stop, and I think that’s what people also are not quite getting. It’s that there are some conditions that create pain in a person’s life that are totally responsive to traditional medical intervention, like aspirin. You wouldn’t give somebody who suffers from the occasional headache a controlled substance. You would tell them: first you start with Tylenol. If Tylenol doesn’t work, you go to Advil. That’s the kind of method doctors use to prescribe medication that people need. So you wouldn’t need to smoke marijuana everyday. People who suffer from migraines don’t suffer from them on a daily basis. Nor is it going to be a situation that their lives are so debilitated, or their life is going to be shortened as a result of it. And, we also assume that doctors and patients are going to make this decision together, deciding what is the best medication, after having tried it. I don’t believe anybody thinks that doctors are going to immediately jump to prescribing medical marijuana. That’s not how physicians operate now.

You were talking about aspirin and Tylenol and these over-the-counter medications that have side effects like internal bleeding and liver damage…
If you take them in huge quantities! If you’re allergic to aspirin, you wouldn’t take it. If you’re allergic to acetaminophen, you wouldn’t take it. The point I’m trying to make is that there’re some conditions that are chronic and debilitating on a continuous basis and some that are episodic incidents that would not trigger the utilization of marijuana. That would not be what the purpose would be for, any more than an episodic illness would not trigger the prescribing of morphine or Oxycontin or Vicodin.

If the legislation moved forward, what kind of safeguards are you prepared to provide for registered medical marijuana patients and dispensaries in the state of New York that would be under risk of being raided by the DEA, as we’ve seen happen in California?
In Jersey that was one of the things that convinced Governor Christie that they could move foreword. They’ve been given assurances that the medical marijuana program, people who participate in it, doctors, patients, dispensaries would not be subject to federal restrictions on marijuana, that they would not be treated as drug runners. We would anticipate the same thing here in New York. We have no reason to believe that we would be treated any differently than New Jersey, California or the other 20 states.

When Obama came into office, he called to end the DEA raids on dispensaries that are operating legally under state law, but they’ve still continued over the past few years.
Well, if that were to happen, then, New York state—we have an Attorney General who would represent New York.

Would he represent the patients, the dispensaries though?
Any time there is a conflict between the state and federal government, there’s a method to the removal of those issues, and it’s called the court system.

What I’m asking, is the state prepared to step in for these patients?
Well, it’s hard to say since we haven’t enacted the legislation yet. It hasn’t been adopted, it hasn’t been tried by the government, we don’t have a plan yet. But if New York state, if we move to do this, and the government would assign it, then the state of New York would take every effort to protect its citizens from being prosecuted by the federal government for something that is legal in New York. As we saw this week, the attorney general of New York state had filed suit against the federal government on the Defense of Marriage Act because right now in New York state same-sex marriage is legal. So I would imagine we would take the same approach with marijuana.

An enormous amount of marijuana consumed for any reason in New York today is imported from “legal” growers in California. Is this legislation conservative enough to protect against this kind of black market from developing here?
Well, we think we are, but you know, the black market on drugs has been there since prohibition. So, all we can do is develop a plan that we think serves the intent of the legislation, which is to provide another form of palliative treatment for people who are chronically suffering from pain that they can’t currently achieve with drugs that are available. Even if we legalize it in every state, you may still run into a problem with a black-market drug trade. There is a tremendous amount of profit to be made, because again, not everybody is going to be eligible for this drug. That doesn’t mean people aren’t going to try and buy it. We can’t anticipate everything, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t move forward with the plan.

You keep bringing up chronic pain. What about psychological ailments?
I don’t believe that would be an appropriate use of it. We have psychotropic drugs already for people that deal with psychological illnesses. I’ve never heard of one that causes pain, though.

You were talking about this “comatose” feeling before. There are plenty of people walking around on anti-depressants and anti-psychotics that are virtually comatose, like zombies.
No, no, no. I didn’t say that. I said morphine, Oxycontin, all of those drugs, what they do is they have a sedative effect on people robbing them of whatever quality of life they have. So if you’re in so much pain physically that the only thing that you can take that helps alleviate that pain also renders you in a sedative state. What quality of life are you getting from that? What type of life can you have? Right now, that’s the only thing that’s available.

Who is ultimately making these distinctions? Is it the legislature? The doctor and the patient?
It’s a combination.

But physical is okay, psychological is not?
We’ve had consultations with doctors, with pain management specialists, looking at what’s been done in other states…

Basically, this is the early stage and those are practical matters to be dealt with?
Sure.

What would be your pick from the future, friendly neighborhood dispensary? Blunt, bong, bowl or brownie?
Me? I’d probably want a brownie.

####

The Kids Are All Right, Even if Their Parents Grow Pot - ParentDish

Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:40:22 GMT

Credit: AP

Just because the folks next door are drug dealers doesn’t mean they’re bad parents.

In fact, researchers at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children say the children of couples who operate marijuana grow rooms are often extremely healthy, physically and emotionally. And they rarely use illegal drugs. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports researchers question whether parents caught growing marijuana should automatically lose custody of their children. “After examining 75 of the kids over several years, we came to very clear conclusions that a vast majority of these kids are doing well — well fed, well kept, doing well in school and developing well,” lead researcher Gideon Koren of the University of Toronto tells the CBC. “Taking a small child from his or her parents in a well-adapted environment causes fear, anxiety, confusion and sadness.” Traditional procedure in Toronto, the network reports, has been to remove children from homes where illegal marijuana operations have been discovered and place the kids in foster care. Patrick Lake, executive director of York Region Children’s Aid Society, tells the CBC child welfare workers have learned more about the effects marijuana growing operations have on children since 2006, and have changed how they maintain the children’s safety. “We have developed a more customized and comprehensive process to determine best response, on a case-by-case basis, while looking for ways to safely maintain children with their parents or relatives,” Lake says. Koren tells the CBC he hopes Canadian authorities will see the children of pot growers a little differently after his study.

“When police and children’s aid go into that situation, they have to look much more carefully on what happened to that child, and not blanket-wise moving kids out of their homes,” he says.

Obama says he’s not willing to end the drug war

Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:42:14 GMT

President Barack Obama said Friday that the U.S. would not be ending its war on drugs under his watch.

“Much is being asked of our generation,” a doctoral student named Steve told the president at a town hall event in Maryland. “So, when are our economic perspectives going to be addressed? For example, when is the war on drugs in society going to be abandoned and be replaced by a more sophisticated and cost effective program of rehabilitation such as the one in Portugal?”

“I have stated repeatedly — and it’s actually reflected in our most recent statement by our office of drug policy — that we need to have an approach that emphasizes prevention, treatment, a public health model for reducing drug use in our country,” Obama said. “We’ve got to put more resources into that. We can’t simply focus on interdiction because, frankly, no matter how good of a job we’re doing when it comes to an interdiction approach, if there is high demand in this country for drugs, we are going to continue to see not only drug use but also the violence associated with the drug trade.”

After several minutes of explaining U.S. efforts to help Mexico fight transnational drug dealers, the president got to the point.

“Just to make sure that I’m actually answering your question, am I willing to pursue a decriminalization strategy as an approach? No.”

“But I am willing to make sure that we’re putting more resources on the treatment and prevention side,” Obama added.

Watch this video from MSNBC, broadcast July 22, 2011.

###

Finger analysis tech aims to revolutionize drug testing

Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:27:47 GMT

Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 — 9:41 am

A new technology that analyzes the sweat from a person’s fingertips looks to revolutionize the drug testing market, providing on-site results in minutes with a test so advanced it can even detect marijuana intoxication.

Using gold nanoparticles and special antibodies, the tech produced by British firm Intelligent Fingerprinting latches on to metabolites on the fingerprint and turns a specific color depending on which drug byproducts are detected.

While it can be configured to search for drugs like nicotine, methadone and cocaine, it also presents another innovation: helping to determine if someone is actively intoxicated on marijuana.

Marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient is fat soluble, so it stays in the body for weeks locked in fat cells. This means that traditional drug testing using urine analysis can detect whether a person has used marijuana up to a month afterwards, but it doesn’t actually reveal if the person was intoxicated at the time the test was taken.

The fingerprint test, on the other hand, can detect minuscule amounts of broken-down drug compounds in metabolites in just minutes, pointing to whether that person was stoned or not. The development leads to a breakthrough that could result in more accurate testing to determine whether a person is driving while drugged.

The device was first announced last week, during the UCL International Crime Science Conference.

Image credit: Flickr commons.

###

Court panel rules Franklin MS patient can't claim he grew pot for personal use

Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:51:50 GMT

FRANKLIN — A multiple sclerosis patient facing a five-year prison sentence for growing marijuana plants in his backyard cannot claim he cultivated them for his personal use, an appellate court panel ruled Tuesday.

The ruling, which comes a week after Gov. Chris Christie approved the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in the state, upholds the conviction of the Somerset County man, John Ray Wilson, and probably ends his appeal in a case watched closely by advocates of the drug’s legalization for medicinal purposes.

“The law came a couple years too late for John Wilson,” his lawyer, James Wronko, said. “He was in a situation where he had no health insurance and no other way to obtain medical treatment.”

Wilson, 38, was arrested in 2008 after he was caught growing 17 plants behind his rental home in Franklin Township. He was charged with maintaining or operating a drug-production facility, an offense for which he could have received a 20-year sentence. A jury acquitted him of that charge, but he was convicted of manufacturing and possessing the drug.

At his trial, Wilson wanted Superior Court Judge Robert Reed to allow him to tell jurors he grew the plants for his personal use to relieve the symptoms of multiple scleroris, including spasticity and stiffness — not to sell them. He also wanted Reed to allow an expert to testify about the medicinal benefits of the herb.

Reed did not allow the expert testimony, however, letting Wilson testify only that he told police he used the drug to counteract the effects of his disease.

In today’s ruling, the appellate panel said Reed had ruled correctly. Writing for the court, Judge Ronald Graves said someone accused of manufacturing a drug cannot claim “personal use.”

In his appeal, Wilson — who for nine years has suffered from the debilitating disease affecting the brain and spinal chord — also claimed the sentence was too harsh. But the argument was rejected by the appellate panel, which also included Judges Philip Carchman and Carmen Messano.

“He wasn’t selling it,” Wilson’s father, Ray Wilson, of Pittsgrove in Salem County, said afterward. “He wasn’t distributing it. He wasn’t giving it to anyone, and they made him a class-one criminal. Their priorities are all wrong.”

But Peter Aseltine, a spokesman for the state Attorney General’s Office, said the court followed the law.

The three-year-long case became a test for the courts, something the appellate panel addressed in its ruling. The judges noted that because New Jersey courts had never before addressed the issue, they had to look to decisions in Arkansas, Michigan, Nebraska and North Carolina.

But to groups that advocate the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes, the ruling made no sense.

“To know that a safe and inexpensive herb like marijuana is able to relieve the pain and spasticity of MS and to actually arrest the progression of this incurable disease is a compelling reason to use it therapeutically,” said Ken Wolski, executive director of the Coalition for Medical Marijuana-New Jersey. “It is an outrage that Wilson will spend many years in the prison system for this, especially since the law in New Jersey now specifically protects MS patients who use medical marijuana.”

Wronko said Wilson, who has been free on bail pending the outcome of his appeal, is not planning to ask the state Supreme Court to take his case. He said that if Wilson were accepted into state Probation Department’s intensive supervision program, he could be freed in four to six months.

After his release, the lawyer said, Wilson plans to apply for acceptance into the state’s medical marijuana program, which could be in place by the end of the year.

“He’s looking forward to putting this behind him and getting on with his life,” Wronko said.

###

The medical marijuana battlegrounds

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:04:09 GMT

unknown

The medical marijuana battlegrounds

Medical marijuana continues to raise quite the stir as well as a high amount of controversy in the state of Colorado, both despite and in part to its surge in popularity and availability. Courtesy photo

unknown

The medical marijuana battlegrounds

Posted: Thursday, July 21, 2011 4:00 pm | Updated: 9:38 am, Mon Jul 25, 2011.

The medical marijuana battlegrounds By Pat Hill Community Media of Colorado | 0 comments

When Colorado voters approved the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in 2000, little did most of them know that the issue would a decade later ensnare the state in a tangled web of entrepreneurs, a huge number of prescriptions for medical marijuana and competing federal and state laws.

Mixed in with the conundrum stew are the public’s perception of the positive/negative aspects of marijuana as a health benefit contrasted with marijuana as a harmful substance for teens and young adults.

The issue lay dormant until 2009 when medical marijuana dispensaries exploded in Colorado, which today leads the nation in the capitalistic/medical enterprise.

On July 1, however, the free-for-all came to a screeching halt as the state strengthened regulations for dispensaries and the Obama administration issued a reminder to the state that marijuana is still illegal under the federal government.

Eagle’s Nest Dispensary

At Eagle’s Nest Wellness Center on Ute Pass in El Paso County, Lono Ho’ala is among the regions’s most most vocal proponents of medical marijuana. Compliant with state laws, nonetheless, Ho’ala admits to being a bit nervous. “They (the feds) could come in here, arrest me and I’d be in prison for the next 20 years,” he said. “And that’s nuts.”

Nervous or not, Ho’ala has no qualms about what he views as the historic role of the federal government on maintaining the War on Drugs, which still includes marijuana. “Marijuana is probably one of the most powerful natural medicines for many purposes that has ever been around,” Ho’ala said. “I think that’s why there’s so much hype and so much effort to keep it illegal because pharmaceutical companies would be extremely threatened if this stuff ever becomes legal.”

Cynical about politicians and the American government as well as the role of lobbyists in setting policy, Ho’ala considers pharmaceutical companies leaders of the pack of those who oppose legalization.

“Number two are the Mexican drug cartels that pay hundreds of millions of dollars to local judges and federal-government employees to keep marijuana illegal,” Ho’ala said, citing an article last year in the Washington Times as his source. “But mom-and-pop operations like us in Colorado, California and other states with dispensaries are doing more damage to the Mexican drug cartels than all of the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been spent on this crazy war on drugs from the beginning.”

According to an article in the July 11 edition of Time Magazine, Americans consume $65 billion annually on illegal drugs, most of which are either produced in or go through Mexico. The article cites as its source the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Third on Ho’ala’s list of legalization blocks is the alcohol industry. “They are the ones that fought the legalization attempt in California,” he said. “They don’t want the competition from marijuana because it is not at all as addictive as alcohol, not even in the same league.”

The fourth group is the prison/law enforcement industry. “They are hugely profiting from these drug laws. And all four of those groups do not want to see marijuana legalized in any way, shape or form, no way,” he said. “So we wind up with this schizophrenic government where, at the state level, what we’re doing is legal, ethical, appropriate and socially beneficial to society when it’s done the way we do it and the way the state intends for it to be done.”

As well a state’s rights trump federal rights, according to the U.S. Constitution, Ho’ala said.

Phantom Canyon Closes

If the federal government would legalize marijuana, the whole issue would disappear, said Kathryn Chandler, who closed her dispensary, Phantom Canyon Apothecary, in Victor June 28.

“Legalize it, regulate it; I think there is a place for regulation,” she said. “You don’t want the criminal element here. If you legalize marijuana you don’t have to draw that line anymore between medical and recreational use. That’s the hardest thing. And lest we not judge anybody because we’re not inside anybody else’s body, (we) don’t know how they feel or what kind of pain they’re in.”

For the state as well as the cities, dispensaries offer a windfall. Before opening the shop in June 2010, Chandler paid $4,000 to the city of Victor for the application and $4,000 for license fees in addition to $8,750 to the state.

Comfort Care

On Teller County property, Comfort Care pays about $10,000 a year to the Colorado Department of Revenue, which collects the sales taxes and as well as the fees.

“But the thing with the feds is sort of an interesting situation,” said Martha Vallina, co-owner of the dispensary. “When the Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division was set up, they were telling everybody they’d protect us from the feds, but I have not heard any response from them if we do start getting arrested.”

Like Eagle’s Nest, however, Comfort Care is in for the count. “It’s scary, but we’re staying; they can take us all to jail.” Vallina said. “We’ve got too many cancer patients and other patients with devastating diseases who really depend on us to improve their quality of life.”

Not only is the federal/state mix a concern, so, too, is the public’s perception of marijuana users. “I’m passionate about the medicine and it aggravates me that there is so much incorrect information out there,” Vallina said. “People don’t even want to learn. There is plenty of evidence that medical marijuana effectively treats some conditions.”

Building A Generation?

The dark side of the issue, however, is the unintended consequences on Colorado’s young people.

Since the state legalized marijuana for medical use, treatment centers are treating more teens for marijuana addiction, according to a report from Thomas Crowley, director of the Division of Substance Dependence at the University of Colorado.

Denver Health Medical Center reports that treatment referrals have tripled, with 83 percent of the teens that smoke marijuana daily saying they obtained it from a medical-marijuana card holder, Crowley reports.

“Research shows that the brain is not finished developing until age 25, so whether young people use drugs, recreationally or not, they should always consider what any substance is going to do to a developing brain,” said Debbie Upton, coordinator of North Teller Build a Generation. “The other recurring theme of the research is that as marijuana becomes more legalized the perception of harm is also going down. So it changes the social norm.”

Another point of concern raised by Upton is that according to Healthy and Drug Free Colorado, the potency of marijuana has increased 10-fold since 1970.

Like Upton, Lisa Noble, coordinator of the Gold Belt Build a Generation in southern Teller County, is wary of legalization. Citing a survey done by the University of Michigan’s Monitoring the Future and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, Noble said there has been a recent increase in marijuana use in youth nationwide.

“The increase in use among youth follows a 10-year decline,” Noble said. “The trend parallels the increase in states with legalization of medical marijuana.”

A Student’s Opinion

At the Woodland Park High School, Kasey Allen, founding member of Students Against Destructive Decisions, hopes to stem the rise of marijuana abuse among her fellow students.

Citing anecdotal evidence, Allen believes it’s easier for young teens to get marijuana than it is to get alcohol.

“With alcohol you have to have somebody buy it for you, but with weed, you just go get it,” she said.

William Schroeder, D.O, of Woodland Park, Weighs In:

“As a physician who has recommended medical marijuana I can unequivocally state that it has safely saved the lives of some of my patients. It has improved the lives of many others. The cannibanoid molecules from the plant are far safer and superior medicinals compared to tylenol, the ibuprofen-like drugs, narcotics and the valium-like drugs which kill and maim hundreds of thousands of Americans each year resulting in billions of dollars of loss to our health care system beyond their human toll. Toxicity, tolerance and withdrawal problems are not seen with cannabis and dependence and addiction appear to be rare.

“Cannabis has allowed many of my patients to discontinue other drugs, like high-dose narcotics that are much more dangerous and destructive. Cannabis is often the only medicine that works for certain patients and is remarkably safe as a medicine with little side effects and no known adverse or deadly effects. Prescribing the other more deadly drugs when a recommendation of cannabis can replace them more safely is tantamount to medical neglect and malpractice. Prescribing the more dangerous drugs that cannabis replaces exposes our youth to much more threatening drugs of abuse.

“While we should remain very concerned about illegal and non-medical usage of marijuana, especially among teenagers with developing brains, this should not be an excuse to remove life-saving medicinals from those who use them responsibly for legitimate medical needs. For our society, drugs like alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, narcotics, benzodiazepines, sedatives, inhalants and designer drugs like ecstasy are a very much more significant threat than cannabis.”

A Recent Bill Proposed

On June 25, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Rep Barney Frank D-Massachusetts, introduced HB 2306 which seeks to remove marijuana from the list of controlled substances and delegate the regulation of the substance to the individual states.

“Criminally prosecuting adults for making the choice to smoke marijuana is a waste of law enforcement resources and an intrusion on personal freedom,” Frank said in a released statement.

Both congressman have admitted the bill has virtually no chance of passing, however, thus continuing the parallel universes of federal and state governments.

###

N.Y. advocates' hopes rise for medical marijuana

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:28:50 GMT

ALBANY — After a legislative session with no progress on legalizing medical marijuana, advocates hope actions byNew Jersey governor this month and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s statement that he is studying the issue will lead to success.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, said his state would move forward with its medical-marijuana act, a reversal from his position last month. He said at the time that he had concerns the state legislation conflicts with federal law and practice. A U.S. Justice Department earlier this month said it is focused on large-scale commercial providers.

Cuomo, a Democrat, has not supported medical marijuana in the past, and he said he has not changed his position. He did, however, leave the door open on the issue.

“We have proponents of the policy. I know New Jersey’s looking at it. We have opponents of the policy,” he said. “We’re talking to both sides of the issue, if you will, and we’re reviewing it, but we don’t have a final position.”

The governor said that while he hadn’t changed his stance, “We’re always learning and listening and talking and growing, we hope.”

New Jersey became the 16th state to legalize medical marijuana under legislation signed by Christie’s predecessor.

Legislation to allow patients with debilitating illnesses to use marijuana if they are registered with the state and receive a prescription from their physician has passed the Assembly before but never the Senate. Under the bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Richard Gottfried and Sen. Thomas Duane, both Manhattan Democrats, hospitals and pharmacies would do the bulk of the dispensing. The maximum amount that could be dispensed would be 2.5 ounces.

“The big obstacle continues to be getting a couple of more votes in the state Senate to enable it to pass,” Gottfried said.

The Democrat-controlled Assembly didn’t vote on the bill this year, only because of the difficulty in getting it through the GOP-led Senate.

Getting the support of the governor would help immensely, said Gottfried, adding that he had been in conversations on the matter with members of Cuomo’s administration who were reviewing the issue.

“My gut feeling or prediction is that when that’s done he will support legislation because I think the merits are overwhelmingly in support and I think certainly, to the extent he relies on health (professionals’) viewpoints, I think it’s a very clear decision,” Gottfried said.

He said the governor should “focus on the thousands of New Yorkers who are needlessly suffering from life-endangering and debilitating conditions whose lives could be made more tolerable and longer if we would join the other states that allow medical use.”

The legislation has significant opponents, including the state Conservative Party, which held sway in the recent Senate vote to approve same-sex marriage by threatening not to re-endorse any Republicans who voted yes. Four of them voted yes anyway.

“I don’t see how marijuana helps anybody with any kind of sickness,” said Michael Long, head of the Conservative Party. “There’s plenty of prescribed drugs that people can take when they are critically ill.”

He said if New York adopted a medical-marijuana law, it would be in conflict with the federal law that marijuana is an illegal drug. Legalizing it would only add to law enforcement problems.

“I am telling you that it will create an enforcement nightmare. There’ll be no control over it,” Long said.

Gottfried said he thinks Christie’s move confirms what has been clear since the Obama administration and even under the Bush administration, “that entities that produce or dispense in clear compliance with state law are not going to be interfered with by the federal government and the federal government has never gone after individual patients.”

###

Naysayers say yea; Myths about marijuana and the businesses that sell it

Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:12:34 GMT

Denver Medical Marijuana Examiner

July 15, 2011

Opinions, like bad rumors, are extremely difficult to dispel once created.

Opinions about marijuana today were formed at a time when anti-drug propaganda included images of dumb, loser stoners who can’t remember their name and can’t go more than a few minutes without toking.

This along with the media attention marijuana receives lately has led to opinions being formed about dispensaries that have about as much truth as the stoner stereotype.

With the regulation of recreational marijuana on the Colorado ballot in 2012, to succeed the marijuana movement must break down these myths.

What follows are reasons that opponents of medical marijuana cite when they argue against dispensaries or marijuana legalization.

Dispensaries have increased drug related crime in areas where they are legal

Imagine you are growing marijuana illegally and selling on the black-market. You are a good grower and can support yourself, but you are paranoid not only because of law enforcement, but because you are subject to blackmail (if someone finds out what you are doing) and theft by those whom you deal with to distribute your marijuana.

When you do get robbed, do you think you will be calling the police and letting them know several thousand dollars of marijuana was just stolen from you? Likely not.

Now, imagine you are an entrepreneur with hopes of starting a successful medical marijuana business and are committed to doing everything above the board and inline with state and local regulations. Now if you are robbed or have an incident in your retail space, you will call the police and hope they catch the guy.

It’s not that marijuana crime has increased, it may be only now that the crimes are being reported.

Follow this logic to its end… If criminals who target marijuana growers and distributors are now being reported, while there may be a short term spike in marijuana related crime, over time these criminals will either recognize that the risk is now too great, or will be incarcerated for their crimes.

Moreover, the war on drugs has increased “crime” by parenting the use of marijuana and thereby making criminals of cannabis users.

With a regulated retail model we are left with business people who want to do right by the law for the future of their business. Criminals are pushed out and marijuana crime and the concomitant violence will decrease.

Liquor stores are robbed, but we don’t blame the liquor. Dispensaries may be robbed, but it isn’t marijuana’s doing, it’s the robbers.

Dispensaries are selling marijuana smuggled from other countries by drug cartels

Recently enacted regulations in Colorado make it impossible for any marijuana business that wants to remain legal to sell black-market product.

Denver Relief is required to grow the majority of what we sell and must do it within the City and County of Denver.

With a regulated retail model, not only crime will decrease but demand for marijuana smuggled from outside the state or the U.S. will decrease as well.

Just this week authorities caught a drug ring that smuggled nearly one million dollars worth of marijuana into Colorado using tour busses.

The cartel was based in Mexico, and authorities also found meth, cocaine, and firearms with the 23 suspects that have been arrested.

Cartels such as this one take money away from our communities and put them at risk with their illegal activity.

With a fully enacted regulated retail model, cartels would be driven out of the marijuana market by quality local and legal product. Not only is this safer, but the money remains in the local economy rather than going to foreign smugglers.

Dispensaries make it easier for minors to get marijuana

Who do think is more likely to sell marijuana to a minor?

A business that has been heavily invested in, with employees, bills, leases, and a marketable image that would face severe fines and potential closure if it were caught.

Or, the black-market dealer who faces the same incarceration or penalties no matter who he/she sells marijuana to? The black-market dealer is mobile and is not restricted to a single location, or subject to any accountability unless caught.

In contrast, a dispensary has a license to sell marijuana, will not disappear into the night, and is subject to the same accountability any liquor store or bar is subject to when it comes to selling to minors or persons without medical marijuana licenses. A study published by the Marijuana Policy Project shows teen use decreasing as the medical marijuana movement grows.

It benefits us all greatly to know where marijuana is being produced and sold, not only for the tax revenue, but for the safety of children.

A recently published article in the Colorado Independent says that of the 16 states where medical marijuana is legal, only two have seen an increase in the number of teens who admit to having smoked marijuana. The other 14 have seen a reduction in teens using marijuana.

Not long ago, it wasn’t difficult for minors to purchase cigarettes, something which was treated with general indifference until the negative consequences of tobacco smoking became widely publicized.

Now, unless a minor has an adult that they get cigarettes from, it is extremely difficult to purchase them at a store, as it should be.

Minors would encounter the same difficulty in trying to obtain marijuana from licensed retail locations, and marijuana use among minors will decrease just as tobacco use has.

People are fraudulently getting their medical marijuana licenses.

What constitutes fraud in this matter is open to debate, but Amendment 20 says that if a physician recommends medical marijuana for any of the qualifying conditions that patient may apply to receive a medical marijuana license.

No one, not even the government, may intrude or intervene in this medical recommendation. Many have had MMJ recommended for chronic severe pain (94% of Colorado medical marijuana patients), which cynical opponents say shows that they don’t really need marijuana and are just trying to get high.

I can’t get into other peoples motives, but I know that if people were purchasing marijuana to “just get high” anyway (what is it that alcohol or cigarette users are doing?), I would rather them purchase it at a safe and regulated location where the people can collect tax on the sale, and where we ensure that they aren’t minors.

In Summary…

Who has a professional interest in safety, service, and quality products, and an interest in a reputation of integrity and forthrightness?

The medical marijuana center/ dispensary. The black-market dealer is not compelled by the same motivations.

Marijuana use, be it medical or otherwise, will continue.

We can either choose to continue to make criminals out of marijuana producers and users while keeping the black-market open to our youth, or we can put marijuana behind a counter where it will not be sold to minors and will bring much needed revenue to our communities.

You decide.

###

'Medical marijuana' a 'red herring' (OneNewsNow.com)

Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:49:09 GMT

‘Medical marijuana’ a ‘red herring’

Becky Yeh - OneNewsNow California correspondent - 7/18/2011 8:55:00 AM

Marijuana proponents in The Golden State want the federal government to remove the substance from its list of most dangerous drugs, but one advocate for a drug-free state doesn’t think that will happen.

The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed a petition that asks the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to remove marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act — the list that includes drugs that are unsafe, not accepted for medical use in the United States, and those that have the potential to be highly abused. Though the DEA rejected the request, marijuana supporters say they will not give up, as they plan to appeal the decision in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

“My feeling is that, number one, I think it’s good that it’s probably going for review again. But I don’t think the answer will be any different than it has been for the last 30 or 40 years,” notes Roger Morgan, chairman and executive director for the Coalition for a Drug Free California. The DEA previously delayed to review the filed petitions, but the pro-pot coalition requested a judge to force the administration to respond within 60 days. Marijuana supporters claim they have “foiled the government’s strategy of delay” and can now show that marijuana has therapeutic value. But Morgan contends that “medical marijuana” is a hoax.

“The term ‘medical marijuana’ was actually coined by the founder of NORML, which is the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws,” he explains. “A guy named Keith Stroup told an audience at Emory University, I think in 1979, that they would use the term ‘medical marijuana’ as a red herring to give it a good name as the first step toward legalization for recreational use.”

Proponents of the drug maintain that the federal government is seeking to undermine medical marijuana, and they want that to change.

Seattle approves medical marijuana regulations

Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:20:23 GMT

By Laura L. Myers

SEATTLE | Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:23am EDT

SEATTLE (Reuters) - The City Council voted on Monday to establish a municipal licensing and regulation system for medical marijuana distribution in Seattle under a new Washington state law that takes effect later this week.

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn has indicated he will sign the ordinance, which is at odds with a series of new restrictions and bans on medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities imposed by other municipalities around the state.

Seattle is Washington’s largest city.

The 8-0 vote in favor of the measure comes nearly three months after Governor Christine Gregoire signed into law a new measure allowing cities to regulate and license production, processing and distribution of medical marijuana on a limited basis.

That statute, which takes effect on Friday, requires storefront dispensaries and other medical pot suppliers to reorganize themselves as small, cooperative ventures serving up to 10 patients. These “collective gardens” are confined to growing 45 plants total but no more than 15 per person.

The state law was passed in response to a recent proliferation of storefront dispensaries that were neither explicitly banned nor permitted under a 1988 voter-approved initiative legalizing pot for medicinal purposes.

Gregoire vetoed provisions that would have established licensing for growing and distributing medical marijuana at the state level.

Although cannabis is still listed as an illegal narcotic under federal law, 15 states and the District of Columbia have statutes decriminalizing marijuana as a treatment for various medical conditions, according to the National Drug Policy Alliance.

Seattle officials backing the proposed city ordinance say more than 25,000 of the city’s 600,000 residents use cannabis for medical reasons. They argue that regulation will bring more order to the burgeoning supply chain.

“We’re saying, ‘You’re already here, now we need to regulate you,’” Seattle Councilwoman Sally Clark said.

The proposed ordinance would require medical marijuana businesses to comply with city codes that govern everything from plumbing to public nuisance complaints.

About 80 medical marijuana dispensaries have sprung up in Seattle, but only about 50 of them have registered with the city, Clark said.

A spokesman for McGinn said the mayor will sign the ordinance, possibly on Tuesday, and the measure would go into effect in 30 days.

(Editing by Steve Gorman, Alex Dobuzinskis and Peter Bohan)

Medical marijuana may help fibromyalgia pain

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:55:27 GMT

“There are more places to purchase medical marijuana than banks or Mexican restaurants now,” medical assistant says.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Fibromyalgia patients typically experience bodywide pain
Fibromyalgia patients often take multiple drugs for other symptoms
Marijuana may treat multiple symptoms, and some patients are seeing results
Concerns: Cannabis contains different compounds with potentially medicinal effects and amount varies by batch

RELATED TOPICS

(Health.com) — Lynda, a 48-year-old mother of three who lives in upstate New York, got a diagnosis of fibromyalgia in 2000. While there are prescription medications for fibromyalgia, she’s found one unconventional drug — marijuana — that really does the trick.

“I would use [marijuana] when the burning pains started down my spine or my right arm, and shortly after, I found I could continue with housework and actually get more done,” says Lynda.

Fibromyalgia is notoriously difficult to treat and only 35 percent - 40 percent of people with the chronic pain condition get relief from the available medications. Although there are strong opinions surrounding its use, some patients are trying marijuana — legally or illegally — and finding it can help fibromyalgia pain.

“My patients are asking me all the time about it,” says Stuart Silverman, M.D., a rheumatologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, in Los Angeles. “Historically and anecdotally, marijuana has been used as a painkiller.”

Why marijuana sometimes helps

Our bodies naturally make pain relievers called endorphins, but they also make other substances that can trigger pain relief in the so-called endocannabinoid system. This system seems to play a key role in many processes in the body, including modulating how we feel pain. Marijuana contains cannabinoids very similar to those that occur in the body naturally.

Fibromyalgia patients typically experience bodywide pain, but they must often take multiple drugs for other symptoms, which can include difficulty sleeping, restless legs syndrome, depression, and anxiety. However, marijuana may treat multiple symptoms, and some patients are seeing results.

It seems logical — why shouldn’t fibromyalgia sufferers try marijuana for their symptoms, if they live in a state where medical marijuana is legal?

But there are two problems with herbal cannabis, Silverman and other critics say: It’s a complex natural substance that contains about 60 different compounds with potentially medicinal effects, some of which may interact with one another. The other problem is that the amount of these various compounds may vary by batch, as marijuana is not synthesized but grown.

While Silverman says he has great hopes that synthetic medicines based on individual compounds in cannabis may one day help fibromyalgia patients (after appropriate randomized controlled clinical trials have been done), he argues that the real thing today is just too inconsistent.

“We think that there’s probably a role for that class of compounds, the cannabinoids in general, and it’s just a question of working out how that’s going to be put into practice,” says Mark Ware, M.D., an assistant professor in family medicine and anesthesia at McGill University, in Montreal, and the executive director of the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids.

Drugs derived from marijuana

Ware recently published a study showing that one such compound, nabilone (Cesamet), helped fibromyalgia patients sleep better. It was more effective than amitriptyline, a tricyclic antidepressant often prescribed to fibromyalgia patients to ease pain and improve sleep. And a study published a couple of years ago found nabilone helped lessen pain and anxiety in fibromyalgia patients.

Health.com: Everyday challenges of Fibromyalgia

Nabilone is a synthetic analog of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol — THC for short — often thought of as the active ingredient of cannabis. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug back in 1985 for treating nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

The only other cannabis-based drug now on the market in the U.S. is dronabinol, which is sold as Marinol in the U.S. and is FDA-approved for treating chemo-related nausea and vomiting. It hasn’t been tested formally in fibromyalgia patients, although Lynda received a prescription for Marinol in 2006.

“The drug makes me more tired and doesn’t last long enough in my system, but I’ve stuck with it since then for two basic reasons — I do supplement with marijuana, just not as many times per day,” she says. “There are times that I don’t use all day or week or month.”

Health.com: 10 food rules for pain patients

A third cannabis-based medicine, Sativex, is now in clinical trials in the United States for treating cancer pain.

The drug is sprayed under the tongue or into the cheek, and contains THC and cannabidiol, a non-psychoactive compound found in cannabis that eases inflammation and pain and may also reduce the side effects of THC (like anxiety, hunger production, and some of the intoxicating properties), as well as a number of other compounds (other cannabinoids and terpenoids, which are analgesics in their own rights).

But do they help?

“It is quite possible that cannabis-based medicines could be helpful for sufferers of fibromyalgia based on available science,” says Ethan Russo, M.D., who is senior medical advisor to GW Pharmaceuticals, which makes Sativex, and a study physician for the U.S. clinical trials now underway for cancer treatment.

Health.com: Is Chronic Pain Ruining Your Relationship?

Russo says he’s hopeful Sativex will get FDA approval for treating cancer pain in 2013. “While a theoretical basis for Sativex potentially helping benefit fibromyalgia symptoms is quite strong, and we know it has been very helpful with neuropathic pain and sleep disturbance in many other conditions,” he adds, “it’s ultimate utility in fibromyalgia can only be proven in a meaningful, practical fashion through formal randomized clinical trials.”

For now, Ware says, patients with fibromyalgia who aren’t being helped by their existing treatment might want to discuss nabilone with their physician. “A lot of doctors just don’t know that these prescription cannabinoids exist,” he says.

However, these drugs have side effects too. “The most typical side effects are what I call the three D’s: drowsiness, dizziness, and dry mouth. It’s not euphoria as such,” he adds.

In Canada, federal law allows patients to use medical marijuana with a doctor’s support (they can’t prescribe marijuana because it’s not approved as a drug in Canada) of the patient’s application to possess; the drug is delivered directly to the patient, and grown under controlled conditions by the government.

“I have patients with a range of pain syndromes who have failed all their other treatments and for whom herbal cannabis has been the only reasonable option that they have that controls their symptoms,” Ware says. In such cases, he adds, he will help the patient obtain the card they need to authorize them to possess the drug.

But in the U.S., the legality of medical marijuana is determined state-by-state (it’s now legal in 14 states), and rules and regulations vary widely.

And while Attorney General Eric Holder said last year that he would no longer go after people who were selling or using medical marijuana legally, many users — and potential users — are fearful of the legal risks they may be taking.

Health.com: A state-by-state guide to medical marijuana laws

“Licensed for use or not, it’s still a federal crime, says Dee, a 52-year-old medical assistant with fibromyalgia, who lives in Colorado, which passed a law allowing medical marijuana in 2000. While visiting a wellness center for therapeutic massages, staffers suggested she try marijuana for her symptoms.

After getting her doctor’s approval, “I tried a little of this and a little of that. I would say that most of the time my pain was not relieved,” although she did sleep better and had a better appetite. “I did find one plant that really did help, but it was hard to get, and you only get so much grown per plant for year.”

Health.com: 10 gifts that ease the pain

So when the time came for Dee to get her state license to use medical marijuana (Colorado gives people 90 days), at a cost of $90 every year, “I let the ball drop.”

While Dee says she has no problem with medical marijuana, she is concerned about the increase of dispensaries across the state. “There are more places to purchase medical marijuana than banks or Mexican restaurants now,” she says.

In New York, the state assembly has approved medical marijuana legislation, and Lynda says she is working to support legalization efforts there. For now, legal or not, she is continuing to use marijuana.

“I would suggest to any ‘fibromyalgiac’ to try marijuana if they are open to it,” says Lynda.

“I swore when I became a parent I would not touch weed again (ah, youth), but times have changed, and I was desperate to find something for the burning pain so I could function. I’m glad that I made this decision because it works for me.”

Marijuana laws: DEA stance on Schedule I locks door to medical marijuana research

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:47:33 GMT

Editorial

Medical marijuana: Research, not fear

The DEA is right in saying there’s not enough scientific evidence about the medical uses of cannabis. But that’s because the government’s paranoia about the plant makes legitimate research on possible benefits all but impossible.

The Drug Enforcement Administration lists marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no medical value and that the potential for abuse is high. The above photo shows a marijuana bud at Green Oasis, a medical marijuana dispensary in Los Angeles. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

What is it that makes marijuana more frightening to the federal government than cocaine or morphine? The Drug Enforcement Administration has steadfastly, over decades, listed marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no medical value and that the potential for abuse is high. Cocaine and morphine, far more dangerous and habit-forming, are listed as Schedule II because they have some medical value.

Last week the DEA ruled once again, a decade after it made the same decision, that marijuana is a potentially dangerous drug without known medical benefits. During the intervening 10 years, though, nine more states passed medical marijuana laws, bringing the total to 17. Two years ago, the American Medical Assn. recommended changing the classification of marijuana to Schedule II, which would make it easier for researchers to obtain the drug for medical studies.

See more stories »

In March, the National Cancer Institute reported: “The potential benefits of medicinal cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief and improved sleep.” However, it stopped short of endorsing marijuana as a medical treatment, concluding that there was too little evidence.

The cancer institute and the DEA are right that there’s not enough scientific evidence about the medical uses of cannabis. But whose fault is that? The biggest reason there is so little proof about marijuana, one way or the other, is that the federal government is paranoid about legitimate research on the drug and has refused to relist it as Schedule II. The few and scattered studies that have been completed, in this country and around the world, have not proved marijuana’s potential benefits, but by and large, they have produced some promising findings. In the late 1990s, both the New England Journal of Medicine and the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, suggested that marijuana appeared to have some medical uses and recommended more research.

Those recommendations went unheeded, and no wonder. All research-grade marijuana in this country is under the control of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, whose mission is to research the addictive properties of drugs, not their potential medical benefits.

Our prescription is for better knowledge. Marijuana is just another drug — one with psychotropic effects, for sure, but one that might be able to help sick people. Oversight of research-grade marijuana should be shared with an agency whose primary mission is medical research. Marijuana should be listed as a Schedule II drug to facilitate further research. The findings should be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, just as clinical trials are for any other drug. Then the nation can base its marijuana policy on information, not on entrenched fears or a patchwork of possibly well-intentioned but under-informed state medical marijuana laws.

###

Legislate Educate and Medicate

Sat, 16 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Challenging the DEA's War on Medical Marijuana

Fri, 15 Jul 2011 21:00:22 GMT

The federal agency insists it has no legitimate use. So are all the cancer, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis patients lying?

Can I interest you in a cross-country trip? Its theme is Anti-Empiricism in America. The tour bus leaves from The Bay Area, where a lot of people still think rent control works. It proceeds through Salt Lake City, where the Evergreen Institute claims to cure same sex attraction, passes through Petersburg, Ky., home of the Creationist Museum, and terminates in Springfield, Va., where the DEA, a liberty impinging branch of the federal government, insists against overwhelming evidence that a plant called marijuana “has no accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision.”

That dubious determination is what keeps marijuana classified as a Schedule 1 drug, the only kind that cannot be prescribed by physicians. It is more tightly controlled than raw opium, methadone, and anabolic steroids, among many other drugs far more harmful to the human body, and more prone to abuse than cannabis.

Is that something the DEA can defend in court?

Americans For Safe Access (ASA) intends to find out. The advocacy group has spent years petitioning to change marijuana’s designation so that doctors can prescribe it to patients. Last month, the DEA officially denied their request. In response, the group intends to sue. “The federal government is making no bones about its aggressive policy to undermine medical marijuana,” said ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer. “And we’re prepared to take the Obama administration to court over it.”

Though most people don’t know it, there is precedent for suing the federal government for access to medical marijuana and winning. On the verge of going blind in his early twenties, the late Robert C. Randall turned to marijuana after discovering that it relieved the symptoms of his glaucoma. It worked. In order to maintain a supply, he grew marijuana on his Washington D.C. sun deck. Police arrested him. “I argued that any sane person who knew they were going blind, who knew that marijuana would prevent them from going blind, would break the law to obtain marijuana,” he recalled. Surprisingly, the courts agreed, and soon afterward, he began receiving marijuana legally from the federal government, a fact he publicized, resulting in the termination of his supply.
See web-only content:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/challenging-the-deas-war-on-medical-marijuana/241853/

“They were willing to let me go blind to maintain the fiction that marijuana has no medical use,” he said in the video above. He sued. Rather than go to court again, the federal government reached a settlement that required it to establish the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program. At its peak, 30 people were getting their marijuana legally from the federal government, the entity now claiming that the drug “has no accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision.” George H.W. Bush ended the program, but as many as 5 patients are currently grandfathered in and still receiving marijuana.

Here is one participant’s story:
See web-only content:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/challenging-the-deas-war-on-medical-marijuana/241853/

Would the head of the DEA have the guts to look him square in the eye and assert that marijuana has no legitimate medical use? Unlikely. Would Bill Bennett, the former drug czar and prohibition advocate, be willingly to publicly debate him? I doubt it. Here is what candidate Barack Obama had to say on the subject before he was president:

I have more of a practical view than anything else. My attitude is that if it’s an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma, or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate, because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there is a legitimate concern about not wanting people to grow their own … but using medical marijuana in the same way with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that’s entirely appropriate.

You’d think a man who understands that the drug has medical uses — who therefore believes that there are sick people who aren’t getting a useful medicine due to the DEA’s designation — would push for change.

Nope.

Despite legal obstacles to conducting medical research with marijuana, there is all sorts of evidence (.pdf), beyond personal testimony, that it has legitimate medicinal uses. But I actually think that hearing the stories of actual medical marijuana users is as powerful as any study.

I dare anyone to tell me this woman is just out to get high: See web-only content:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/challenging-the-deas-war-on-medical-marijuana/241853/

Image credit: Reuters

White House National Drug Control Strategy Report 2011: Read It & Weep!

Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:27:42 GMT

Tuesday, 12 July 2011 13:14

It’s staggering to realize that the Republican policies of the Bush era are not very different from the policies of the Obama era when it comes to marijuana. The latest ONDCP national drug control strategy report sadly proves that. Read it and weep.

The Facts About Marijuana Marijuana use is the highest it has been in eight years. In 2010, daily marijuana use increased significantly among all three grades surveyed (8th, 10th, and 12th graders). Daily use for high school seniors increased from 5.2% to 6.1% of the respondents. One in 11 people who start marijuana use will become addicted - a rate that rises to one in six when use begins during adolescence. In 2009, marijuana was involved in 376,000 emergency department visits nationwide. Making matters worse, confusing messages being conveyed by the entertainment industry, media, proponents of “medical” marijuana, and political campaigns to legalize all marijuana use perpetuate the false notion that marijuana use is harmless and aim to establish commercial access to the drug. This significantly diminishes efforts to keep our young people drug free and hampers the struggle of those recovering from addiction.

Marijuana and other illicit drugs are addictive and unsafe especially for use by young people. The science, though still evolving in terms of long-term consequences, is clear: marijuana use is harmful. Independent from the so called “gateway effect” - marijuana on its own is associated with addiction, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects.

Despite successful political campaigns to legalize “medical” marijuana in 16 states and the District of Columbia, the cannabis (marijuana) plant itself is not medicine. While there may be medical value for some of the individual components of the cannabis plant, the fact remains that smoking marijuana is an inefficient and harmful method for delivering the constituent elements that have or may have medicinal value. As always, the FDA process remains the only scientific and legally recognized procedure for bringing safe and effective medications to the American public. To date, the FDA has not found smoked marijuana to be either safe or effective medicine for any condition.

Administration steadfastly opposes drug legalization. Legalization runs counter to a public health approach to drug control because it would increase the availability of drugs, reduce their price, undermine prevention activities, hinder recovery support efforts, and pose a significant health and safety risk to all Americans, especially our youth.

Many “quick fixes” for America’s complex drug problem have been presented throughout our country’s history. In the past half-century, these proposals have included calls for allowing the legal sale and use of marijuana. However, the complex policy issues concerning drug use and the disease of addiction do not lend themselves to such simple solutions.

On November 2, 2010, Californians rejected one simplistic solution (Proposition 19) that would have legalized marijuana in their state. Parents, community and business leaders, and other concerned citizens realized marijuana legalization was a gamble they were not willing to take. Our Administration opposed Proposition 19 and was joined by a number of political figures, including candidates for governor and U.S. Senate. In the months leading up to the vote, the RAND Corporation released two independent studies that examined the theory that California would realize a net benefit from legalization and see reductions in the illicit proceeds and violence associated with drug trafficking.

The first RAND study appraised the claim that California would realize financial gains from marijuana legalization. Counter to proponents’ assertions, the study concluded that the pretax retail price of marijuana in California would decline by as much as 80% to levels not seen in 30 years due to less legal risk for suppliers, more automation, and economies of scale through farm field and greenhouse production. They concluded that the retail price would have been dependent upon the taxes (sales and excise), the structure of the regulatory scheme, and how taxes and regulations would be enforced. Moreover, the revenue from taxes would be dependent upon the compliance rate: by growing their own marijuana or purchasing it on the gray market, some consumers could avoid the taxes.

In addition, while proponents of Proposition 19 argue the high cost of enforcing existing marijuana laws (an amount they suggest is nearly $2 billion) renders legalization a compelling course of action, the RAND study estimates these costs to be dramatically lower ($300 million). Finally, the RAND report raises a powerful counter to the arguments made by proponents of Proposition 19, namely that legalizing marijuana would result in increased consumption of the drug.

Legalization supporters also have claimed that illicit profits to Mexican traffickers and violence in both Mexico and the United States would be reduced if drugs were sold on the open market. A second RAND study examined this argument and found that marijuana accounts for only about 15 to 26% of Mexican traffickers’ revenue (or about $1.5 to $2 billion) and therefore, legalization in California - which accounts for about one-seventh of U.S. marijuana consumption - would likely only reduce drug trafficking organizations’ profits by between 2 and 4%. The extent of such smuggling would depend upon the actions of federal and state governments to prevent this illicit commerce.

Ultimately, RAND concluded that any projections with respect to reduced revenues leading to less violence are particularly uncertain. The researchers found that some mechanisms (i.e., disruptions in the illicit workforce due to declining revenues) suggest a large decline in revenues might provoke increased violence in the short-term but reduced violence after several years.

Controls and prohibitions help to keep prices higher, and higher prices help keep use rates relatively low. This is because drug use, especially among young people, is known to be sensitive to price.

Our current legal drugs - alcohol and tobacco - are examples of commercialized products with addiction potential and high usage rates fueled by easy availability. Although these products are taxed, neither produces a net economic benefit to society. The healthcare and criminal justice costs associated with alcohol and tobacco far surpass the tax revenue they generate, and little of the taxes collected on these substances is contributed to the offset of their substantial social and health costs.

Federal excise taxes collected on alcohol in 2007 totaled around $9 billion, and states collected around $5.6 billion. Taken together, this is less than 10% of the more than $185 billion in alcohol-related social costs such as healthcare, lost productivity and criminal justice system expenses. Nor does tobacco carry its economic weight when taxed: each year, tobacco use generates only about $23 billion in taxes but results in more than $183 billion per year in direct medical expenses as well as lost productivity.

Further, our current experience with legal, regulated prescription drugs shows that legalizing drugs only widens their availability and potential for abuse, no matter what controls are in place. In 2007, drug-induced deaths climbed to more than 38,000, according to CDC.This increase was driven primarily by drug overdose deaths from the non-medical use of legal pharmaceutical drugs, particularly narcotic pain relievers.

Advocates of legalization say the costs of prohibition, mainly through the criminal justice system, place a great burden on taxpayers and governments. While there are certainly costs to current prohibitions, legalizing drugs would not cut costs associated with the criminal justice system. Arrests for alcohol-related crimes, such as violations of liquor laws and driving under the influence, totaled nearly 2.7 million in 2008 - far more than arrests for all illegal drug use. These alcohol-related arrests are costly. Legalizing marijuana would further saddle government with the dual burden of regulating a new legal market while continuing to pay for the negative effects associated with an underground market whose providers have little economic incentive to disappear.

At a time when our efforts should be focused on reversing a troubling increase in drug use, legalization would only make matters worse by lowering the drug’s price, increasing its use and creating billions of dollars in new social costs.

Medical Marijuana

Marijuana and other drugs are addictive and unsafe, especially for use by young people. Unfortunately, efforts to “medicalize” marijuana have widened the public acceptance and availability of the drug.

There is no substitute for the scientific approval process employed by the FDA. For a drug to be made available to the public as medicine, the FDA requires rigorous research followed by tests for safety and efficacy. Only then can a substance be classified as medicine and prescribed by qualified health care professionals to patients.

In the wake of state and local laws that permit distribution of “medical” marijuana, dozens of localities have been left to grapple with poorly written laws that bypass the FDA process and allow marijuana to be used as a so-called medicine. John Knight, director of the Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse Research at Children’s Hospital Boston, recently wrote: “Marijuana has gotten a free ride of sorts among the general public, who view it as non-addictive and less impairing than other drugs. However, medical science tells a different story.”

Similarly, Christian Thurstone, a board-certified Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, an Addiction Psychiatrist, and also an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Colorado, said: “In the absence of credible data, this debate is being dominated by bad science and misinformation from people interested in using medical marijuana as a step to legalization for recreational use. Bypassing the FDA’s well-established approval process has created a mess that especially affects children and adolescents. Young people, who are clearly being targeted with medical marijuana advertising and diversion, are most vulnerable to developing marijuana addiction and suffering from its lasting effects.”

In the United States, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has approved 109 researchers to perform bona fide research with marijuana, marijuana extracts and marijuana derivatives, such as cannabidiol and cannabinol. Studies include evaluation of abuse potential, physical/psychological effects, adverse effects, therapeutic potential and detection. Fourteen researchers are approved to conduct research with smoked marijuana on human subjects.
As a result of this extensive research, several marijuana-based medications have been found to be safe and effective by the FDA and are available for doctors to prescribe. Dronabinol, a synthetic form of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the most active ingredient in marijuana, is used to treat nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. It is also used to treat loss of appetite and weight loss in people who have AIDS. Nabilone, a synthetic drug that mimics marijuana’s main ingredient, is also prescribed to treat nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy. Other medications based on one or more marijuana components are being carefully studied.

Aside from the problems accompanying the commercialization of marijuana, smoking any drug is unhealthy. That is why no major medical association has come out in favor of smoked marijuana for widespread medical use. For example, the American Cancer Society, American Glaucoma Foundation, National Pain Foundation, National Multiple Sclerosis Society and other medical societies are not in favor of smoked “medical” marijuana. The American Medical Association has called for more research on the subject, with the caveat that this “should not be viewed as an endorsement of state-based medical cannabis programs, the legalization of marijuana or that scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of cannabis meets the current standards for a prescription drug product.”

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics: “Evidence suggests that pediatricians should continue their vigilant efforts to prevent the use of this drug by young people. The abuse of marijuana by adolescents is a major health problem with social, academic, developmental, and legal ramifications. Marijuana is an addictive, mind-altering drug capable of inducing dependency. Pediatricians are obligated to develop a reasoned approach to dealing with its use by children and adolescents so they can provide appropriate care and counsel… Additional reasons for concern and counsel include anxieties and uncertainties about the potential harm that marijuana use may cause to adolescents during a period of rapid change in hormonal secretion, possible teratogenicity and the known consequences of long-term use.

Conclusion This Administration joins major medical societies in supporting increased research into marijuana’s many components, delivered in a safe (non-smoked) manner, in the hopes that they can be available for physicians to legally prescribe when proven to be safe and effective. Outside the context of federally approved research, the use and distribution of marijuana is prohibited in the United States.
###

Arizona Public Media - Health - Marijuana’s Effects on the Brain

Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:00:44 GMT

July 15, 2011

This is part five of Arizona Public Media’s five-part series, The Controversy over Cannabis, airing July 11-15 on NPR 89.1FM/1550AM.

Download as MP3

Photo: Laura Markowitz

Users and experts alike disagree on whether marijuana is addictive.

Adolescence is a stressful time, with hormones, acne and the pressure to fit in. Many parents resign themselves to the fact that their teens will likely experiment with cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana.

But Juanita, a single mother of three, didn’t know what to do when her daughter started using it every day—-and growing it in her room. More than 40 percent of teens try pot while they’re still in high school, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

Juanita called a drug crisis hotline for advice.

“They said, ‘You have to be patient and try to talk to your children,’” she remembers. “The conversations we had were something like this: ‘It’s not good for you and it’s illegal.’ No comment from her.”

In hindsight, Juanita realized that the pot-smoking was her daughter’s way of coping with depression, anger and feelings of abandonment. It took more than a decade for her daughter to stop using drugs to cope.

Ed Rusnak is a recovered marijuana addict. Now he runs the family program at Cottonwood de Tucson, one of the leading substance abuse treatment facilities in the country.

The first time he tried pot, he was 18 and a freshman in college. He didn’t like the effects at first, but he liked feeling like he fit in. Soon, he was smoking every day. He dropped out of college and became depressed and paranoid. Eight years later, suicidal thoughts propelled him into a recovery program.

NIDA estimates that 4.3 million Americans ages 12 and older meet the criteria for marijuana abuse or addiction. And 62 percent of teens in drug treatment programs are dependent on marijuana, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. But there are a surprising number of people who say marijuana isn’t addictive.

Photo: Laura Markowitz

Dr. Robert Johnson, Medical Director, Sierra Tucson

“There clearly are a lot of people who can smoke pot on a recreational basis and not have it have a huge negative impact on their lives,” says Robert Johnson, medical director of Sierra Tucson, a world-renowned psychiatric hospital that treats addictions. “But some do become dependent on it.

Dependence is a behavioral disorder about developing a lifestyle that’s about finding and using a substance, despite mounting negative consequences.”

Some of Johnson’s colleagues say addiction and dependence are not the same thing. Addiction involves physical dependence. For example, a heroin user will experience agonizing withdrawal symptoms – vomiting, seizures, violent mood swings - if he or she stops using the drug. Pot isn’t physically addictive, so a long-time pot smoker who goes cold turkey might only experience insomnia, anxiety and fidgetiness. But Johnson says his patients who are trying to kick their marijuana habit think of themselves as addicts.

Photo: Laura Markowitz

Jeff Friedman, Primary Therapist, Cottonwood de Tucson

Jeff Friedman, primary therapist at Cottonwood de Tucson, has another way of looking at it.

“The locus of addiction does not reside in the substance, but in the person who uses the substance,” he says. That means that when people light up instead of dealing with uncomfortable emotions, situations and relationships, they can become problem users. And if they have a genetic predisposition to addiction, they could become addicted to it.

That’s one possible explanation for why 85 percent of teens can smoke pot and not become addicted to it, but 15 percent smoke it and do, according to NIDA.

Marijuana addicts come from all walks of life. They want to stop smoking marijuana, and can’t. They keep using despite increasing negative consequences; they’re constantly thinking about their next opportunity to get high. They’re always mentally measuring how much pot they have left, and planning on where and when they can resupply.

Friedman says part of the confusion over whether pot is addictive may come from a false distinction people make that there are hard drugs, which are addictive; and soft drugs—like pot—that aren’t. Because the THC in cannabis is stored in the body’s fat for up to 30 days, a person can stop smoking pot for a few weeks and not feel particularly uncomfortable. So they conclude that they don’t have a problem with pot, and they go back to getting high every day.

“Most substances of abuse—cocaine, meth, alcohol—are water soluble,” explains Friedman. “They exert their mood-altering effect quickly because they get absorbed into the system quickly.”

But THC, which is the active ingredient in cannabis, is lipid-soluble. Instead of being absorbed into the limbic brain, which is responsible for feelings, moods and emotions, THC moves through the fat-soluble blood-brain barrier and works on the prefrontal cortex.

“THC gets a person high by interfering with the person’s cognitive function,” says Friedman. “This is why heavy pot smokers have notoriously bad memories. This is why someone who is really loaded on pot can drive 25 miles per hour on the interstate and think they are doing fine. Their cognitive processing is messed up. This is why someone high on pot can literally get lost in their own neighborhood. The ability to orient is a cognitive function.”

Robert Johnson says pot can have an even more severe effect on a small percentage of users.

“In vulnerable people, it increases the risk of psychotic illness,” he says. “If you have a family history of schizophrenia, if you’re going to convert to schizophrenia, it can cause that to happen two to three years earlier. There are studies in England that show upwards of 15 to 20 percent of psychotic illness is related to marijuana use.”

But for the majority of people, does frequent pot-smoking have any long-term effects on the brain or behavior?

Friedman and Johnson both say that pot smokers who get high instead of dealing with uncomfortable emotions, problems and relationships don’t develop their own, internal resources to cope. Ed Rusnak sees it all the time with his clients.

Photo: Laura Markowitz

Ed Rusnak, Family Program Director, Cottonwood de Tucson

“What’s widely believed is wherever someone begins their addiction, that’s where they stop growing emotionally,” says Rusnak. “I say that because so often when families come through here, I’ll ask them … how old’s the patient [and] they will answer, ‘Thirty, but on a good day they act like about seventeen.’ ”

Many habitual pot smokers will insist that being high doesn’t affect their day-to-day functioning, but a NIDA study found that college students who smoked heavily made more errors, had a harder time paying attention, and didn’t register, process or use information well. And that was after abstaining from pot for 24 hours.

Experts say the good news is that the brain has the potential to heal itself if given the opportunity.

“Stop poisoning it, first of all,” recommends Johnson. “Stop introducing voluntary toxins into it. Give it a chance to heal. Engage in regular exercise—-anything that oxygenates your brain.”

He says fish oil supplements have been shown to have beneficial effects on the brain.

Mindfulness meditation, counseling and 12-step groups also help addicts learn to identify the triggers that lead them to reach for the rolling papers instead of dealing directly with their problems. They can’t ever get back the years they lost sitting on the couch stoned, but they can start to see a future where they can be happy without weed.

###

Contact the author of this story, Laura Markowitz

Because We Say So

Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:40:49 GMT

Thousands of people in 16 U.S. states and in the District of Columbia take a prescribed drug that has no “currently accepted medical use,” according to a recent government ruling.

If the medication involved were a typical blood pressure pill or arthritis treatment, this sort of pronouncement would come from the Food and Drug Administration, which is charged with determining whether medications are safe and effective. But the drug is cannabis, and the ruling came from the Drug Enforcement Agency.

When Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, it listed marijuana as a Schedule I drug, a category that includes substances with a high potential for abuse and no medical applications. Since then, marijuana’s Schedule I status has been regularly contested by groups and by individuals. The recent DEA decision was in response to a petition originally filed around nine years ago. (Explaining the delay, Barbara Carreno, a spokeswoman for the DEA, told the Los Angeles Times, “The regulatory process is just a time-consuming one that usually takes years to go through.”) The classification is significant because Schedule I drugs, such as heroin, are illegal for all use.

The DEA defended marijuana’s current classification by citing a lack of scientific studies proving its medical utility. But, as critics of the decision have been quick to point out, one of the major reasons marijuana has not been studied more extensively is because of its Schedule I classification. For the medical community to establish “accepted” uses for a drug, doctors and scientists must be free to study it. Sometimes accepted uses arise out of doctors’ legal “off-label” prescription of various medications to treat conditions for which they have not been formally approved. Though some studies of marijuana’s medical benefits have been conducted – and most of them have shown promising results – the process remains tangled in red tape.

Of course, no one really expected the DEA to come down on the side of medicinal marijuana. As its name suggests, the Drug Enforcement Agency is in the business of enforcing laws, not investigating novel treatment options.

The DEA’s website contains plenty of pages explaining why marijuana is so bad. On one, it claims that marijuana is harmful because it “contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke.” If harmful side effects disqualified pharmaceuticals from medical use, we would not see many of the warning-laden advertisements that populate prime-time network television.

On another page, the DEA says marijuana actually does have a medical use, but that the smoked form of the drug does not need to be legal because the active ingredient, THC, has already been isolated and replicated in the synthetic prescription drug Marinol. So, according to the DEA, marijuana needs to be kept away from people because it is harmful in the same ways as cigarettes – which are excluded from the Controlled Substances Act – but marijuana is also different because it is medically useful, while cigarettes are not.

Screwy logic, but that is not the DEA’s fault. It is not in the business of writing laws; it is in the business of enforcing them. Why ask cops to play doctor?

Now that DEA has issued its final ruling, proponents of medical marijuana can challenge the agency’s position in court. Previous challenges have failed, but they came before the widespread movement among states to authorize medical marijuana in spite of the federal law to the contrary.

There is reason to hope that the courts will rule differently this time. With all those doctors prescribing marijuana and all those people taking it, judges may finally be ready to throw out the government’s position: “Cannabis has no medical use because we say so.”

###

By Larry M. Elkin Jul 15, 2011, 9:11 AM

Two Groups Seek to Get Medical Marijuana on the Ballot in Ohio Next Year

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:39:19 GMT

Earlier this year, Cleveland’s billionaire Progressive insurance founder and marijuana supporter Peter Lewis announced that he was seeking proposals for a medical marijuana ballot issue for 2012. Now, The Columbus Dispatch reports that a second group, which describes itself as a “core group of patients”, is preparing to pursue a constitutional amendment.

Teresa Daniello, of Cleveand, says that she and other supporters of the idea are confident that they will be able to gather enough signatures to get an amendment proposal before voters. Under this group’s plan, qualified patients would be allowed to by 60 grams of pot at a time and grow as many as 12 plants for personal use.

Fifteen states, including Ohio’s neighbor to the north, Michigan, have legalized medical marijuana. This has mainly been accomplished through ballot questions.

Tags:

Marijuana Advocates Sue Feds After DEA Rejects Weed as Medicine

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:26:06 GMT

Without medical marijuana, Scott Rozman swears, he wouldn’t be alive today.

At 30, Rozman was the youngest documented case of teratoma and angiosarcoma, a rare and aggressive cancer that his doctors treated in the middle of his chest with equally aggressive rounds of chemotherapy. The chemo was so intense that he would throw up 40 to 50 times a day during treatment, unable to keep any food down. He lost 60 pounds during the first two months alone, making him potentially too weak to finish out his treatment

“The doctors thought I was a dead man,” Rozman, now 46 and a life coach in Guttenberg, N.J., said.

But then Mary Jane came into his life.

As a last-ditch effort, his doctors prescribed him marijuana because of its purported ability to stave off chemotherapy nausea. Not only was he able to keep food down again, the marijuana calmed him and helped him cope psychologically with the harrowing experience of the chemotherapy sessions. Weed had done for Rozman what no traditional anti-nausea medication could.

The Department of Justice’s Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), however, would beg to differ.

Although 16 states recognize marijuana as a drug with important medicinal properties, the DEA has shot down a petition to reclassify marijuana as such, citing that it has “no accepted medical use.” The result is that marijuana will remain within the strictest categorization of restricted substances, alongside heroin and LSD.

“As a doctor and medical researcher, I find the DEA’s decision unfortunate,” said Dr. Igor Grant, a neuropsychiatrist and director of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California-San Diego. “It looks like they underplayed what positive information there is in the literature about marijuana. This policy is guided more by certain kinds of beliefs in the dangers of marijuana, at the expense of advance of medical knowledge for patients.”

The DEA’s refusal, laid out in a June 21 letter from DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart to the organizations who filed the petition back in 2002, marks yet another bump in the road for patients, doctors and activists fighting for improved access to what they deem a vitally therapeutic medication.

“The statement ‘it has no accepted medical use’ is simply wrong as a statement of fact,” said Rob MacCoun, psychologist and professor of Law and Public Policy at University of California Berkeley Law School. “There is now considerable evidence showing medical benefits, at or exceeding standards of evidence for many other pharmaceuticals. Prescribing physicians in over a dozen states clearly see an accepted medical value for their patients.”

Americans for Safe Access, one of the organizations petitioning the DEA, already has plans to appeal the decision, taking the federal government to court, and if necessary, the Supreme Court, in order to argue for the medicinal value of marijuana.

“Frankly, we’re ready to go head to head with the Obama administration on this issue,” said Kris Hermes, spokesman for Americans for Safe Access. “We have science on our side and we’re hopeful the court will see it that way.”

Calls made to the DEA for comment were not returned.

Tribe to Legalize Pot for One Day

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT

When Willie Nelson arrives at the Snoqualmie reservation on July 30 to perform at the Washington State casino near Seattle, he’ll be able to smoke as much pot as he wants without fear of repercussions. For that day only, marijuana will be legal on the rez in honor of Nelson. The Snoqualmie Tribal Council has passed a resolution saying so.

“It was just tongue in cheek at a council meeting,” Chairwoman Shelley Burch explains. “We know marijuana is illegal. It was a joke. We don’t allow it and we don’t back it. We passed it, but it was supposed to be just for him. We were cracking up, saying, what if we did a resolution because he is coming to the casino. That’s how it came about.”

Considering the problems Nelson is having with his possession charge in Texas, he’ll gladly accept the favor. After making a deal with the prosecutor to pay a fine and court costs stemming from his Nov. 26 pot arrest, the judge reneged on the plea bargain, saying Nelson is receiving celebrity justice.

More Willie Nelson Tour Dates

Also see:
This Is What Your Government Thinks About Pot
Anderson Cooper on Willie Nelson
Texas Rep. Lamar Smith Is Lame
CelebStoner News

GOP Congressman's Son, Cancer-Stricken Daughter Speak Out For Medical Pot

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:18:25 GMT

Council voted to pass ordinances prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries in IB, with the exception of one vote in favor by Councilman Brian Bilbray. His sister Briana also spoke in favor of medical pot. Their father was mayor of IB in the 1980s.

Briana Bilbray shares personal experiences to city council regarding the necessity of availability to medical marijuana at the June 6, City Council Meeting.

Silence fell over City Hall Wednesday evening as 24-year-old Briana Bilbray told the Imperial Beach City Council about her struggles with Stage 3 melanoma cancer that had spread into her lymph nodes.

Her father Brian Bilbray was the mayor of Imperial Beach from 1978 to 1985 and currently represents north San Diego’s 50th Congressional District. Her brother Brian Bilbray is a City Councilman.

She said she was in the last stages of chemotherapy and was disappointed in comments made by Councilman Ed Spriggs at the last council meeting about medical marijuana dispensaries in Imperial Beach.

“I read in an article a quote from Spriggs saying that chemo patients don’t have to go that far to get the medicine they need,” she said. “Reading that comment, I can tell Mr. Spriggs really doesn’t understand chemo at all.”

She said the words nausea and fatigue are “really pretty words” compared to the actuality of its consequences.

“Tired is an understatement from what you feel, Mr. Spriggs,” said Briana Bilbray. “You feel like you just want to die. I didn’t even want to breathe I was so tired.”

Her brother, Mayor Pro Tem and Councilman Brian Bilbray, reiterated his support of allowing medicinal marijuana in Imperial Beach, unlike the rest of the City Council.

He called it irresponsible and said if the city will not provide a dispensary, it should model Chula Vista allowing collectives and cooperatives in the city.

“But something we all need to think about is that it is not our jobs to sit up here and say who and who does not need medical marijuana,” said Councilman Bilbray.

“That is between them and their doctors. Our job is just to say if people in the city actually need this, and what is the responsible thing for the city to do to avoid extra cost to the city through litigation or putting it on the ballot. It is going to cost the city more. Again, I will not be voting for this.”

Briana Bilbray brought about $200 worth of nausea medicine with her and said they are “not worth a lick” and useless for her condition.

In contrast, she said one dose of medical marijuana relieves her for an entire day. Banning dispensaries does not punish the abuser but the patients in need, she said.

“You have no idea. It is like the difference between night and day for chemo patients,” she said. “Not only are you infringing on my right as a California resident to obtain the medicine I need, but you are punishing me by making it more difficult to get the one thing I really need.

“It is one of the worst feelings imaginable,” she said.

City Manager Gary Brown presented two items before City Council on Wednesday related to the ban: a second reading of zoning regulations for medical marijuana distribution facilities and a first reading of the ordinance related to business licenses.

He said this is a result of council instructions to change the minimum or maximum number of people with the ability to cooperatively and collectively, use, cultivate and distribute medical marijuana from “two or more persons” to “four or more.”

Spriggs said council did not have the opportunity to examine the amended change of people’s ability to use, cultivate or distribute marijuana collectively or cooperatively and said the language “four or more” is an exemption of the ordinance prohibiting dispensaries for three people, and his concern is it can lead to activity the city is attempting to avoid.

“That’s the point. Four or more,” Spriggs said. “If we have this exemption of three or less, what are the worst case scenarios of three of less overriding the ordinance against medical marijuana dispensaries within the city limits? Can you operate something akin to a dispensary?”

City Manager Gary Brown said he did not think it would approach the dispensary patterns seen throughout the region, having three or fewer people operating as a cooperative.

“Probably doing it in a back yard,” Brown said. “I am not sure if it would be legal, but in effect I don’t think there would be much of a chance that a formalized business dispensary would be open. It is likely that somebody might try and have something in their neighborhood.”

Spriggs said increasing the number from two or more to four or more, cultivating, dispensing and using opens the opportunity for various trials of “these kinds” of operations. He said two or less has less chance of these types of operations to occur. “I clearly said earlier, the issue is not legitimate users, it was the abundant testimony we had regarding abuse by people that do not have legitimate medical marijuana need,” he said.

City Attorney Jennifer Lyon said the current state of law talks about an affirmative defense for those who get together to cooperatively and collectively, use, possess and distribute marijuana.

“There is nothing currently in the law that is a mandate to every city to locate a cooperative or collective in your city,” she said. “The cases and the law that is out there suggest that cities have the ability to regulate location and establishment of dispensaries, cooperatives and collectives. They have zoning power. That is one of the fundamental rights of the City Council.”

Spriggs said if this evolved into a business that only legitimate patients used, the council would have a completely different view.

“I have no ax to grind for anybody that really needs it,” he said. “But we have this huge abuse situation, demonstrated in many communities. There is no reason to think that we would be immune for some strange reason from the abuses that have taken place elsewhere.”

Marcus Boyd, vice chairman for the San Diego Chapter of Americans for Safe Access, said four cancer patients came to his office since the last council meeting June 15 and every one of them made him cry.

He said he was disappointed with the “perversion of the political process” over two years on this issue. He said council has “trampled the rights of those that are injured, sick and dying.”

Council member Lorie Bragg said it was unfair to say council had not done due diligence.

“We have all done outreach across the board to many members of the community,” she said. “When we vote on something, it is because we have talked to many people. And our vote reflects what the majority of the people want us to do.”

Boyd said council made its decision in private meetings, based on “Reefer Madness” propaganda provided by the Sheriff’s Department, overturned state law and intimidated medical marijuana patients at the last council meeting.

“At the last council meeting speaking on this issue when patients plead with you not to break the law, you ridiculed them,” Boyd said.

“And you attempted to alienate them from the political process. You had a large contingency of county sheriffs lined up outside intimidating every patient that walked through the door. And, to top it off, the deputies took out their cameras and began snapping pictures of the patients.”

Councilman Jim King said the issue boils down to providing availability for patients and determining where patients can find the substance. He said council looked at it in the terms of the size of our city.

“I personally believe in one regard it would be nice to accommodate it,” King said. “But in the other regard there are things that have not been worked out and problems that are consistent in a number of dispensaries.”

King said he read all the material. He said the constant referral to council falling under “Reefer Madness” was incorrect.

“I do not want to deny anyone’s access. This is not an easy issue on a community-based level,” he said.

Boyd said council might think it is putting this issue to rest but assured that the issue will stay “front and center” in 2012 elections.

“It is not too late to change course,” he said. “I urge you to table this vote tonight. Give the facts and findings about this lands use issue a fair and balanced review. The sick and dying patients deserve at least that from you.”

Mayor Jim Janney motioned to adopt the report and the June 15 staff report and to adopt resolution 2011-70.

Motion to wave further reading and adopt zoning ordinance 2011-1119, “to add Chapter 19.61 to the municipal code, relating to medical marijuana distribution facilities for submission to the California Coastal Commission.”

“Medical marijuana distribution facilities are prohibited uses in all zoning districts in the city of Imperial Beach. The city shall not issue, approve or grant any permit, license or other entitlement for the establishment or operation of a medical marijuana distribution facility in the city of Imperial Beach.”

Motion to dispense first reading of ordinance 20111-118 amended “any facility where four or more qualified patients, persons with identification cards and primary caregivers meet or congregate collectively and cooperatively to cultivate or distribute marijuana for medical purposes” and “set the matter up for adoption at our next regularly scheduled City Council meeting to July 20.”

The motion carried, with all but Bilbray voting yes on all motions.

###

Marijuana Extract Pills Coming to Market

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:07:03 GMT

Medical Marijuana, Inc., a San Diego-based holding company announced today that its Cannabidiol and THC Free product lines will be available in the United States effective August 1. The company filed a patent for its process in extracting the compound from marijuana in May.

Cannabidiol (CBD), one of more than 80 cannabinoids (chemical compounds) individually identified in the cannabis plant, has been shown to relieve convulsion, anxiety, nausea, and inflammation. It has also shown promise in treating schizophrenia and inhibiting cancer cell growth. Because the compound is separated from tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the psychoactive part of the cannabis plant), it is not included in the Schedule 1 list of federally prohibited drugs.

The substance will be available in CBD tablets, capsules, and infused in beverages. They’ll be available at “more than two thousand health and wellness centers throughout the United States as well as direct to consumers.”

Per the company’s website, “Medical Marijuana Inc. is a publicly traded holding company which invests, develops and owns subsidiaries engaged in a number of diversified international businesses within the Medical Cannabis and Industrial Hemp Industries.” In addition to distributing the stripped cannabinoid, the company has a stake in ‘recommendation clinics’ where many patients seek the doctor’s recommendations they need in order to procure medical marijuana. They’ve also announced plans to petition the DEA for federal permission to cultivate marijuana.

###

Medical marijuana: U.S. rules that marijuana has no accepted medical use

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:35:12 GMT

Potting soil for marijuana is displayed at the weGrow garden center in Phoenix. California-based weGrow is seeking to capitalize on Arizona’s newly enacted medical marijuana law. (Joshua Lott, Reuters / June 3, 2011)

July 9, 2011

Marijuana has been approved by California, many other states and the nation’s capital to treat a range of illnesses, but in a decision announced Friday the federal government ruled that it has no accepted medical use and should remain classified as a highly dangerous drug like heroin.

The decision comes almost nine years after medical marijuana supporters asked the government to reclassify cannabis to take into account a growing body of worldwide research that shows its effectiveness in treating certain diseases, such as glaucoma and multiple sclerosis.

Advocates for the medical use of the drug criticized the ruling but were elated that the Obama administration has finally acted, which allows them to appeal to the federal courts. The decision to deny the request was made by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and comes less than two months after advocates asked the U.S. Court of Appeals to force the administration to respond to their petition. “We have foiled the government’s strategy of delay, and we can now go head-to-head on the merits,” said Joe Elford, the chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access and the lead attorney on the lawsuit.

Elford said he was not surprised by the decision, which comes after the Obama administration announced it would not tolerate large-scale commercial marijuana cultivation. “It is clearly motivated by a political decision that is anti-marijuana,” he said. He noted that studies demonstrate pot has beneficial effects, including appetite stimulation for people undergoing chemotherapy. “One of the things people say about marijuana is that it gives you the munchies and the truth is that it does, and for some people that’s a very positive thing.” In a June 21 letter to the organizations that filed the petition, DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart said she rejected the request because marijuana “has a high potential for abuse,” “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” and “lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision.” The letter and 37 pages of supporting documents were published Friday in the Federal Register. This is the third time that petitions to reclassify marijuana have been spurned. The first was filed in 1972 and denied 17 years later. The second was filed in 1995 and denied six years later. Both decisions were appealed, but the courts sided with the federal government. The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed its petition in October 2002. In 2004, the DEA asked the Department of Health and Human Services to review the science. The department recommended in 2006 that marijuana remain classified as a dangerous drug. Four and a half years then elapsed before the current administration issued a final denial. “The regulatory process is just a time-consuming one that usually takes years to go through,” said Barbara Carreno, a spokeswoman for the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The DEA’s decision comes as researchers continue to identify beneficial effects. Dr. Igor Grant, a neuropsychiatrist who is the director of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at UC San Diego, said state-supported clinical trials show that marijuana helps with neuropathic pain and muscle spasticity. He said the federal government’s position discourages scientists from pursuing research needed to test the drug’s medical effectiveness. “We’re trapped in kind of a vicious cycle here,” he said. “It’s always a danger if the government acts on certain kinds of persuasions or beliefs rather than evidence.”

Popular opinion has also swung behind medical marijuana. Americans overwhelmingly support it in national polls. When the petition was filed, eight states had approved medical marijuana. Now 16 states and the District of Columbia have done so. In 2009, the American Medical Assn. urged the government to review its classification of marijuana “with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines, and alternate delivery methods.”

When Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, it listed marijuana as a Schedule I drug, the most restrictive of five categories. But some federal officials have questioned that decision. In 1972, a commission recommended that marijuana be decriminalized. And in 1988, a DEA administrative law judge concluded that “marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people.” The National Cancer Institute, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, notes that marijuana may help with nausea, loss of appetite, pain and insomnia. Nonetheless, the DEA concluded that marijuana has no accepted medical use, Leonhart wrote in her letter, because its chemistry is not known and adequate studies have not been done on its usefulness or safety. “At this time,” she said, “the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy.”

john.hoeffel@latimes.com

###

DEA - Establishment of a New Drug Code Marihuana Extract

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. DEA-342P] RIN 1117-AB33 Establishment of a New Drug Code for Marihuana Extract AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is proposing to create a new Administration Controlled Substances Code Number (“Code Number” or “drug code”) under 21 CFR 1308.11 for “Marihuana Extract.” This Code Number will allow DEA and DEA-registered entities to track quantities of this material separately from quantities of marihuana. This in turn will aid in complying with relevant treaty provisions.Under international drug control treaties (administered by the United Nations), some differences exist between the regulatory controls pertaining to marihuana extract versus those for marihuana and tetrahydrocannabinols. DEA has established separate Code Numbers for marihuana and for tetrahydrocannabinols, but not for marihuana extract. To better track these materials and better comply with treaty provisions, DEA is proposing to create a separate Code Number for marihuana extract under 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(36): “Marihuana Extract meaning extracts that have been derived from any plant of the genus cannabis and which contain cannabinols and cannabidiols.” Such extracts of marihuana would continue to be treated as schedule I controlled substances. DATES: Electronic comments must be submitted and written comments must be postmarked on or before September 6, 2011. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after midnight Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period. ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-342” on all electronic and written correspondence. DEA encourages all comments be submitted electronically throughhttp://www.regulations.govusing the electronic comment form provided on that site. An electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this proposed rule are also available at thehttp://www.regulations.govWeb site for easy reference. Paper comments that duplicate the electronic submission are not necessary as all comments submitted tohttp://www.regulations.govwill be posted for public review and are part of the official docket record. Should you, however, wish to submit written comments via regular or express mail, they should be sent to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Imelda L. Paredes, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone (202) 307-7165. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Posting of Public Comments:Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online athttp://www.regulations.govand in the DEA’s public docket. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address,etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter.If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address,etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online or made available in the public docket in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to beposted online or made available in the public docket, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted online or made available in the public docket.Personal identifying information and confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will be redacted, and the comment, in redacted form, will be posted online and placed in the DEA’s public docket file. Please note that the Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received. If you wish to inspect the agency’s public docket file in person by appointment, please see the “For Further Information” paragraph.Background As provided in 21 CFR 1308.03, each controlled substance or basic class thereof is assigned a four digit Code Number that is used to track quantities of the controlled substance imported and exported to and from the United States. Additionally, DEA uses these Code Numbers in establishing aggregate production quotas for basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II as required by 21 U.S.C. 826.Consistent with the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the schedules contained in the DEA regulations include marihuana (drug code 7360) in schedule I. 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(23). This listing includes (unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule) any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the substance, or which contains any of its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers that are possible within the specific chemical designation. Because the definition of marihuana in 21 U.S.C. 802(16) includes both derivatives and preparations of marihuana, DEA until now has used drug code 7360 for extracts of marihuana as well. In this proposed rule, DEA is proposing that the new drug code 7350 be used for extracts of marihuana.Why a New Code Number Is Needed The United Nations Conventions on international drug control treat extracts from the cannabis plant differently than marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinols. The creation of a new drug code in DEA regulations for marihuana extracts will allow for more appropriate accounting of such materials consistent with treaty provisions.The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (“Single Convention”) and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances (“Psychotropic Convention”) provide for the international control of marihuana constituents. Many of the CSA’s provisions were drafted to comply with these Conventions. The CSA includes schemes of drug scheduling and procedures for adding, removing, and transferring drugs among the schedules that are similar, in some ways, to those in the Single Convention. With respect to those drugs that are subject to control under the Single Convention, the CSA mandates that DEA control such drugs at least as strictly as required by the Single Convention. 21 U.S.C. 811(d).Somewhat similar to the CSA, the Single Convention controls substances through four schedules. However, under the Single Convention, the drugs that are subject to the most stringent controls are in schedule IV. Another difference between the CSA and the Single Convention is that, under the latter, a drug can be listed in more than one schedule. Cannabis and cannabis resin are listed in both schedule IV and schedule I of the Single Convention. Schedule I controls under the Single Convention include requirements for import and export authorization, licensing of manufacturers/distributors, recordkeeping requirements, requirement for prescriptions for medical use, annual estimate of needs, quotas, annual statistical reporting, and a requirement that use be limited to medical and scientific purposes. Schedule II of the Single Convention is similar in controls to schedule I with a few exceptions, and schedule III is less restrictive. All substances listed in schedule IV are also listed in schedule I. The placing of a drug into both schedule I and schedule IV therefore imposes the most stringent controls under the Single Convention. Although cannabis and cannabis resin are listed in Schedules I and IV of the Single Convention, cannabis extracts are listed only in Schedule I.Proposed Actions DEA therefore proposes to update 21 CFR 1308.11(d) to include new subparagraph (36) which would create a new Code Number in schedule I as follows: “(36) Marihuana Extract 7350 The creation of a new drug code in DEA regulations for marihuana extracts would allow for more appropriate accounting of such materials consistent with treaty provisions. Such marihuana extracts remain in schedule I. Firms registered to handle marihuana (under drug code 7360) that also handle marihuana extracts, will need to apply to add the new drug code 7350 to their existing DEA registrations and procure quotas specifically for drug code 7350 each year.Regulatory Compliance Analyses Regulatory Flexibility Act In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. This rule proposes the establishment of a new drug code for marihuana extracts. DEA already registers persons handling marihuana extracts, but within another already-established drug code. Thus, persons who handle these marihuana extracts have already met DEA’s registration, security, and other statutory and regulatory requirements. The only direct effect to registrants who handle marihuana extracts would be the requirement to add the new drug code to their registration once the code is established.Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with the principles of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. Although this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 Section 3(f), it was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and subsequently approved.Executive Order 12988 This proposed regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards and reduce burden.Executive Order 13132 This rulemaking does not preempt or modify any provision of state law; nor does it impose enforcement responsibilities on any state; nor does it diminish the power of any state to enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this rulemaking does not have federalismimplications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132.Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $136,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This action does not impose a collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.Executive Order 13175 This rule is not a policy that has Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308 Drug traffic control, Controlled substances.For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR part 1308 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 1. The authority citation for part 1308 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b).2. Section 1308.11 is amended by adding new paragraph (d)(36) to read as follows: § 1308.11 Schedule I. * * * * * (d) * * * (36) Marihuana Extract 7350 Meaning extracts that have been derived from any plant of the genus cannabis and which contain cannabinols and cannabidiols.* * * * * Dated: June 14, 2011. Michele M. Leonhart, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2011-16800 Filed 7-1-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P

BECOME AN ACTIVE CITIZEN! See this bulletin, on FederalRegister.gov or GovPulse.US
(These links are to external sites separate from FederalRegisterWatch.com. FederalRegisterWatch.com takes no responsibility for the performance of FederalRegister.gov or GovPulse.US.)

Roger Goodman Blasts New DOJ-MMJ Memo

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Washington State Rep. Roger Goodman calls the latest Department of Justice (DOJ) memo regarding federal marijuana policy a “disappointment.” The Feds recently launched a new crackdown on dispensaries. Here is Goodman’s full statement:

“The new Cole Memo from the DOJ supposedly “clarifies” federal policy on state-regulated medical marijuana, but if anything it leaves us more confused and uncertain. With the Ogden Memo in 2009, the Administration staked out new territory that gave some comfort to the drug policy reform community. The latest statement from DOJ says federal policy has not changed – but the social and cultural change continues as public opinion sways in our favor. The situation on the ground is clearly straining federal policy.

“If we can count on federal policy not changing, as the Cole Memo asserts, than any activity ‘unambiguously complying with state law’ should not be prosecuted, as the Ogden Memo originally stated. The increasing scope of state-sanctioned, state-regulated activity related to medical marijuana shouldn’t trigger any federal enforcement.

“Unfortunately, the disturbing raids in Washington State and elsewhere prove otherwise. Patients right now are feeling vulnerable and afraid because of this new specter of federal prosecutions.

“The original Odgen Memo and the new Cole Memo are political statements more than legal opinions. We must remember that marijuana is absolutely prohibited under federal law for any purpose whatsoever. Until recently, this Administration had wisely implemented a selective enforcement policy more respectful to state laws and to public opinion. We need more sensitive leadership like that.

“Let us call on the Administration to come out clearly in support of responsible state-regulated medical marijuana programs across the country – what’s best for patients and for public health and safety. Sorry DOJ, please give it another try.”

Goodman is being supported by the Teapot Party in his run for Congress in 2012.

Also see:
The Battle for Medical Marijuana
Medical Marijuana on the Move
More CelebStoner News

Roger Goodman Blasts New DOJ-MMJ Memo

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT

“Unfortunately, the disturbing raids in Washington State and elsewhere prove otherwise. Patients right now are feeling vulnerable and afraid because of this new specter of federal prosecutions.

Goodman is being supported by the Teapot Party in his run for Congress in 2012.

Also see:
The Battle for Medical Marijuana
Medical Marijuana on the Move
More CelebStoner News

Crackdown on medical marijuana ahead?

Sat, 09 Jul 2011 11:57:47 GMT

AP/Charles Dharapak/Salon

Drug-policy reformers are worried about a new Obama administration memo instructing federal prosecutors on how to deal with the growing number of medical marijuana dispensaries.

The Justice Department memo, sent to U.S. attorneys around the nation, addresses a central problem with the growing number of states that have legalized medical marijuana: The drug remains illegal under federal law, whether used for medical purposes or not. The new guidance memo reiterates the illegality of medical marijuana and appears to encourage prosecutors to go after some marijuana dispensaries, particularly the large operations.

President Obama suggested during the campaign in 2007-08 that his Justice Department would not prioritize going after medical marijuana. To find out more about the new medical marijuana memo, and for an update on the broader drug war, I spoke to Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which lobbies for alternatives to the drug war.

Can you give an overview of the legal status of medical marijuana around the country?

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana either through the ballot initiative process or a state legislative process. The federal law remains that it is all illegal. Strictly speaking, marijuana remains a Schedule 1 substance. The DEA just issued an announcement Friday confirming that it still regards marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance with no legitimate medical uses and no margin of safety in its use — which is sort of an absurdity on its face. Marijuana remains entirely illegal under federal law.

And “Schedule 1” means what?

Well, back in 1970, when Congress unified all the drug laws in the Controlled Substances Act, they divided drugs into a variety of schedules. Schedule 1 refers to drugs that supposedly have no legitimate medical use and have no margin of safety in their use. So heroin, LSD, and marijuana are in that category. Schedule 2 are drugs that have some substantial risk but also have some legitimate medical uses. So for example cocaine, opiates and stimulant drugs are in that category.

So medical marijuana is illegal in the eyes of the federal government. But what has the actual enforcement policy of the Obama administration been up till this week?

During the presidential campaign in 2008, Obama made a number of commitments, one of which was that federal law enforcement would not prioritize prosecution of medical marijuana facilities operating legally under state law. Then in summer 2009, the Justice Department issued a memo called the Ogden memo, which basically affirmed much of Obama’s promise. It affirmed the idea that marijuana is illegal under federal law, but then said that federal prosecutors should not prioritize the prosecution of medical marijuana facilities operating legally under state law. Drug policy reform advovates felt quite optimistic about that 2009 memo, even though it was a qualified statement. What followed was a proliferation of dispensaries in places like Colorado, and California, and Montana. There were growing concerns that this was going too far. I think the Justice Department was hearing from local federal prosecutors and others who did not like these developments.

So what does the new memo sent out to U.S. attorneys say?

It’s called the Cole memo. It reiterates that all marijuana is illegal under federal law. They say that clearly federal resources should not be used to go after patients and their caregivers. They also say that any very large-scale operations — multimillion-dollar operations — will be prosecuted even if they are operating legally under state law. So that represents a modest change in policy. What they are not clear on is what will happen with the midlevel dispensaries. They’re not multimillion-dollar operations, they’re operating legally under state law, and they seem to be serving a population that has medical marijuana recommendations from their physicians. With those operations we’re in a kind of wait-and-see mode as to what prosecutors will do state by state.

The language of the Cole memo is quite aggressive in saying to everybody, “You better watch out, because any one of you could be prosecuted.” On the other hand there are some other messages being sent saying, “Watch what we do, not what we say.” So the real test cases will be whether or not the feds decide to go after medical marijuana dispensaries that are operating legally under state law and are being responsibly regulated by state authorities. If they do that, then we’ll know they really seriously backtracked on the president’s commitment.

So from the beginning of the administration to the present, have they actually gone after dispensaries?

There was a proliferation of dispensaries in states like Colorado and California. So there have in fact been more raids under the Obama administration than there were under the Bush administration. It’s hard to say whether that’s a reflection of the proliferation of dispensaries or whether that’s a real change in policy. What’s also not clear is whether the feds are only targeting those facilities that are not clearly operating legally under state law. So the feds have really created a growing sense of confusion in the medical marijuana community about where the line is between what will be permitted and what won’t.

Stepping back from medical marijuana, has there been much of a shift from the Bush to Obama administrations with “drug war” policy more broadly?

I was pleasantly surprised by the first 18 months of the administration. Obama made three explicit promises during the campaign. He said the feds would not go after medical marijuana facilities operating legally under state law, and he appeared to make good on that. He said the crack-powder laws needed to be rolled back, and they got a major reform of that law last year. Third, he said he would support federal funding for needle exchange, and they did support the efforts in Congress on that. Since that time, it looks more and more like the drug czar’s office has been captured by the drug warriors and the anti-drug fanatics who dominated policy-making in the Clinton and Bush administrations. The rhetoric coming out of the drug czar’s office is almost indistinguishable from the rhetoric of past administrations. The personnel they’ve been hiring, and the people they talk to, are overwhelmingly those who have been associated with the failed drug war policies of the past. And meanwhile the Justice Department seems to be getting more and more engaged in enforcement of marijuana laws in ways that really make no sense as a matter of [the] responsible [use] of resources.

###

Julie Bass may face jail time for planting vegetables

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:27:29 GMT

One of Bass’s offending plots. (Courtesy “Oak Park Hates Veggies” Facebook group)

(Watch an interview with Julie Bass here.)

Julie Bass that it would be “really cool” to create a four plot vegetable garden in her Oak Park, Mich., front yard. “The kids from the neighborhood all come and help,” she told WJBK in Detroit.

You know who doesn’t love it? The City of Oak Park. Bass has been charged with a misdemeanor for violating a city code, after she ignored a a warning and a ticket.

“That’s not what we want to see in a front yard,” Oak Park City Planner Kevin Rulkowski told WJBK.

According to the city, a yard must have “suitable, live, plant material,” and Bass’ yard violates the “suitable” part of the requirement, Rulkowki said .

“If you look at the definition of what suitable is in Webster’s dictionary, it will say common,” he explained. “So, if you look around and you look in any other community, what’s common to a front yard is a nice, grass yard with beautiful trees and bushes and flowers.”

This definition may be slightly off. Merriam-Webster gives three definitions for suitable: “adapt to a use or purpose,” “satisfying propriety” and “able or qualified.”

Neighbors interviewed about the garden both support it — “I think it’s a very wonderful thing for our neighborhood” — and dislike it — “I know there’s a back yard. Do it in the back yard.”

Bass has a response for that: “They say, ‘Why should you grow things in the front?’ Well, why shouldn’t I? They’re fine. They’re pretty. They’re well maintained.”

A Facebook group, “Oak Park Hates Veggies,” has been created in support of Bass, with organizers providing addresses for city officials. A petition to end the prosecution has been started on Care2 with 1,886 signatures so far.

You can check out pictures of the offending garden here.

Watch Bass and Rulkowski tell their sides of the story below:

Oak Park Woman Faces 93-Days in Jail For Planting Vegetable Garden: MyFoxDETROIT.com

By Sarah Anne Hughes | 02:52 PM ET, 07/08/2011

###

Philadelphia Saves $2 Million By Not Prosecuting Pot Smokers

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:01:03 GMT

Just over a year ago, the powers that be in Philadelphia effectively decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana by offering offenders the chance to enroll in a three-hour class that would expunge the offense from their records. Not only did this give Philadelphia police more time and energy to focus on more serious crimes, it has also saved the city a pretty sizable Ziploc bag of green stuff.

“We were spending thousands of dollars for when someone possessed $10 or $15 worth of weed,” District Attorney Seth Williams tells the Philadelphia Daily News. “It just didn’t make any sense.”

Under the program, being caught with up to 30 ounces of marijuana is no longer a misdemeanor but a summary offense. By simply paying $200 to attend the three-hour class on the ills of drug use and abuse, the arrestee’s record is wiped clean of the offense.

Before this change, offenders faced up to $500 in fines and possible, though unlikely jail time. If the suspect fought the charges, this meant expenses for the city — prosecutors, judges, lab tests, public defenders, etc. By all but decriminalizing pot, Williams estimates that the city has saved $2 million in the last 12 months.

Additionally, police tell the News that there has been no noticeable impact on the quality of life in Philadelphia since the program went into effect.

Looking at the bigger picture, DA Williams says the current way most U.S. authorities treat drug possession is shortsighted.

“I can put someone in jail for 90 days because they possess crack. But if we don’t get them the help they need for their addiction, when they get out of jail, they’re just going to be a 90-day-older crack addict,” he explains. “We have to treat drug addiction as a public-health problem, not just a criminal-justice problem.”

D.A.: Philly’s new pot policy just makes sense … and saves dollars [Philadelphia Daily News]

ASA - Patients' Lawsuit Forces Federal Gov't to Answer 9-Year-Old Medical Marijuana Rescheduling Petition

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:16:48 GMT

For Immediate Release: July 8th, 2011

Patients’ Lawsuit Forces Federal Gov’t to Answer 9-Year-Old Medical Marijuana Rescheduling Petition

Petition’s denial maintains status quo, gives advocates chance to appeal and argue marijuana’s therapeutic value

Washington, DC — Less than two months after patient advocates filed a lawsuit compelling the federal government to answer a 9-year-old petition to reschedule medical marijuana, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) today made official its denial of the petition in the Federal Register. The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC), which includes patient advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA), filed the petition in 2002 seeking to reclassify marijuana from its current status as a dangerous drug with no medical value, but never heard from the federal government until it received the denial.

In its denial of the CRC petition, the government concluded that “marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision,” recommending that marijuana remain in Schedule I. “Although this superficially looks like a defeat for the medical marijuana community,” said Joe Elford, ASA Chief Counsel and lead counsel in the recent lawsuit. “It simply maintains the status quo,” Elford continued. “More importantly, however, we have foiled the government’s strategy of delay and we can now go head-to-head on the merits, that marijuana really does have therapeutic value.” ASA intends to appeal the government’s denial of the petition to the D.C. Circuit as soon as possible.

Notably, the petition denial was sent to legal counsel in the pending lawsuit on June 30th, one day after the Justice Department issued a memorandum to U.S. Attorneys upholding federal threats of criminal prosecution against local and state officials for attempting to pass and implement their own medical marijuana laws. “The federal government is making no bones about its aggressive policy to undermine medical marijuana,” said ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer, “And we’re prepared to take the Obama Administration to court over it.”

The denial also comes the same week as the International Cannabinoid Research Society (ICRS) is holding its 21st annual symposium in St. Charles, Illinois, just outside of Chicago. The symposium is sponsored in part by an array of pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and ElSohly Laboratories, Inc., the federal government’s only licensed source of research-grade cannabis (marijuana) used in therapeutic studies. Currently, several pharmaceutical companies are asking the government to reschedule organically produced THC, the primary compound found in the marijuana plant, so they can sell a generic version of Marinol®, which is now made synthetically.

“The government cannot have it both ways, marijuana is either a medicine or it’s not.” continued Sherer. “If the government is going to sponsor a conference on medical marijuana, it should show the same deference to the millions of patients across America who simply want access to it.” ASA and its grassroots patient base has been urging President Obama since he took office to develop a comprehensive federal policy that would address medical marijuana as a public health issue.

Over the past few years since the CRC petition was filed, the two largest physician groups in the country — the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians — both urged the federal government to review marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance. In addition to new scientific discoveries occurring on a regular basis, numerous polls have shown that medical marijuana has the support of up to 80% of Americans.

Further information:
DEA answer to CRC petition: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/CRC_Petition_DEA_Answer.pdf
Lawsuit compelling government to answer CRC petition: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/CRC_Writ.pdf
ASA backgrounder on rescheduling: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Rescheduling_Backgrounder.pdf
CRC rescheduling petition: http://www.drugscience.org/PDF/Petition_Final_2002.pdf

# # #

No one is outside federal marijuana laws, U.S. says

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 10:47:41 GMT

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette / 2010 photo by WILLIAM ARCHIE/Detroit Free Press

BY BILL LAITNER AND DAWSON BELL

A memo from the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington says state laws allowing medical marijuana opened the door to abuses and calls for legally targeting “large-scale, privately operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers” as well as distribution operations known as dispensaries.

The memo — which arrived June 29 in the e-mail inboxes of U.S. attorneys nationwide, including the Detroit office — says that no patient or other user is shielded from federal prosecution by state laws. The memo comes after Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette unleashed a salvo last week, saying there was widespread lawbreaking linked to medical marijuana in Michigan.

The federal memo has medical marijuana advocates feeling betrayed by the Obama administration, which had been linked with hopes for leniency in the war on drugs.

“The $64,000 question is, are the U.S. district attorneys in offices across the country really going to go after these dispensaries and grow operations? We’ll have to see,” said Art Cotter, chairman of the medical marijuana committee for the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan.

On Thursday, about two dozen operators of compassion centers — where patients use the drug — met near Flint to discuss the new threats to access.

“We now we have a double threat because of this (federal memo) and our own attorney general,” Rick Thompson, editor of Oak Park-based Michigan Medical Marijuana Magazine, said from the meeting.

U.S. pushes for strict pot law enforcement

Just when medical marijuana users are protesting plans for tighter restrictions on the drug in Michigan, a memo from federal authorities in Washington is asking for tougher enforcement.

The memo, sent from the U.S. Department of Justice to U.S. attorneys and being circulated this week among Michigan’s county prosecutors and sheriffs, is exactly what many in Michigan law enforcement said they were waiting for — a green light to stamp out what they say is proliferating drug abuse and lawbreaking under the cover of medical marijuana.

According to Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, the memo shows that the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act — passed by 63% of voters in 2008 — is entirely pre-empted by federal drug law.

“We are making that case as we defend Livonia’s commonsense zoning ordinance in court,” Schuette spokeswoman Joy Yearout said.

The Livonia ordinance amounts to a total ban on medical marijuana cultivation and use in the city, lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union have said in the case.

Defense attorneys, operators of medical marijuana facilities, such as compassion clubs, and medical marijuana users decried the memo as a step backward.

“This is an attack on the patient community,” said Kristen Ford, field director for the nonprofit Americans for Safe Access, based in Washington, D.C.

Rick Thompson, editor of the Oak Park-based Michigan Medical Marijuana Magazine, said Thursday: “All of us are more concerned now with federal intrusion.”

State law no shield

The Justice Department memo says, without naming specific states, that “planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars, based on the cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.”

Such large-scale operators must be stopped, and even smaller-scale users and distributors are not shielded from federal prosecution, “even where those activities purport to comply with state law,” says the memo signed by U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole. Some say the memo makes clear that the Obama administration, contrary to the sense of a 2009 memo, opposes giving leniency to medical marijuana users.

“There was this feeling that the local police and prosecutors were on their own” for enforcing drug laws against people claiming a medical need for pot, Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith said Thursday.

“Now, I think we’re all going to see that the abuses have to stop at all levels. When this law passed in Michigan, every person who voted for it had good intentions. But what we’ve seen is that for every one person who uses medical marijuana responsibly, someone else is abusing it and profiting from it,” Smith said.

Federal authorities are not changing their policy but instead are trying to correct a misreading of their stance, Berrien County Prosecutor Art Cotter said. Law enforcers and marijuana users alike misinterpreted an October 2009 memo from the Justice Department that “seemed to suggest, ‘Don’t go after medical marijuana patients,’ ” Cotter said. He chairs the medical marijuana committee for the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan.

“People read into that the idea that, as long as something complied with state law, the feds would not get involved. Now, this new memo is saying, no, dispensaries and large grow operations are not immune from our prosecution,” he said.

Federal prosecutors sued the Michigan Department of Community Health last year to obtain records of seven patients who are part of a criminal drug investigation. The government won its demand in early June, in spite of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act’s promise of confidentiality to anyone who receives state approval. Last week, a Traverse City attorney representing the Michigan Association of Compassion Clubs asked for a stay in the case until an appeal can be heard.

Focus not on patients

Although precise statistics were unavailable this week, it appears that federal authorities have continued to prosecute alleged violations of federal marijuana laws on a regular basis since passage of the state’s medical marijuana law.

Some of the cases have been brought against growers who initially claimed to be operating in accordance with the state statute. But federal law enforcement officials said such a defense is irrelevant in a federal prosecution.

“We’re going to enforce federal law,” Rich Isaacson, a special agent in the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s Detroit office, said Thursday. Nevertheless, the focus of federal law enforcement is on “large-scale growers,” not on medicinal users and caregivers operating within state law, Isaacson said.

In one federal prosecution begun in December, a pair of Ingham County men were each charged with the manufacture of more than 100 marijuana plants, a federal felony punishable by a minimum of five years in prison and a fine of up to $2 million. Both pleaded guilty in May in an agreement with prosecutors expected to minimize potential prison time.

The agreement makes no mention of medical marijuana.

Contact Bill Laitner: 586-826-7264 or blaitner@freepress.com

###

Willie Nelson Will Not Get Off Easy for World's Most Overblown Weed Arrest

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 09:48:18 GMT

Free Willie! Discovering weed anywhere near Willie Nelson shouldn’t count as a surprise, so his November 2010 arrest for possession in West Texas didn’t figure to become a national circus.

But it has, especially when word first somehow spread that his sentence would be to sing “Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain” in the courtroom. (Prosecutor Kit Bramblett later said he was joking.)

Now a Hudspeth County judge has taken the unusual step of not accepting a plea agreement worked out by prosecutors and the defense, because she doesn’t think it’s hard enough.

The New York Times, of all things, reports Judge Becky Dean-Walker

believed that the county attorney, Kit Bramblett, was giving the singer preferential treatment because he is famous.
“He’s supposed to file the charge he feels is appropriate,” Judge Dean-Walker said of Mr. Bramblett in a telephone interview. “Not what he feels he should do for his favorite singer. It is up to the judge to agree or not.”

Nelson and prosecutors had agreed to a deal where he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of possession of drug paraphernalia and would pay a $500 fine and about $280 in court costs.

Dean-Walker said she “accidentally” signed the agreement before she realized the defendant was Nelson.

“If Willie Nelson gets off with nothing, I’m not going to be part of it,” she told the Times.

###

Gary Johnson: Face Reality Legalize Pot

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Forty years ago, when Pres. Richard Nixon publicly declared his intention to wage “a new, all-out offensive” against drugs, many Americans believed that tougher enforcement of drug laws would put an end to drug abuse in the United States once and for all.

However, that isn’t what has happened. When I ran for governor of New Mexico in 1994, I promised to bring a common-sense business approach to government. Everything was going to be a cost-benefit analysis – how much of taxpayers’ money are we spending, and what are we getting for the money we spend?

As governor, I was astonished to learn that half of what we were spending on law enforcement, courts and prisons was drug-related, and yet illegal drugs were cheaper, stronger and more available than ever. After further study, it became obvious to me that the drug war had created a lucrative black market and was enriching and empowering violent gangs and cartels. In many ways, it was like alcohol prohibition all over again, with similarly disastrous results.

I decided I simply couldn’t allow the status quo to continue unchallenged, so in 1999 I became an advocate for legalizing marijuana and adopting harm reduction strategies for dealing with abuse of harder drugs (including prescriptions). I’ve been making these arguments ever since, and in recent months they have been resonating more strongly than ever.

The drug reform movement got a big boost last month when an international commission released a report criticizing the war on drugs. The Global Commission on Drug Policy was a 19-member commission that included Kofi Annan, a former U.N. secretary general; George Shultz, Pres. Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state; and Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve.

The report’s conclusions are clearly stated: “The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the U.N. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the U.S. government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.”

Study these issues and I bet you’ll agree that the Global Commission on Drug Policy is right. The Department of Justice reported that, in 2008, 2.3 million people were in our country’s jails and prisons. Yet it is clearer than ever that the worldwide supply of drugs can never be wiped out – no matter how strongly prohibitions are enforced.

If Republicans are truly serious when they talk about liberty and fiscal responsibility, and if they truly do their homework on the drug war, many will soon join me in my call for rational drug policy reform in the United States.

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is a candidate for the the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

Also see:
Top CelebStoner: Gary Johnson
More Blogs by Gary Johnson
Gary Johnson on Fox
CelebStoner News

Gary Johnson: Face Reality Legalize Pot

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is a candidate for the the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

Also see:
Top CelebStoner: Gary Johnson
More Blogs by Gary Johnson
Gary Johnson on Fox
CelebStoner News

Hemp seeds are the rock stars of health food

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:45:02 GMT

Nutritional stars … dietitians seeking to overturn ban on hemp seeds.

This time next year a jar of hemp seed could be a respectable kitchen staple, nudging the rolled oats in your pantry cupboard - and giving chia and flax seeds some stiff competition in the health food stakes.

Although hemp seed in muesli bars, breakfast cereal - or even ice cream - wouldn’t raise eyebrows in the US, Canada or Europe, its use as a food is currently banned in Australia. But this could change in the next few months if a new proposal to overturn the ban is approved by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) – a move that’s backed by the Dietitians’ Association of Australia.

“As good foods go hemp seed is a rock star. It has a lot to offer and it would be a shame not to have it here,” says Accredited Practising Dietitian Camey Demmitt who was surprised to find no hemp seed on the menu when she moved to Australia from the US four years ago. A major benefit of hemp is that it’s a way of getting extra omega-3 fatty acids back into diets dominated by omega-6 fats, says Demmitt, a member of the DAA.

Advertisement: Story continues below

“One of the problems with a typical western diet is that it includes an over abundance of processed foods which tend to be high in omega 6 fats - but not enough omega-3 fats from foods like oily fish, walnuts and flax seed. But hemp seed provides another good source of omega-3 fats that’s very easy to add to the diet – and it’s also a sustainable plant source at a time when there are concerns about over-fishing,” she points out.

In case you need reminding about the skewed ratio of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids in our diet it goes something like this. It’s not that omega-6 fats are bad for us - just that our modern food supply is so over supplied with them that it’s easy to eat too many of them. This can result in a ratio of 20 to one in favour of omega-6 fats, instead of the World Health Organisation’s recommended ratio of four to one – an imbalance that’s been linked to a range of health problems including asthma and depression.

But what else makes hemp seed a standout, is that it’s also a rare food source of a fatty acid most of us have never heard of – GLA (short for gamma linolenic acid) that works as an anti-inflammatory, according to Demmitt. Emerging research suggests it may be useful for problems like eczema, allergies and rheumatoid arthritis.

“Hemp seed is also one of the few plant foods – soy is another - that provides all the amino acids that make up a complete protein. This makes it a great food for anyone who doesn’t eat animal foods,” she says.

It’s also high in vitamin C and E, is a source of B vitamins, iron and magnesium and it contains both soluble and insoluble fibre. Unlike flax seed, which needs to be ground in order to digest its nutrients, you can also eat hemp seed whole.

What about the taste? Similar to pine nuts. And the oil makes a good salad dressing, she adds.

In case you were wondering, munching a hemp-spiked muesli bar isn’t quite the same as eating a hash cookie. While hemp and marijuana are from the same plant Cannabis sativa, they’re different varieties and, according to FSANZ, hemp seed contains little or no tetrahydrocannabinol - or THC, the active ingredient that gets smokers stoned – and has no psychoactive properties.

So if it’s so blameless – and nutritious - why was a previous attempt to let us to eat hemp rejected in 2002? Because of concerns that making hemp foods available would “increase consumer acceptance of illicit Cannabis use and pose problems for drug enforcement agencies,” FSANZ says.

Do you include seeds in your diet? Would hemp seed find a place in your pantry if the ban were lifted?

###

Legal Drug Deaths and Marijuana Dangers

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:56:23 GMT

So much ado about nothing while real danger lurks nearby.

Salem-News.com

(MOLALLA, Ore.) - The Oregonian June 26 2011 published “Pharmacy robberies sweep the US” which is about OxyContin in robberies of pharmacies with the robbers killing any possible witnesses. Kudos for telling the truth. These robberies occurred 686 times in 2010 and will probably go up this year as the OxyContin problem is widely endemic.

About 1.3 million pills were stolen in 2010 and the street price for one OxyContin pill went up to $80.

The article also pointed out that marijuana users were more than 7 million, it is certainly much higher. Of these 7 million-plus Americans, no difficulties have manifested that would compare to what we see with OxyContin- and not in 5,000 years of known use, for that matter.

Emergency room visits for prescription drug overdoses has gone up to 300,000 per year. It is doubtful that very many (if any at all) were for marijuana.

The above death statistics about OxyContin robberies are totally separate from the ongoing deaths from accidental overdoses from taking one too many Oxy pills.

It is also well known that there are patients who were legitimately given Oxy, who quickly became addicted and then shoot up intravenously to get a quick fix.

These are the Oxy addicts who will pay anything for relief of pain or the devils of withdrawal.

Salem-News.com writer Marianne Skolek on this subject has written many articles about the addictions and deaths of even children from this drug. The newspapers frequently write about the extremely wide and heavy use of Oxy and the concurrent deaths.

Oxy is the worst drug example of this but it appears that Purdue Pharma being fined 700 million dollars for false advertising still lobbies for and insists that it is a safe drug.

According to Laxmaiah Manchikanti, M.D. of the Pain Physician Journal:

From 1997 to 2004, there were marked increases in sales, therapeutic use, and non-medical use of oxycodone/OxyContin, as well as in overall opioid-related deaths. During these years there was:
[1] a 556% increase in the sales of oxycodone,
[2] a 500% increase in therapeutic grams of oxycodone used,
[3] a 568% increase in the non-medical use of OxyContin [comment- this most likely relates not only to widespread availability and increased recreational use, especially among young people, but to the behavioral characteristics of a growing population of newly-created addicts, as well as to diversion and sale of the drugs by those motivated for economic gain, and a rising volume of drug-related crime].
[4] a 129% increase in opioid-related deaths [without heroin or cocaine]: from 1942 deaths in 1999, to 4451 deaths in 2002 [the last year this was calculated].
(http://www.painphysicianjournal.com/2006/october/2006;9;287-321.pdf)

Now that the pharmacy workers and customers are being killed during robberies I wonder if Congress will do something.

I kind of doubt it, because Purdue’s lobbyists are spending massive amounts of money to keep it on the market.

By the way, marijuana itself and medical marijuana are not causing any kind of similar harm to users. The biggest danger to any marijuana user is hassling an arrest by DEA goon cops and local policemen, even those goons have shot and killed several growers and users.

ISN’T THIS INSANE REEFER MADNESS?!?!

_________________________________

Got a question or comment for Dr. Leveque?
Email him: Newsroom@Salem-News.com

More information on the history of Dr. Leveque can be found in his book, General Patton’s Dogface Soldier of WWII about his own experiences “from a foxhole”.
Order the book by mail by following this link: Dogface Soldier

If you are a World War II history buff, you don’t want to miss it.

Watch for more streaming video question and answer segments about medical marijuana with Bonnie King and Dr. Phil Leveque.

Click on this link for other articles and video segments about PTSD and medical marijuana on Salem-News.com:
Dr. Leveque INTERVIEWS & ARTICLES

###

Live from ICRS - Cannabinoid Scientists Discuss Cancer, Pain, Arthritis

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:21:40 GMT

July 7, 2011 By Jahan Marcu

7/7/2011 by Jahan Marcu – The annual International Cannabinoid Research Society (ICRS) meeting is taking place this week in Chicago. I’m here with over 250 researchers to take in 55 presentations on the subject of Cannabis and cannabinoids. This year I’m also honored to be presenting some of my recent work. The ICRS meeting is a unique and concentrated pool of cannabinoid science showcasing the latest breakthroughs.

The morning presentations on the opening day were devoted to the study of cannabinoids in learning and memory.

Indole derivatives such as WIN55212, a compound that is related to JWH-018, may disrupt learning and memory in a way that is much more distinct than THC.

The first talk was given via Skype with Dr. Robert Hampson from Wake Forest University in North Carolina. WIN55212 suppresses the encoding of new information but does not suppress memory recall. The research supports the role of cannabinoids in learning and memory, modulating the strength of neural encoding for long and short term storage. This research may help develop drugs for the treatment of PTSD or learning disabilities.

Next Marocoita Gilbert of East Carolina University gave a stunning presentation on the effects of cannabinoids on memory in birds (Finches). Birds and humans learn to communicate through vocal learning, imitating sounds of the parents. In birds the song can be passed down from parents to offspring. WIN55212 reduced the ability of birds to memorize songs, which was directly correlated with a down regulation in an important brain protein known as ARC. These finches tended to improvise the song! In a sense, the finches that were given a cannabinoid would preform jazz instead of classical.

Dr. Jerry Wright Jr. of Scripps Research Institute conducted a study on the effects of visual memory and learning in monkeys, using pure THC. The monkeys correct responses were affected by the number of stimuli given to the monkeys. Conceptually, if the monkeys were only doing one task, there was no difference. However, as the number of tasks increased, the monkeys incorrect responses increased. Interestingly, the psychomotor or coordination of monkeys was unaffected in raisin and pellet acquisition tests which required manual dexterity.

The research presentations then focused on pain and inflammation. In short, the following studies showed that Endocannabinoids such as PEA are effective in treating models of arthritis, pain, and inflammation.

Dr. Barbara Costa began by discussing that existing arthritis drugs are restricted to analgesics (pain management) with limited efficacy and lots of side effects. Cannabinoids may represent a reasonable approach to this chronic condition. PEA speeds recovery. Strong decreases could be found in inflammation, pain, and positive increase in peripheral nerves; where arthritis impairs movement. Dr. Costa suggested that endocannabinoids should be compared with a steroid; compared or co-applied with NSAIDS.

James Burton of the University of Nottingham showed that PEA was also able to inhibit immune cell migration, a hallmark of tissue damage and inflammation. Sharleen Yuan from the University of South Dakota complimented the pain research by showing data that outlined the mechanisms modulating EC signaling in neurons.

Ending the first symposium of the ICRS conference, Aron Lichtman from Virginia Commonwealth University shared research on a new drug, JZL184 which shares many properties of THC without motor skill effects.

The second session focused on the effects of cannabinoids on the gut and intestinal disease.

Poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) are precursors to many important biological factors. Amino acids are thought to form conjugations with fatty acids to mediate important events related to neuro-transmission. Dr. Kitty Verhoeckx shared her team’s discovery of fatty acid serotonins which were able to inhibit the FAAH enzyme, which raises the levels of endocannabinoids in the body. The research studied the effect of various combinations of oils (fish, sunflower) on the metabolism of these N-Acyl serotonins in animals. The production of fatty acid seratonins was directly related to diet.

Erin Rock from the University of Guekph presented research on Cannabidiol (CBD). CBD is usually the second most adundant cannabinoid on the Cannabis plant. CBD does not appear to activate the cannabinoid receptors, CB1 or CB2. Instead CBD appears to interact with serotonin receptors (5HT-1A) to reduce nausea and vomiting. CBD may be an effective anti-nausea and anti-vomiting drugs for cancer patients.

Steven Kinsey of the Virginia Commonwealth University showed that THC could block the formation of gastric hemmorages. Additonally, the protective effect of THC was mimicked by raising endocannabinoids through FAAH inhibition. FAAH is the enzyme that breakdown endocannabinoids. JZL184 knocked down and almost completely blocked hemorrhages, but tolerance developed after 6 days, if larger doses are administered chronically.

Dr. Alhouayek from the University of Louvain shared her work on inflammatory bowl disease (IBD) and cannabinoids. IBD occurs in about 10,000 people a year in developed countries. The root causes of IBD are unknown and a curative therapy remains elusive. Activating CB receptors is protective while blocking the receptors makes Colitis or IBD much worse. AEA is known for its protective effect but little is known about the effectiveness of 2-AG. Mice with IBD were effectively treated by raising the body’s own natural endocannabinoids, using synthetic compounds known as JZL184 and URB597. Colon tissue was shown to be protected by raising the levels of endocannabinoids. The protective effects were stopped by blocking by CB1 and CB2 receptors. CB1 and CB2 activity is important for a healthy colon. However, it was the elevated levels of the endocannabinoid 2-AG that were thought to be responsible for the beneficial effects.

The day ended with a flurry of cancer research highlighting the effectiveness of CBD to treat wide variety of cancers.

Members of Cristina Sanchez’s and Manuel Guzman’s labs from Spain discussed mechanisms of cancers, demonstrating the role of CB2 and GPR55 in cancer pathogenesis.

Dr. Alessia Ligresti from the Italian Endocannabinoid Research Group looked at 12 different plant cannabinoids and found that CBD was a potent anti-cancer agent against prostate cancer.

Dr. Sean McAllister from the California Pacific Medical Center demonstrated the effectiveness of CBD to treat aggressive cancer cells that were removed from cancer patients.

Lastly, Gabriella Aviello from the University of Naples showed how CBD may prevent or treat colon cancer, one most common and deadliest forms of cancer in the western world.

CBD was the star of the show on opening day here at ICRS, demonstrating potent anti-cancer effects in a variety of cancer types. CBD shows great promise, and may be used in an upcoming clinical trial with breast cancer, organized in part by Dr. Sean McAllister.

Read more Science at Freedomisgreen.com

Jahan Marcu is currently investigating the pharmacology of cannabinoid receptors. He was working at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute when exciting discoveries were made showing enhanced anti-cancer effects with THC and CBD from the Cannabis plant. The findings were published in the Journal of Molecular Cancer Therapeutics. In 2009 he received the Billy Martin Award from the International Cannabinoid Research Society (ICRS). Jahan is currently the vice-chair the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board at Americans for Safe Access (ASA). Questions? Contact science@freedomisgreen.com

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent any University, business or affiliates. While the information provided in this blog is from published scientific studies it is not intended to diagnose or treat any disease.

White House to host 'Will you legalize marijuana?' town hall on Twitter

Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:59:42 GMT

June 30, 2011, 2:19 PM —

Source: Twitter

Twitter and the White House have announced a Twitter Town Hall webcast for July 6 in which participants are invited to ask President Obama “questions about the economy and jobs.”

But if past experience is any indicator — and trust me, it is — the most-asked questions will be about the president’s willingness to push for the legalization of marijuana.

In March 2009, shortly after his inauguration, Obama held a webcast “town meeting” in which online viewers could submit questions to him.

At one point, the commander-in-chief interrupted the event M.C. to say, “There was one question that voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation. And I don’t know what this says about the online audience, but … this was a popular question. We want to make sure it’s answered. The answer is no, I don’t think that’s a good strategy to grow our economy. All right.”

Here’s a video of the moment:

Obama’s answer was criticized (rightly so, in my opinion) for being flippant, especially given the spectacular decades-long failure that is the war on drugs.

Last January, the same thing happened when Obama participated in a YouTube question-and-answer session. Despite a wide range of problems and issues before the president and the country, the most popular questions concerned marijuana legalization.

Of course, the White House will get to pick and choose which questions Obama will answer. So we may hear a pot question, and we may not. And if we do, the president will quickly dismiss the issue as he did two years.

But it will be the most popular question category — probably closely followed by “when will you release your real birth certificate, not that fake one from a couple of months ago? #tcot”.

The White House invites Americans and sovereign citizens alike to submit questions via Twitter by using the #AskObama hash tag. People with marijuana questions should consider using a #AskObamaAboutWeed hash tag. It’ll help them keep things organized.

###

Mendocino Forest braces for major pot raids

Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:10:02 GMT

Michael Montgomery/California Watch | A drug agent stands in an illegal marijuana grow site during raids last summer.

Law enforcement agents in six northern counties are preparing for the largest series of marijuana raids ever conducted in this part of California.

Operation Full Court Press will unleash hundreds of local, state and federal agents into the Mendocino National Forest later this summer.

The raids will target illegal growers who have set up huge plantations deep in the mountains. Some of the grows number tens of thousands of plants.

Law enforcement agents contend that many of the illegal growers are Mexican nationals who are linked to large drug-trafficking groups. As evidence of a strong Mexico connection, prosecutors point to hundreds of Mexican nationals arrested in recent years at illegal outdoor pot grows.

But many of the suspects are simply laborers with little information about who’s behind the business.

This summer, agents are deploying new tactics to make more arrests and gather vital intelligence, like cell phone numbers and receipts.

Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman says the operation will help investigators target the organized criminal groups behind the illegal pot trade.

“The operation this year is going to have an impact on drug-trafficking organizations, marijuana supply that affects the rest of the nation,” he said.

But some longtime observers have their doubts.

“You are not going to catch Mr. Big in the pot patch with $100,000 in cash,” says Bruce Anderson, publisher of the Anderson Valley Advertiser.

“If history is any guide here, they’ll go out in force, large-scale raids, and the growers will be long gone by the time they get there. With cell phones and all the miracles of modern technology, you know they’ll be ready for them,” he said.

The latest installment in our series “The Republic of Cannabis” examines who’s behind the explosion in illegal pot growing on public lands in California. It aired on KQED’s “The California Report” and was produced in collaboration with The Center for Investigative Reporting. KQED’s “Forum” program also took up the issue.

###

Let states enact their own marijuana policies

Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:00:39 GMT

By Paul Armentano, Special to CNN

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Paul Armentano refutes Bill Bennett’s suggestion that billl an effort to legalize pot
Armentano: Measure would give states the right to enact their own policy on pot
The states should be able to regulate marijuana just as they do alcohol, he writes
Federal criminalization has failed, he says. Time to take market out of hands of criminals

RELATED TOPICS

Editor’s note: Paul Armentano is the deputy director of NORML , the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and is the co-author of the book “Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?” (2009, Chelsea Green).

(CNN) — It is hardly surprising that former drug czar William Bennett would, in his CNN.com op-ed, oppose any changes to America’s criminalization of marijuana. But it is surprising that he would lump Barney Frank and Ron Paul’s proposal to allow states the opportunity to enact their own marijuana policy with the effort to legalize drugs.

Let’s be clear: HR 2306, the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011, proposed by Reps. Barney Frank and Ron Paul, does not “legalize drugs” or even so much as legalize marijuana. Rather, this legislation removes the power to prosecute minor marijuana offenders from the federal government and relinquishes this authority to state and local jurisdictions. In other words, HR 2306 is just the sort of rebuke to the “nanny state” that conservatives like Bennett otherwise support.

Barney Frank and Ron Paul: Get feds out of pot regulation

The House bill mimics changes enacted by Congress to repeal the federal prohibition of alcohol. Passage of this measure would remove the existing conflict between federal law and the laws of those 16 states that already allow for the limited use of marijuana under a physician’s supervision.

It would also permit states that wish to fully legalize (for adults) and regulate the responsible use, possession, production and intrastate distribution of marijuana to be free to do so without federal interference. In recent years, several states, including California and Massachusetts, have considered taking such actions either legislatively or by ballot initiative. It is likely that several additional states will be considering this option in 2012, including Colorado and Washington. The residents and lawmakers of these states should be free to explore these alternate policies, including medicalization, decriminalization and legalization, without running afoul of the federal law or the whims of the Department of Justice.

Of course, just as many states continued to criminalize the sale and consumption of alcohol after the federal government’s lifting of alcohol prohibition, many states, if not most, might continue to maintain criminal sanctions on the use of marijuana.

But there is no justification for the federal government to compel them to do so. Just as state and local governments are free to enact their own policies about the sale and use of alcohol — a mind-altering, potentially toxic substance that harms the user more than marijuana — they should be free to adopt marijuana policies that best reflect the wishes and mores of their citizens. Does Bill Bennett believe that state and local governments cannot be trusted with making such decisions on their own?

Speaking during an online town hall in January, President Obama acknowledged the subject of legalizing and regulating marijuana was a “legitimate topic for debate,” even as he expressed his opposition. Yet Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, recently boasted that he would not even consider scheduling HR 2306 for a public hearing.

There might be another reason people like Smith and Bennett will go to such lengths to try to stifle public discussion of the matter. To do so would be to shine light on the fact that the federal criminalization of marijuana has failed to reduce the public’s demand for cannabis, and it has imposed enormous fiscal and human costs upon the American people.

Further, this policy promotes disrespect for the law and reinforces ethnic and generational divides between the public and law enforcement. Annual data published in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, and compiled by NORML, finds that police have made more than 20 million arrests for marijuana violations since 1970, nearly 90% of them for marijuana possession offenses only.

It is time to stop ceding control of the marijuana market to unregulated, criminal entrepreneurs and allow states the authority to enact common sense regulations that seek to govern the adult use of marijuana in a fashion similar to alcohol.

In Bennett’s own words, “We have an illegal drug abuse epidemic in this country.” How is such a conclusion anything but a scathing indictment of the present policy? After 70 years of failure it is time for an alternative approach. The “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011” is an ideal first step.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Paul Armentano.

###

Peaceful Pot Celebration Sharp Contrast to Drunken Hockey Riots

Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:48:59 GMT

By Jeremiah Vandermeer, Cannabis Culture - Tuesday, July 5 2011

CANNABIS CULTURE - Hempy Birthday Canada! Thousands of relaxed and red-eyed Vancouverites converged on the downtown Art Gallery on July 1, 2011 for the city’s annual Cannabis Day celebration, an always-peaceful marijuana-themed blowout held on Canada’s national holiday.

The event was in stark contrast to the recent downtown riots that erupted in the city streets after the Vancouver Canucks lost Game Seven of the Stanley Cup Finals in June.

“It’s pretty apparent that when you have the Molson hockey riot in ‘94, things are pretty bad; and when you have the Crown Royal hockey riot in 2011, things are worse,” long-time activist and Cannabis Day MC David Malmo-Levine told Cannabis Culture. “But every year we have thousands of people in the streets and when the event is sponsored by Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa people are just too relaxed and happy to want to break anything.”

Alcohol companies have long been the main sponsors of major sporting events in North America. For years, CBC Televisions’s main hockey program was called Molson Hockey Night in Canada, and now Crown Royal and other liquor companies spend top dollar to have their logos displayed and commercials played during every break. Hockey culture has become nearly synonymous with drinking booze and getting rowdy.

Alternatively, the non-violent, pot-centric Cannabis Day event was sponsored by The Vancouver Seed Bank, The Vancouver Medicinal Cannabis Dispensary, and Cannabis Culture Headquarters. Since its humble beginnings, the rally had been sponsored by Marc Emery, the Canadian marijuana activist and founder of the BC Marijuana Party now imprisoned in the US for selling marijuana seeds online. Over the years, the rally has always been a peaceful celebration of cannabis and hemp.

“The few disruptions we’ve had at our rallies over the past 15 years have come from drunk people,” Malmo-Levine said. “I think alcohol is related to aggression, and I think marijuana is related to thinking twice.”

There was no aggression to be found on Cannabis Day at the Vancouver Art Gallery, just a lot of high and happy people coming together to share their love of the cannabis plant and our country.

Gatherers enjoyed live music organized by Cannabis Day Music Director Adam Bowen (who also runs the BCMP Jams in the Key of Green) and a slate of guest speakers including Princess of Pot Jodie Emery, cannabis historian Chris Bennett, and End Prohibition National Director Nicole Seguin.

Vendors sold bongs, pipes, t-shirts, posters, rolling papers and all types of marijuana tools from kiosks set-up around the perimeter of the Art Gallery grounds.

More remarkable, however, were the large number of cannabis dealers openly selling a rainbow selection of bud, hash, and edibles.

“There were no problems with the police,” Cannabis Day organizer Jacob Hunter told CC. “Overall, it was a great day. We had about 6000 people on site. Everybody I talked to including vendors said they had an excellent time, and some said it was their favorite so far.”

Vancouver may be the only city in the world to host a completely open cannabis farmers market that sells to everyone, not just medical patients. (If you know of any others, please let us know in the comments section below this article.) This is due, in part, to a particular activist technique called Hug Power, developed by Malmo-Levine after watching protest footage of the 1960s.

At events in years past, if police officers attempted to arrest a member of the crowd who was smoking or selling marijuana, other crowd members were instructed by Malmo-Levine to surround and hug the suspect. This made it impossible for police to gain access or arrest the person without using aggressive physical behaviour on a large group – something Vancouver police were apparently unwilling to do. After a few years they decided to leave everyone alone.

“The police don’t want to be caught on film using violent force without justification,” Malmo-Levine said. “After the Rodney King incident, police were much more aware of the ramifications.”

The civil and respectful tone of the cannabis community was on display on Cannabis Day at 4:20pm, when crowds around the main stage parted to make several paths and sat down to receive thousands of free joints handed out by activists.

Click here to go to the Cannabis Day 2011 Flickr gallery by Jeremiah Vandermeer.

Hunter says another reason for the city’s relaxed attitude toward marijuana rallies comes from years of working closely with police and building positive relationships with city officials.

Activist Jodie Emery waves the Cannabis-Canada flag for thousands of stoney supporters at the Vancouver Art Gallery.He said he sees a relationship between alcohol and violence but doesn’t think liquor was the determining factor in the riots, and he cautioned against blaming booze for the destruction caused in the city centre.

“In a way it is like comparing apples and aircraft carriers,” he said. “What happened at the hockey riots is very complex, and resulted from a perfect storm of problems that goes beyond mere alcohol consumption. One of the major differences is that some instigators came to the riots ready to cause trouble. We don’t have people who come to our rallies specifically to cause trouble, and we are a lot more organized to deal with anyone who does. As an organizer, I have nothing but sympathy for the city and whoever put that live site on before the riot, it was a very difficult situation to control.”

At sporting events in other countries like Portugal and the Netherlands, authorities have openly recognized the calming qualities of cannabis, and have even effectively encouraged crowds to toke up instead of drinking at sporting events to cut down on hooliganism.

Hunter said Vancouver police used a similar tactic during the recent Olympic Games held in the city.

“The Vancouver police made clear to the media and public on several occasions before the Olympics that marijuana was illegal, but they were not out to arrest people for it,” he said. “This resulted in a lot more cannabis than booze being consumed during the Games. If I worked at the city, I would seriously consider reiterating our lowest police priority concerning marijuana before all large city events.”

Jeremiah Vandermeer is editor of Cannabis Culture. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Please LIKE Cannabis Culture’s New Facebook Page.

Pot advocates hound Rep. Smith

Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:35:58 GMT

U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, holds a press conference at his office, Dec. 13, 2010.
Photo: SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS, JERRY LARA / glara@express-news.net

U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, holds a press conference…

Page 1 of 1

WASHINGTON — Worried that marijuana decriminalization dreams could go up in smoke, advocates are targeting a Texas congressman who has vowed to kill a bill that would remove pot from the federal list of controlled substances.

U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said his panel will not take up the bipartisan legislation, which would effectively kill it for lack of action.

“Instead of encouraging the use of marijuana, we should strengthen enforcement of federal drug laws to protect Americans from the devastating effects of drug use,” said Smith, R-San Antonio.

Smith’s stance has prompted a backlash organized by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Legalization.

NORML has launched a letter and telephone campaign that swamped Smith with more than 9,000 messages and calls and forced him to take down his Facebook page.

The sheer number of the responses does not surprise NORML, but the group is under no illusion that it will see the legislation passed any time soon.

“This Congress is a ‘Reefer Madness’ Congress,” said Allen St. Pierre, NORML executive director, referring to the 1936 morality film that portrayed users of the herb descending into mental illness.

Still, St. Pierre said changing public attitudes on cannabis use and its acceptance in some parts of the country should at least require Congress to hold a hearing on the merits of the legislation. The authors say the bill is no half-baked idea.

The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act was filed by Rep. Ron Paul, the Texas congressman seeking the Republican presidential nomination, and Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee.

Paul, who has a national libertarian following, and Frank, one of the most liberal members of Congress, say the bill is a reasoned approach to getting the federal government out of the regulation of marijuana.

Under the bill, HR 2306, marijuana would be removed from the federal list of controlled substances, ending federal enforcement and allowing each state to address how it could be used and distributed.

NORML is airing announcements about the bill on its web site and YouTube, urging people to contact Smith and other members of Congress.

In one, country music icon Willie Nelson, a Texan and a board member of NORML, pleads that current drug laws need to be changed to match public attitudes.

With his hit “On the Road Again” playing in the background, Nelson says 850,000 citizens will be arrested this year on cannabis-related charges: “That’s another marijuana smoker busted every 35 seconds.”

Advocates of pot use note that 14 states have passed decriminalization laws, and 16 states and the District of Columbia permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Texas is not one of those states, and it is not likely to be one soon, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas and a former state attorney general and state Supreme Court justice.

“I would be surprised if it has much in the way of public support, which would be the biggest obstacle, since I doubt the members of the Texas Legislature would take this matter up and pass it,” Cornyn said.

There is no companion legislation in the Senate, but Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would join Smith and House colleagues in opposing similar measures.

Cornyn said he worries that decriminalization, medical usage and removing marijuana laws from federal enforcement is a slippery slope “where a similar attitude would be embraced with regards to other illegal drugs and dangerous substances.”

The Obama administration also opposes decriminalization of marijuana, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Marijuana use is harmful and should be discouraged, according to the White House drug czar, and legalization would lower the price and increase usage.

St. Pierre said it is likely to take another decade for Congress to catch up to public attitudes and develop a more relaxed attitude on marijuana use, but he predicted federal decriminalization would come eventually.

“The states are really driving this,” St. Pierre said.

Search warrant folly - An open letter to Paul Gallegos

Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:16:01 GMT

Jeffrey Schwartz/For The Times-Standard

Posted: 07/06/2011 02:40:13 AM PDT

On July 2, 2011, in Sacramento, Calif., Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos attended a fundraising dinner to retire his 2010 campaign debt. The host was the medical marijuana lobbying group, California Cannabis Business League. The lobbying group chose Mr. Gallegos because he has been a strong advocate for the rights of medical marijuana patients and the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. I am asking Mr. Gallegos to stop the madness of Humboldt County law enforcement raids on the homes of medical marijuana patients.

Gallegos’ candid and public position on medical marijuana is a courageous stand where most of his statewide district attorney colleagues and the Humboldt County law enforcement community feel just about the opposite about medical marijuana. Of course, Gallegos’ stand on what he thinks is right despite running into a freight train of ingrained Humboldt County backward politics and the fear of change that infects this county is one of the few bright spots that remain in Humboldt County politics after the November election. Think the firing of the forward-thinking Eureka Police Chief Gar Nielsen by the backward thinking David Tyson.

Getting back to medical marijuana, I do have a criticism of Mr. Gallegos and I hope he considers this writing an open letter to him to right the wrong of Humboldt County law enforcement officers who almost weekly invade the privacy of cancer patients, diabetics, paraplegics and other medical

marijuana patients when they bust into their homes in the early morning hours looking for the patients’ medicine without any reasonable cause to suspect the medical marijuana is unlawful.

The media has been reporting on marijuana raids throughout the county and in particular by the newly formed Arcata Police Department’s Special Services Unit — or otherwise known as the “SS Unit.” The reporting on these raids inaccurately state that the raids are on homes where, “illegal marijuana cultivation operations were suspected to be taking place.” In most instances, that is not the case. The warrants are served because the Humboldt County law enforcement agencies believe there are marijuana cultivation operations taking place.

The SS Unit and all of the raiding agencies of Humboldt County don’t care if it is lawful medical marijuana or not. The police will find that out later after a wee hours bursting into a house with guns drawn rounding up all of the sleeping, half-naked residents in the home — including children — at gun point into the living room face down on the floor.

At least twice last month Arcata’s SS unit raided two homes, and whoops the marijuana grows were lawful. In one case, officers forced face down on the floor with hands cuffed behind their backs an elderly couple, the officers first had to take the oxygen tubes out of the husband’s nose before smashing him into the floor. Arcata Police Chief Chapman, of course, said something like, “sorry folks for the inconvenience, we’ll take off your handcuffs and put the tubes back in your nose so you can put on your clothes and you can clean up the mess we made tossing up everything in every corner of your house.”

This paper and all of the rest of the news reporting agencies should ask the police just what facts they had to suspect whether the cultivation was unlawful, as opposed to a lawful medical grow. Most of the time there are no facts to distinguish a lawful grow from an unlawful grow before the battering ram is pressed into service.

Most importantly, Mr. Gallegos should be asking that question before the warrant is even issued. Mr. Gallegos can fix the problem with the stroke of his pen, or should I say, withholding the stroke of his pen. Before a judge signs a search warrant, the judge requires that the DA sign off on the warrant with a statement that the DA believes there is probable cause to issue the warrant. Mr. Gallegos should not sign off on these warrants unless — and until — the law enforcement agent answers Mr. Gallegos’ simple question: “What facts do you have that suggest the suspected marijuana is an unlawful grow.”

Jeffrey Schwartz is the director of the Humboldt Center for Constitutional Rights (HumRights.org). He can be reached at jdsarcata@gmail.com. Mr. Schwartz welcomes Mr. Gallegos and law enforcement to respond.

###

Sam Harris - Drugs and the Meaning of Life

Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT

(Photo by JB Banks)

Everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness. We form friendships so that we can feel certain emotions, like love, and avoid others, like loneliness. We eat specific foods to enjoy their fleeting presence on our tongues. We read for the pleasure of thinking another person’s thoughts. Every waking moment—and even in our dreams—we struggle to direct the flow of sensation, emotion, and cognition toward states of consciousness that we value.

Drugs are another means toward this end. Some are illegal; some are stigmatized; some are dangerous—though, perversely, these sets only partially intersect. There are drugs of extraordinary power and utility, like psilocybin (the active compound in “magic mushrooms”) and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), which pose no apparent risk of addiction and are physically well-tolerated, and yet one can still be sent to prison for their use—while drugs like tobacco and alcohol, which have ruined countless lives, are enjoyed ad libitum in almost every society on earth. There are other points on this continuum—3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or “Ecstasy”) has remarkable therapeutic potential, but it is also susceptible to abuse, and it appears to be neurotoxic.^[1]

One of the great responsibilities we have as a society is to educate ourselves, along with the next generation, about which substances are worth ingesting, and for what purpose, and which are not. The problem, however, is that we refer to all biologically active compounds by a single term—“drugs”—and this makes it nearly impossible to have an intelligent discussion about the psychological, medical, ethical, and legal issues surrounding their use. The poverty of our language has been only slightly eased by the introduction of terms like “psychedelics” to differentiate certain visionary compounds, which can produce extraordinary states of ecstasy and insight, from “narcotics” and other classic agents of stupefaction and abuse.

Drug abuse and addiction are real problems, of course—the remedy for which is education and medical treatment, not incarceration. In fact, the worst drugs of abuse in the United States now appear to be prescription painkillers, like oxycodone. Should these medicines be made illegal? Of course not. People need to be informed about them, and addicts need treatment. And all drugs—including alcohol, cigarettes, and aspirin—must be kept out of the hands of children.

I discuss issues of drug policy in some detail in my first book, The End of Faith (pp. 158-164), and my thinking on the subject has not changed. The “war on drugs” has been well lost, and should never have been waged. While it isn’t explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, I can think of no political right more fundamental than the right to peacefully steward the contents of one’s own consciousness. The fact that we pointlessly ruin the lives of nonviolent drug users by incarcerating them, at enormous expense, constitutes one of the great moral failures of our time. (And the fact that we make room for them in our prisons by paroling murderers and rapists makes one wonder whether civilization isn’t simply doomed.)

I have a daughter who will one day take drugs. Of course, I will do everything in my power to see that she chooses her drugs wisely, but a life without drugs is neither foreseeable, nor, I think, desirable. Someday, I hope she enjoys a morning cup of tea or coffee as much as I do. If my daughter drinks alcohol as an adult, as she probably will, I will encourage her to do it safely. If she chooses to smoke marijuana, I will urge moderation.^[2] Tobacco should be shunned, of course, and I will do everything within the bounds of decent parenting to steer her away from it. Needless to say, if I knew my daughter would eventually develop a fondness for methamphetamine or crack cocaine, I might never sleep again. But if she does not try a psychedelic like psilocybin or LSD at least once in her adult life, I will worry that she may have missed one of the most important rites of passage a human being can experience.

This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. It has been many years since I have taken psychedelics, in fact, and my abstinence is borne of a healthy respect for the risks involved. However, there was a period in my early 20’s when I found drugs like psilocybin and LSD to be indispensable tools of insight, and some of the most important hours of my life were spent under their influence. I think it quite possible that I might never have discovered that there was an inner landscape of mind worth exploring without having first pressed this pharmacological advantage.

While human beings have ingested plant-based psychedelics for millennia, scientific research on these compounds did not begin until the 1950’s. By 1965, a thousand studies had been published, primarily on psilocybin and LSD, many of which attested to the usefulness of psychedelics in the treatment of clinical depression, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), alcohol addiction, and the pain and anxiety associated with terminal cancer. Within a few years, however, this entire field of research was abolished in an effort to stem the spread of these drugs among the general public. After a hiatus that lasted an entire generation, scientific research on the pharmacology and therapeutic value of psychedelics has quietly resumed.

The psychedelics include chemicals like psilocybin, LSD, DMT, and mescaline—all of which powerfully alter cognition, perception, and mood. Most seem to exert their influence through the serotonin system in the brain, primarily by binding to 5-HT_2A receptors (though several have affinity for other receptors as well), leading to increased neuronal activity in prefrontal cortex (PFC). While the PFC in turn modulates subcortical dopamine production, the effect of psychedelics appears to take place largely outside dopamine pathways (which might explain why these drugs are not habit forming).

The mere existence of psychedelics would seem to establish the material basis of mental and spiritual life beyond any doubt—for the introduction of these substances into the brain is the obvious cause of any numinous apocalypse that follows. It is possible, however, if not actually plausible, to seize this datum from the other end and argue, and Aldous Huxley did in his classic essay, The Doors of Perception, that the primary function of the brain could be eliminative: its purpose could be to prevent some vast, transpersonal dimension of mind from flooding consciousness, thereby allowing apes like ourselves to make their way in the world without being dazzled at every step by visionary phenomena irrelevant to their survival. Huxley thought that if the brain were a kind of “reducing valve” for “Mind at Large,” this would explain the efficacy of psychedelics: They could simply be a material means of opening the tap.

Unfortunately, Huxley was operating under the erroneous assumption that psychedelics decrease brain activity. However, modern techniques of neuroimaging have shown that these drugs tend to increase activity in many regions of the cortex (and in subcortical structures as well). Still, the action of these drugs does not rule out dualism, or the existence of realms of mind beyond the brain—but then nothing does. This is one of the problems with views of this kind: They appear to be unfalsifiable.^[3]

Of course, the brain does filter an extraordinary amount of information from consciousness. And, like many who have taken these drugs, I can attest that psychedelics certainly throw open the gates. Needless to say, positing the existence of a “Mind at Large” is more tempting in some states of consciousness than in others. And the question of which view of reality we should privilege is, at times, worth considering. But these drugs can also produce mental states that are best viewed in clinical terms as forms of psychosis. As a general matter, I believe we should be very slow to make conclusions about the nature of the cosmos based upon inner experience — no matter how profound these experiences seem.

However, there is no question that the mind is vaster and more fluid than our ordinary, waking consciousness suggests. Consequently, it is impossible to communicate the profundity (or seeming profundity) of psychedelic states to those who have never had such experiences themselves. It is, in fact, difficult to remind oneself of the power of these states once they have passed.

Many people wonder about the difference between meditation (and other contemplative practices) and psychedelics. Are these drugs a form of cheating, or are they the one, indispensable vehicle for authentic awakening? They are neither. Many people don’t realize that all psychoactive drugs modulate the existing neurochemistry of the brain—either by mimicking specific neurotransmitters or by causing the neurotransmitters themselves to be more active. There is nothing that one can experience on a drug that is not, at some level, an expression of the brain’s potential. Hence, whatever one has experienced after ingesting a drug like LSD is likely to have been experienced, by someone, somewhere, without it.

However, it cannot be denied that psychedelics are a uniquely potent means of altering consciousness. If a person learns to meditate, pray, chant, do yoga, etc., there is no guarantee that anything will happen. Depending on his aptitude, interest, etc., boredom could be the only reward for his efforts. If, however, a person ingests 100 micrograms of LSD, what will happen next will depend on a variety of factors, but there is absolutely no question that something will happen. And boredom is simply not in the cards. Within the hour, the significance of his existence will bear down upon our hero like an avalanche. As Terence McKenna^[4] never tired of pointing out, this guarantee of profound effect, for better or worse, is what separates psychedelics from every other method of spiritual inquiry. It is, however, a difference that brings with it certain liabilities.

Ingesting a powerful dose of a psychedelic drug is like strapping oneself to a rocket without a guidance system. One might wind up somewhere worth going—and, depending on the compound and one’s “set and setting,” certain trajectories are more likely than others. But however methodically one prepares for the voyage, one can still be hurled into states of mind so painful and confusing as to be indistinguishable from psychosis. Hence, the terms “psychotomimetic” and “psychotogenic” that are occasionally applied to these drugs.

I have visited both extremes on the psychedelic continuum. The positive experiences were more sublime than I could have ever imagined or than I can now faithfully recall. These chemicals disclose layers of beauty that art is powerless to capture and for which the beauty of Nature herself is a mere simulacrum. It is one thing to be awestruck by the sight of a giant redwood and to be amazed at the details of its history and underlying biology. It is quite another to spend an apparent eternity in egoless communion with it. Positive psychedelic experiences often reveal how wondrously at ease in the universe a human being can be—and for most of us, normal waking consciousness does not offer so much as a glimmer of these deeper possibilities.

People generally come away from such experiences with a sense that our conventional states of consciousness obscure and truncate insights and emotions that are sacred. If the patriarchs and matriarchs of the world’s religions experienced such states of mind, many of their claims about the nature of reality can make subjective sense. The beautific vision does not tell you anything about the birth of the cosmos—but it does reveal how utterly transfigured a mind can be by a full collision with the present moment.

But as the peaks are high, the valleys are deep. My “bad trips” were, without question, the most harrowing hours I have ever suffered—and they make the notion of hell, as a metaphor if not a destination, seem perfectly apt. If nothing else, these excruciating experiences can become a source of compassion. I think it would be impossible to have any sense of what it is like to suffer from mental illness without having briefly touched its shores.

At both ends of the continuum time dilates in ways that cannot be described—apart from saying that these experiences can seem eternal. I have had sessions, both positive and negative, in which any knowledge that I had ingested a drug had been entirely extinguished, and all memories of my past along with it. Full immersion in the present moment, to this degree, is synonymous with the feeling that one has always been, and will always be, in precisely this condition. Depending on the character of one’s experience at that point, notions of salvation and damnation do not seem hyperbolic. In my experience, Blake’s line about beholding “eternity in an hour” neither promises, nor threatens, too much.

In the beginning, my experiences with psilocybin and LSD were so positive that I could not believe a bad trip was possible. Notions of “set and setting,” admittedly vague, seemed sufficient to account for this. My mental set was exactly as it needed to be—I was a spiritually serious investigator of my own mind—and my setting was generally one of either natural beauty or secure solitude.

I cannot account for why my adventures with psychedelics were uniformly pleasant until they weren’t—but when the doors to hell finally opened, they appear to have been left permanently ajar. Thereafter, whether or not a trip was good in the aggregate, it generally entailed some harrowing detour on the path to sublimity. Have you ever traveled, beyond all mere metaphors, to the Mountain of Shame and stayed for a thousand years? I do not recommend it.

(Pokhara, Nepal)

On my first trip to Nepal, I took a rowboat out on Phewa Lake in Pokhara, which offers a stunning view of the Annapurna range. It was early morning, and I was alone. As the sun rose over the water, I ingested 400 micrograms of LSD. I was 20 years old and had taken the drug at least ten times previously. What could go wrong?

Everything, as it turns out. Well, not everything—I didn’t drown. And I have a vague memory of drifting ashore and of being surrounded by a group of Nepali soldiers. After watching me for a while, as I ogled them over the gunwale like a lunatic, they seemed on the verge of deciding what to do with me. Some polite words of Esperanto, and a few, mad oar strokes, and I was off shore and into oblivion. So I suppose that could have ended differently.

But soon there was no lake or mountains or boat—and if I had fallen into the water I am pretty sure there would have been no one to swim. For the next several hours my mind became the perfect instrument of self-torture. All that remained was a continuous shattering and terror for which I have no words.

These encounters take something out of you. Even if drugs like LSD are biologically safe, the potential for extremely unpleasant and destabilizing experiences presents its own risks. I believe I was positively affected for weeks and months by my good trips, and negatively affected by the bad ones. Given these roulette-like odds, one can only recommend these experiences with caution.

While meditation can open the mind to a similar range of conscious states, they are reached far less haphazardly. If LSD is like being strapped to rocket, learning to meditate is like gently raising a sail. Yes, it is possible, even with guidance, to wind up someplace terrifying—and there are people who probably shouldn’t spend long periods in intensive practice. But the general effect of meditation training is of settling ever more fully into one’s own skin, and suffering less, rather than more there.

As I discussed in The End of Faith, I view most psychedelic experiences as potentially misleading. Psychedelics do not guarantee wisdom. They merely guarantee more content. And visionary experiences, considered in their totality, appear to me to be ethically neutral. Therefore, it seems that psychedelic ecstasy must be steered toward our personal and collective well-being by some other principle. As Daniel Pinchbeck pointed out in his highly entertaining book, Breaking Open the Head, the fact that both the Mayans and the Aztecs used psychedelics, while being enthusiastic practitioners of human sacrifice, makes any idealistic link between plant-based shamanism and an enlightened society seem terribly naive.

As I will discuss in future essays, the form of transcendence that appears to link directly to ethical behavior and human well-being is the transcendence of egoity in the midst of ordinary waking consciousness. It is by ceasing to cling to the contents of consciousness—to our thoughts, moods, desires, etc.—that we make progress. Such a project does not, in principle, require that we experience more contents.^[5] The freedom from self that is both the goal and foundation of “spiritual” life is coincident with normal perception and cognition—though, admittedly, this can be difficult to realize.

The power of psychedelics, however, is that they often reveal, in the span of a few hours, depths of awe and understanding that can otherwise elude us for a lifetime. As is often the case, William James said it about as well as words permit^[6] :

One conclusion was forced upon my mind at that time, and my impression of its truth has ever since remained unshaken. It is that our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different. We may go through life without suspecting their existence; but apply the requisite stimulus, and at a touch they are there in all their completeness, definite types of mentality which probably somewhere have their field of application and adaptation. No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded. How to regard them is the question,—for they are so discontinuous with ordinary consciousness. Yet they may determine attitudes though they cannot furnish formulas, and open a region though they fail to give a map. At any rate, they forbid a premature closing of our accounts with reality.
(The Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 388)

NOTES:

A wide literature now suggests that MDMA damages serotonin-producing neurons and decreases levels of serotonin in the brain. Here is the tip of the iceberg: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. ?
What is moderation? Let’s just say that I’ve never met a person who smokes marijuana every day who I thought wouldn’t benefit from smoking less (and I’ve never met someone who has never tried it who I thought wouldn’t benefit from smoking more).?
Physicalism, by contrast, could be easily falsified. If science ever established the existence of ghosts, or reincarnation, or any other phenomenon which would place the human mind (in whole or in part) outside the brain, physicalism would be dead. The fact that dualists can never say what would count as evidence against their views makes this ancient philosophical position very difficult to distinguish from religious faith.?
Terence McKenna is one person I regret not getting to know. Unfortunately, he died from brain cancer in 2000, at the age of 53. His books are well worth reading, and I have recommended several below, but he was, above all, an amazing speaker. It is true that his eloquence often led him to adopt positions which can only be described (charitably) as “wacky,” but the man was undeniably brilliant and always worth listening to. ?
I should say, however, that there are psychedelic experiences that I have not had, which appear to deliver a different message. Rather than being states in which the boundaries of the self are dissolved, some people have experiences in which the self (in some form) appears to be transported elsewhere. This phenomenon is very common with the drug DMT, and it can lead its initiates to some very startling conclusions about the nature of reality. More than anyone else, Terence McKenna was influential in bringing the phenomenology of DMT into prominence.

DMT is unique among psychedelics for a several reasons. Everyone who has tried it seems to agree that it is the most potent hallucinogen available (not in terms of the quantity needed for an effective dose, but in terms of its effects). It is also, paradoxically, the shortest acting. While the effects of LSD can last ten hours, the DMT trance dawns in less than a minute and subsides in ten. One reason for such steep pharmacokinetics seems to be that this compound already exists inside the human brain, and it is readily metabolized by monoaminoxidase. DMT is in the same chemical class as psilocybin and the neurotransmitter serotonin (but, in addition to having an affinity for 5-HT_2A receptors, it has been shown to bind to the sigma-1 receptor and modulate Na+ channels). Its function in the human body remains mysterious. Among the many mysteries and insults presented by DMT, it offers a final mockery of our drug laws: Not only have we criminalized naturally occurring substances, like cannabis; we have criminalized one of our own neurotransmitters.

Many users of DMT report being thrust under its influence into an adjacent reality where they are met by alien beings who appear intent upon sharing information and demonstrating the use of inscrutable technologies. The convergence of hundreds of such reports, many from first-time users of the drug who have not been told what to expect, is certainly interesting. It is also worth noting these accounts are almost entirely free of religious imagery. One appears far more likely to meet extraterrestrials or elves on DMT than traditional saints or angels. As I have not tried DMT, and have not had an experience of the sort that its users describe, I don’t know what to make of any of this. ?
Of course, James was reporting his experiences with nitrous oxide, which is an anesthetic. Other anesthetics, like ketamine hydrochloride and phencyclidine hydrochloride (PCP), have similar effects on mood and cognition at low doses. However, there are many differences between these drugs and classic psychedelics—one being that high doses of the latter do not lead to general anesthesia. ?

UC Irvine Release - Body’s natural marijuana-like chemicals make fatty foods hard to resist

Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT

UCI study helps explain why potato chips, french fries are complicit in weight gain

— Irvine, Calif., July 04, 2011 —

Recent studies have revealed potato chips and french fries to be the worst contributors to weight gain — and with good reason. Have you ever wondered why you can’t eat just one chip or a single fry? It’s not just the carbohydrates at fault.

UC Irvine researchers Daniele Piomelli, Nicholas DiPatrizio and colleagues found that fats in these foods make them nearly irresistible and trigger a surprising biological mechanism that likely drives our gluttonous behavior. The apparent culprit? Natural marijuana-like chemicals in the body called endocannabinoids.

In their study, the Piomelli team discovered that when rats tasted something fatty, cells in their upper gut started producing endocannabinoids. Sugars and proteins, the researchers noted, did not have this effect.

The process starts on the tongue, where fats in food generate a signal that travels first to the brain and then through a nerve bundle called the vagus to the intestines. There, the signal stimulates the production of endocannabinoids, which initiates a surge in cell signaling that prompts the wanton intake of fatty foods, Piomelli said, probably by initiating the release of digestive chemicals linked to hunger and satiety that compel us to eat more.

“This is the first demonstration that endocannabinoid signaling in the gut plays an important role in regulating fat intake,” added the Louise Turner Arnold Chair in the Neurosciences and professor of pharmacology.

Study results appear this week in the online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Piomelli said that from an evolutionary standpoint, there’s a compelling need for animals to consume fats, which are scarce in nature but crucial for proper cell functioning. In contemporary human society, however, fats are readily available, and the innate drive to eat fatty foods leads to obesity, diabetes and cancer.

The findings suggest it might be possible to curb this tendency by obstructing endocannabinoid activity – for example, by using drugs that “clog” cannabinoid receptors. Since these drugs wouldn’t need to enter the brain, they shouldn’t cause the central side effects — anxiety and depression — seen when endocannabinoid signaling is blocked in the brain, Piomelli noted.

Director of the UCI School of Medicine’s Center for Drug Discovery & Development, Piomelli is one of the world’s leading researchers on endocannabinoids. His groundbreaking work is showing that this system can be targeted by new treatments for anxiety, depression and obesity.

Giuseppe Astarita of UCI and Gary Schwartz and Xiaosong Li of New York’s Yeshiva University contributed to the study, which received support from the National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

About the University of California, Irvine: Founded in 1965, UCI is a top-ranked university dedicated to research, scholarship and community service. Led by Chancellor Michael Drake since 2005, UCI is among the most dynamic campuses in the University of California system, with nearly 28,000 undergraduate and graduate students, 1,100 faculty and 9,000 staff. Orange County’s largest employer, UCI contributes an annual economic impact of $4.2 billion. For more UCI news, visit www.today.uci.edu.

News Radio: UCI maintains on campus an ISDN line for conducting interviews with its faculty and experts. Use of this line is available for a fee to radio news programs/stations that wish to interview UCI faculty and experts. Use of the ISDN line is subject to availability and approval by the university.

UCI

UCI’s Daniele Piomelli is one of the world’s leading researchers on endocannabinoids.

Media Contact

Tom Vasich University Communications
949-824-6455
tmvasich@uci.edu

Experts available

Consumers abusing legal synthetic versions of cocaine, meth, marijuana

Tue, 05 Jul 2011 10:25:12 GMT

Sarah Tompkins | The Times

Law enforcement and medical experts say more and more Hoosiers are using “incense” packets sold at some gas stations and smoke shops to get high.

Ron and Nancy were recreational drug users, and on a few weekend occasions they snorted cocaine in their Porter County garage while their young children slept.

But in April, Ron found a way to get the same feeling for almost 10 times as long, at less than half the price and without the stress of buying through a drug dealer.

Bath salts.

“We were kind of amazed by the strength,” he said. “I’d say we started at 9 o’clock at night, and I got dressed and went to work at 6 o’clock in the morning, still wide awake.”

This synthetic version of cocaine and methamphetamine is one of several legal synthetic drugs being sold at local gas stations, smoke shops and on the Internet. Fake marijuana is another popular choice for consumers. But according to doctors and law enforcement, these designer drugs are merely tweaked versions of the originals — or chemical concoctions that can be even more potent.

Ron and Nancy, who asked that their real names not be used to protect their privacy, said the increased potency was unnerving — and Nancy swore never to touch bath salts again after being unable to shake the jittery high for hours.

“Some people think mistakenly that because something is legal, that it is OK and it doesn’t have any harmful side effects,” said Dr. Stevan Vuckovic, associate medical director of Franciscan St. Anthony’s emergency department in Crown Point.

In the first two weeks of June alone, Indiana’s Poison Center fielded about 30 calls relating to bath salts from emergency rooms in Lake and Porter counties.

While Ron’s switch to bath salts from cocaine was supposed to save money and provide a legal alternative, he said it landed him in an ER bed within three months. He had lost 30 pounds, his appetite, his ability to sleep and his home after Nancy had enough of the lies he told to hide his addiction.

Now reunited with his family and in the beginning stages of rehab, Ron says he never imagined he would have gotten hooked so fast.

“You will not know you are addicted until it is too late,” he said. “The next thing you know, you’ve got all your things packed in a vehicle, you have no where to go and you have the police looking for you.”

While people have a personal responsibility to make wise decisions, Ron said he felt the federal government should prevent harmful products such as bath salts from being sold.

“They failed us on this one, man,” he said. “Completely failed us.”

What’s in a name?

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency would like to do more, said DEA Special Agent Will Taylor, but the companies producing the synthetic drugs are exploiting legal loopholes to avoid prosecution.

“They are marked clearly ‘not for human consumption,’ and that’s a way a lot of these manufacturers and distributors are able to circumvent the law,” said Taylor, who is based in Chicago.

With a nudge and a wink, companies market synthetic marijuana, such as K2 and Spice, as incense, and sell cocaine and meth knockoffs as plant food and bath salts, he said.

But the products are anything but what they are portrayed to be, said Dr. Brent Furbee, medical director of the Indiana Poison Center.

“(There’s) probably the same difference between a bar of Dove soap and a package of methamphetamine,” Furbee said, comparing the abused bath salts with what many use to soak in the tub.

And with no quality control standards for these designer drugs, the chemical concentrations could vary among packets of the same brand.

“You don’t know what other agents are being dumped into the bag that you’re using, you don’t know what kind of contaminants there are,” said St. Anthony’s Vuckovic.

Few even know where the products are manufactured.

Synthetic cannabinoids were developed and researched by universities in the 1960s and drug maker Pfizer in the 1970s, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Taylor said some of the recent incarnations of the cannabinoids and bath salts have been traced to China, India and regions of the U.S. But because present-day manufacturers are constantly developing new, legal alternatives, they are not technically breaking the law — and, in turn, tracking them is often not within DEA jurisdiction, Taylor said.

An employee at a local store that sold an incense brand commonly used as synthetic marijuana did not know where the products originated, and declined to name a distributor.

“As far as where it is from or what people do with it, I have no idea,” the employee said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Banning the bad

A drug is classified as a controlled substance, and therefore illegal in the eyes of the DEA, based on its chemical compounds, said Dennis Wichern, DEA assistant special agent in charge for Indiana. The constant evolution of designer drugs can give federal agents fits.

“People that are inventing these drugs, if they change a molecule or two off, it is not deemed an illegal substance,” Wichern said.

Outlawing the new substances requires the necessary time to conduct research on the long- and short-term effects. But in the interim, the DEA can place certain chemicals on an emergency controlled-substances list for a one-year period — and in March, five compounds used in synthetic marijuana were added to the list.

On Friday, selling or possessing most synthetic marijuana — but not bath salts — became illegal in Indiana. Illinois instituted a similar ban in January.

DEA agents in Indiana are working on a few cases in light of the five compounds being made illegal, Wichern said, but he could not release details due to the ongoing investigations.

“Whether they materialize into something or not remains to be seen,” he said.

But because the synthetics are legally defined by their chemical structures, many companies started marketing new marijuana knockoffs before the law even went into effect. These updated versions do not contain any of the 25-plus chemicals banned in state or federal laws.

The Federal Analog Act addresses the synthetic knockoffs of already controlled substances, but one has to prove businesses intend for consumers to ingest the products, the DEA’s Taylor said.

According to the website of one Internet company, K2incense.org, its “new products are 100 percent legal!” It claims its products are not for human consumption and that K2 is safe — but it goes on to say consumers should watch out for counterfeit K2 that could contain illegal chemicals and be dangerous.

Wichern called the proclamations that only K2 counterfeits pose health risks a “marketing ploy.”

While the website attacked “basement chemists” making knockoffs of the K2 brand, the site declined to reveal the K2 manufacturer, citing a “contractual agreement.”

Taylor said the DEA finds it suspicious the companies are selling such small amounts for such high prices — 3 grams for $20 to $30, for instance — just for incense purposes, when consumers could go buy real bath salt in bulk for much less.

The Times was unable to connect with someone from K2incense.org for comment.

Legal highs yield personal, community lows

The adverse effects of using synthetic marijuana and bath salts include heart palpitations and increased blood pressure, according to doctors. With bath salts alone, possible effects include hallucinations, extreme paranoia and seizures. And in the past six months, doctors say they have seen complications related to the synthetics spread across the region.

Therapists from Franciscan St. Margaret Health’s Behavioral Health Center said in one of their cases, a man shot himself in the face while under the influence of bath salts. In May, police in Jasper County found a DeMotte woman known to abuse bath salts sitting on the bed in a damaged hotel room, muttering about evil spirits and needing to scribble on the walls to protect herself from them.

Doctors said chemicals in some bath salts are similar to meth, which is considered one of the most addictive illegal drugs, according to Detective Jaime Harris of the Lake County Sheriff’s Department.

Harris said the Sheriff’s Department has seen isolated incidents involving abuse of designer drugs such as bath salts, but not a major influx. He said it was more common for them to encounter cocaine, heroin and marijuana, though that did not mean synthetic drugs were not a concern for the county.

Moreover, drug issues in general affect the entire community, he said.

“In my opinion, the vast majority of the crimes that we encounter are due to narcotic-related users,” Harris said. “Our burglaries that we deal with, our car jackings, our auto theft, a significant amount of murders are directly related to the narcotics trade.”

For those on probation or parole, bath salts and fake marijuana are the substances of choice because the compounds cannot be detected in the average urine drug test, said Allen Grecula, director of education at the Frontline Foundations substance-abuse facility that has worked with such clients.

Tests for certain compounds have had to go to a special lab as far away as Pennsylvania, and last month AIT Laboratories in Indianapolis announced it will be one of the first labs in the country to offer special urine testing for synthetic marijuana. But the average urinary drug test cannot detect these designer drugs, Grecula said.

“It can seem like a great idea … until you see the compounded effects,” Grecula said, adding that the facility treats clients addicted to synthetics as they would those dependent on cocaine and meth.

For Ron, the one-time cocaine user now reunited with his family, bath salts gave him the euphoria without the physical nasal side-effects that come with snorting cocaine.

No one at work or in public knew he was on it, he said. And though he felt energized and could not sit still — sometimes working on home improvement projects into the early hours of the morning — Ron said using the synthetic drug to get through the day was one of the worst decisions he made.

He said he hoped sharing his story would dissuade others from experimenting with bath salts.

“You just don’t know how severe it can be,” he said.

####

Frankenpot – Marijuana gone GMO!

Sat, 02 Jul 2011 09:41:40 GMT

Jun 27

Frankenpot – Marijuana gone GMO!

By Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

Marijuana Growers: Hang onto your pot, here come the genetically modified genes!

It is painfully obvious that mad scientists have gone wild and are in charge of our health and food supply. And now, they want to grab hold of Mary Jane, Weed, Cannabis, Pot, Marijuana, or whatever else you want to call it.

Yeah, we know it has medicinal properties, and so do they. That is one of the reasons it has remained illegal for so long. Someone growing a plant in their backyard and foregoing over-the-counter pain medication, or making a tincture that helps fight cancer just might cut into Big Pharma profits, and we can’t have that. At least not until it can be strictly controlled by the very drug companies that specialize in delivering, for a hefty price, a barrage of drugs designed to, at the very least, incapacitate, and not actually cure anything.

So, here it is. The start of something big. Marijuana gone GMO:

Greenhouses lined with genetically modified marijuana sit on a mountainside just an hour ride from Cali, Colombia, where farmers say the enhanced plants are more powerful and profitable.

One greenhouse owner said she can sell the modified marijuana for 100,000 pesos ($54) per kilo (2.2 pounds), which is nearly 10 times more than the price she can get for ordinary marijuana.

Local authorities said the arrival of genetically modified seeds, which are imported from Europe and the United States have allowed “a bigger production and better quality at the same time”.

A police commander in the Cauca region where Cali is located, Carlos Rodriguez, said one of the modified varieties goes by the name, “Creepy”.

Another seed modified in The Netherlands is fetching a good price in the area, said a foreign researcher, who asked to remain anonymous. That version, well-known in Europe as “La Cominera”, is named for the Colombian village where it grows.

“La Cominera’s” higher value is due to its increased concentration of THC, the plant’s principal active ingredient, and the modified plant verges on an 18 percent concentration level, compared to a normal marijuana plant’s two to seven percent, said the researcher. (Yahoo News)

Coincidence that this is going on just as Big Pharma is busy patenting a Marijuana pill? Notice that the genetically modified seeds are imported from Europe, the Netherlands and the United States.

Despite the US government’s staunch opposition to medical cannabis farms in Oakland and elsewhere, the feds have begun licensing a whole lot of large legal pot grows throughout the country. But this weed is not for cannabis dispensaries and their patients; it’s for Big Pharma.

The Drug Enforcement Administration told Legalization Nation in an e-mail last week that 55 unnamed companies now hold licenses to grow cannabis in the United States, a fact that contradicts the widespread belief that there is only one legal pot farm in America, operated under the DEA for research purposes. It appears as if the upswing in federally approved pot farming is about feeding the need of pharmaceutical companies who want to produce a generic version of THC pill Marinol and at least one other cannabis-based pill for a wide variety of new uses. (Cannabis Culture)

Let’s see if I have this straight. Marijuana, natural, grown in your backyard: BAD! Marijuana farms, licensed by the feds and operated by the DEA for Big Pharma, and most likely genetically modified in a laboratory: GOOD! Hey, bubee, don’t you understand that this is bad??? So, off to jail you go for growing a healthy plant in your yard, but if you splice genes in a lab and grow a GM plant, changing that plant from something healthy to something designed to kill, patent it, and hand it over to the drug companies to push, then all the riches of the planet are yours, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood U.S. government.

Tags: Barbara H. Peterson, big pharma, columbia, dea, Farm Wars, farmwars, federal government, GMO, marijuana

Medical Marijuana Memo - DOJ Cracks Down On Pot Shops

Sat, 02 Jul 2011 01:10:14 GMT

WASHINGTON — Medical marijuana advocates are pushing back against a new Justice Department threat to raid and prosecute medical pot shops even in states where the drug is legal.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama promised to end such raids, which were commonplace under the Bush administration. Once he took office, the Justice Department, citing that campaign pledge, issued a memo that instructed federal law enforcement officials to back off. If a person was in compliance with state and local laws, the memo instructed, just let them be.

The new memo, from Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, purports to provide “guidance” on the previous memo, but reads more like a warning shot to medical marijuana shops. The previous memo, Cole writes, “advised that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or their caregivers.”

But it might be an efficient use of resources to target the people who sell medical pot to the very people Cole says should be shielded from federal assault. “The term ‘caregiver’ as used in the memorandum meant just that: individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana,” he adds.

So using the product within state laws is okay. Growing it or selling it within state laws is not.

Cole’s characterization of his new memo as a simple clarification of the original memo downplays the radical departure it represents. The original memo clearly attempted to distinguish between pot shops that operated within state laws and those that bent or broke it. “[P]rosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources,” the landmark 2009 memo read. “On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department.”

Pot shop owners and advocates are apoplectic. “Cancer patients are going to have to grow their own product or buy it on the street somewhere,” said Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, which represents Big Pot in Washington.

Smith said he doubted that any shops would close their doors in the face of the threat. “I don’t think anybody’s going to close down as a result of the memo. People are nervous, but this industry — particularly look at California, which bloomed pretty quickly during the Bush administration, when there were weekly raids.”

Tom Angell, a spokesman for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said that “by threatening to raid state-legal and regulated compassion centers, the Obama administration is causing more patients — and more tax-free money — to be diverted to the violent black market, where drug cartels and gangs battle it out for profits.”

Angell suggested letting cash-strapped states tax the legal sales instead. “Letting states go ahead and enact the compassion centers their lawmakers voted to create means that distribution will be controlled and safer, and plus it means that states can take in new tax revenue to help plug deficit problems,” he said. “It is incumbent upon states to stand up to the federal government in the face of this belligerent federal threat letter.”

Steve DeAngelo, owner of Harborside Health Center, a medical cannabis shop I profiled in the book “This Is Your Country On Drugs,” said that one consequence of the new memo is the psychological trauma it will cause seriously ill people who wonder where they’ll get medical pot if their shop closes down. “When things like this happen, they really send a shock through the patient community, which is vulnerable and shaky,” DeAngelo said.

He also pointed to the lost jobs and tax revenue. A recent report found that the legal marijuana business registered $1.7 billion in sales the last year. The new policy would cost “tens of thousands of legal jobs, taking away hundreds of millions in tax revenue, giving 1.7 billion dollars to the cartels, and the patients go from situation where they buy tested marijuana from people with a background check, to dealing with people on the street corner,” DeAngelo said.

It could have political consequences too, said DeAngelo, noting Colorado’s importance to Obama’s reelection. The state has a popular and booming medical marijuana trade.

Colorado, California, New Mexico and Maine have state-regulated medical marijuana shops that the memo appears to target. Oregon, Washington, Montana, Michigan, Nevada and Michigan operate in more of a grey area but boast medical pot shops. Other states and the District of Columbia are in the process of writing regulations to allow dispensaries.

DeAngelo said that he raised money for Obama in 2008, but was thinking of voting for a Republican such as Ron Paul in 2012. Either way, he said, he’s not closing Harborside. “We made our decision five years ago when we opened our doors, come hell or high water,” he said. “They can come close me down, but I will not do it voluntarily under any circumstances whatsoever.”

Read the full memo:

June 29, 2011
MEMORANDUM FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

FROM: James M. Cole Deputy Attorney General

SUBJECT: Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use

Over the last several months some of you have requested the Department’s assistance in responding to inquiries from State and local governments seeking guidance about the Department’s position on enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in jurisdictions that have under consideration, or have implemented, legislation that would sanction and regulate the commercial cultivation and distribution of marijuana purportedly for medical use. Some of these jurisdictions have considered approving the cultivation of large quantities of marijuana, or broadening the regulation and taxation of the substance. You may have seen letters responding to these inquiries by several United States Attorneys. Those letters are entirely consistent with the October 2009 memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use o f marijuana (the “Ogden Memo”).

The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale o f marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source o f revenue to large scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. The Ogden Memorandum provides guidance to you in deploying your resources to enforce the CSA as part of the exercise of the broad discretion you are given to address federal criminal matters within your districts.

A number of states have enacted some form of legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana. Accordingly,the Ogden Memo reiterated to you that prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, remains a core priority, but advised that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or their caregivers. The term “caregiver” as used in the memorandum meant just that: individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana.

The Department’s view of the efficient use of limited federal resources as articulated in the Ogden Memorandum has not changed. There has, however, been an increase in the scope of commercial cultivation, sale, distribution and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes. For example, within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately-operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.

The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws.

The Department of Justice is tasked with enforcing existing federal criminal laws in all states, and enforcement of the CSA has long been and remains a core priority.

cc: Lanny A. Breuer Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division B. Todd Jones United States Attorney District of Minnesota Chair, AGAC Michele M. Leonhart Administrator Drug Enforcement Administration
H. Marshall Jarrett Director Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Kevin L. Perkins Assistant Director Criminal Investigative Division Federal Bureau of Investigations

Crazy! Judge Reneges on Willie Nelson Plea Bargain

Sat, 02 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT

First Willie Nelson had a deal, now he doesn’t, according to Hudspeth County Judge Becky Dean-Walker. “I’m not going to be guilty of signing something because someone is a celebrity,” says the Texas magistrate. “Everybody should be treated the same in my court.”

Last month, Nelson had agreed to pay a fine that would resolve the matter of his Nov. 26 marijuana bust by Border Patrol in Sierra Blanca. “He got the same thing I’d give to anybody,” County Attorney Kit Bramblett said at the time.

Though it’s been reported that the fine was $500, Nelson told CelebStoner it’s closer to $3,000. Apparently, Judge Dean-Walker believes Nelson deserves a harsher penalty.

Also see:
Alarming Rise in Celeb Drug Busts
2011 Celeb Drugs Busts from A-Z
More CelebStoner News

Crazy! Judge Reneges on Willie Nelson Plea Bargain

Sat, 02 Jul 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Though it’s been reported that the fine was $500, Nelson told CelebStoner it’s closer to $3,000. Apparently, Judge Dean-Walker believes Nelson deserves a harsher penalty.

Also see:
Alarming Rise in Celeb Drug Busts
2011 Celeb Drugs Busts from A-Z
More CelebStoner News

Feds raid Amish farm for the crime of selling raw milk

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:16:54 GMT

Thursday, June 30, 2011 by: Bella Muse

(NaturalNews) A year long sting? 5 A.M raid? An undercover agent using aliases? The crime in question: unpasteurized milk. It is absolutely absurd to know that these kinds of exaggerated situations actually take place. And even worse, that our tax dollars fund them. It’s no secret that the FDA can be the least reliable source of information regarding health and nutrition. They’ve proven time and again to care little about the facts that prove holistic approaches cure diseases, and have made extreme efforts to criminalize most of those approaches. They’ve also made it abundantly clear that our personal freedoms are irrelevant to them.

Raw milk became a target of espionage when the FDA held a yearlong sting operation to stop Rainbow Acres Farm from selling raw milk to customers. “It is the FDA’s position that raw milk should never be consumed,” said Tamara N. Ward, spokeswoman for the FDA.

The farm’s owner, Dan Allgyer, didn’t respond, but his customers were furious at what they said was government overreach. “I look at this as the FDA is in cahoots with the large milk producers,” said Karin Edgett, a D.C. resident who buys from Rainbow Acres. “I don’t want the FDA and my tax dollars to go shut down a farm that hasn’t had any complaints against it. They’re producing good food, and the consumers are extremely happy with it.” Pete Kennedy, president of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, said undercover stings are not unheard of. “It happens quite a bit. It’s almost like they treat raw milk as crack. It’s happened in a number of states, and at the federal level,” he said.

(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news…)

It is blatantly wrong for the FDA to deny people their rights to buy raw milk. Raw milk has been consumed long before WWII and never was it considered harmful. On the contrary, it was considered a whole food. There are undeniable facts that prove pasteurized milk destroys part of the vitamin C in raw milk, kills beneficial lactic-acid bacteria which help ward off pathogens while encouraging the growth of harmful bacteria. The pasteurization also makes insoluble the major part of the calcium contained in raw milk, leading to bad teeth, nervous system problems, and rickets. And with the loss of phosphorus associated with calcium, bone and brain formation suffer serious setbacks.

You can learn more about the benefits of raw milk by visiting the following websites: www.Realmilk.com , www.Raw-Milk-Facts.com

Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com

Police Prepare For Marijuana Decriminalization

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:08:45 GMT

10:02 a.m. EDT, July 1, 2011

As of today, getting caught with less than half an ounce of marijuana no longer gets you a ride in the back seat of a police car. Instead, people older than 21 caught with up to the equivalent of about 30 joints will be issued the equivalent of a traffic ticket that carries a $150 fine. People 21 and younger will get the same ticket, but also face a 60-day driver’s license suspension. Fines for subsequent offenses range from $200 to $500. People with three or more offenses are required to obtain drug counseling at their own expense. Some things won’t change, though. Police will still conduct field tests to determine whether that “green leafy” material they’ve found is marijuana. If it is, they’ll seize it and hold onto it as evidence until the case is resolved, then destroy it. Some departments have bought portable scales to help officers determine whether they’re dealing with a crime or an infraction when they find marijuana. But in most cases, police will simply apply their experience. “You can pretty much eyeball it,” said Vernon police Capt. Stephen Clark. “Most experienced officers can tell what’s under half an ounce.” “It’s simply procedural,” said Farmington police Lt. William Tyler. “If they have good identification at the scene, they’ll be written a ticket at the scene.” But with anything new, there is uncertainty. Finding marijuana is often a first step in an investigation and allows police to search a car or a person for evidence of other crimes.

For now, that will likely continue in Connecticut. After marijuana was decriminalized in Massachusetts, the commonwealth’s Supreme Court ruled that the smell of marijuana was no longer enough to give officers probable cause to search a suspect or their car.

“In many, many cases, it’s your foot in the door,” West Hartford police Chief James Strillacci said. “You stop somebody, you roll down the window, you smell the marijuana. One thing leads to another and before you know it you find you’ve got stolen goods in the car [or] evidence of another crime.” “It’s going to make for some interesting case law,” Strillacci said. Clark said the law’s true impact will evolve as cases wind their way through the courts. Tyler said he doesn’t anticipate a problem. “A car search is based on odor,” he said. “A car will still be searched because an odor doesn’t indicate if it’s less than half an ounce.” Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane said he expects a smooth transition to the new law. And prosecutors will be available to guide police as issues arise. “I think it will shake out,” he said. The new law has little impact for people 18 and younger. They’ll be referred to juvenile authorities if caught with marijuana.

Marijuana smokers too silent about support for Marijuana Prohibition repeal

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:08:30 GMT

Submitted by Anissa Ford on 2011-07-01

It’s not likely that the hundreds and thousands, if not millions of marijuana smokers in the United States are emailing their elected officials in support of bill HR 2306 to repeal marijuana prohibition.

Left Action, a progressive group with a moderate Facebook following of almost 250,000, ran its campaign on Wednesday. Left Action urged followers to write their congress people in support of HR 2306. While a little over 1,000 “liked” the post, not even 200 people have posted their thoughts since Wednesday. NORML did the same and garnered a similar tepid response, despite more than 300,000 followers.Marijuana and its use have separated families and friends and the legal ramifications of possession have sent marijuana smokers deep underground and away from legalities and constitutional representatives.

And those who did post support for the bill expressed stern disbelief that the bill will meet with success. Repealing the prohibition of marijuana, at a time when a few states have welcomed marijuana into the medical community as a viable healer of depression, anxiety, cancer symptoms, glaucoma, insomnia, chronic arthritis and other ailments both physical and psychological, brings with it a host of positives and negatives.

In many places, marijuana possession is decriminalized whereas possession under an ounce merits no jail time and is of the lowest priority for police. Oregon was the first state to decriminalize weed in 1972. California, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, have decriminalized marijuana on a statewide basis. Other states have decriminalized marijuana by counties.

HR 2306 is a federal conversation on decriminalization introduced by Barney Frank and Ron Paul. For now, the bill is intriguing and discussion worthy because it unites Republicans and Democrats on a single issue.

Advocates of prohibition repeal argue that marijuana, unlike alcohol, has not been linked to the 76,000 deaths the way alcohol has. The war against marijuana alone, costs $42 billion dollar, much of that money goes toward enforcing laws against its use. Advocates say the money would be better spent paying for laid off teachers across the nation.

It’s become clear that Mexican drug lords are raking up billions in money from marijuana’s prohibition. Furthermore, the disproportionate arrests of blacks and Latinos. In turn, the arrests of minority members in the US for marijuana decrease the ability of states to increase minority representation in higher education.

HR 2306 is sponsored by Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank and Texas Republican Ron Paul along with Reps. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.).

Marijuana reform groups are urging citizens to write to their representatives in support of HR 2306 by clicking here and leaving a message at the end of the blog.

Follow HULIQ On Twitter! E-mail us news tips at info@huliq.com

Obama Admin Announces More Aggressive Attacks on Medical Marijuana - Seattle News

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:31:17 GMT

By Curtis Cartier Fri., Jul. 1 2011 at 8:00 AM

Categories: Marijuana

Incoming Deputy U.S. Attorney James Cole is trying to call a mulligan on a major memo released by his predecessor David Ogden. That memo, which essentially promises states that Uncle Sam won’t arrest medical-marijuana growers, providers or regulators, so long as they comply with state laws, needs to be “clarified,” Cole says.

The clarification: All that we-won’t-arrest-you stuff was actually bullshit.

From a new memo written by Cole and released Thursday:

“Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law.”

Cole goes on to essentially say that what was supposedly intended to give the OK to a very few small-scale state-run medical-cannabis operations has turned into a monster of sixteen states with laws on the books, large scale cultivation facilities, and pot-smoking chaos abounding.

In promising to prosecute anyone the department deems has crossed the vague line in the sand that Cole and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has drawn, Cole won’t even guarantee that state workers will be immune from prosecution for overseeing the medical pot trade.

This compared to Ogden’s memo, which said among other things:

As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources.

And yet Department of Justice Spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler insists to the AP that that Cole’s memo isn’t a departure from Ogen’s and that the government hasn’t changed its policy, only “clarified” it.

So now not only do we have federal officials who are going back on their word about a hugely important issue, but they seem to treating people like they’re too stupid to remember what was said in the first place.

Does the New Medical Marijuana Memo Signal Tolerance for Small Dispensaries? - Hit & Run

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:23:29 GMT

Jacob Sullum | July 1, 2011

The Newark Star-Ledger puts a positive spin on the Justice Department's new medical marijuana memo, saying it means "New Jersey's medical marijuana program is not likely to run afoul of federal law if its operation is kept small and controlled and doesn't allow growers to create 'industrial marijuana cultivation centers.'" Gov. Chris Christie, who since taking office has been dragging his feet on implementation of New Jersey's medical marijuana law (which was signed by his predecessor, Jon Corzine, after the election), lately has been citing the threat of federal prosecution as an excuse. Roseanne Scotti, New Jersey director of the Drug Policy Alliance, tells the Star-Ledger the memo shows there is no reason for further delay:

This is laying out explicitly who is at risk. If you are planning on growing tens of thousands of plants and making millions of dollars, you are going to be under the purview of federal law enforcement. That is not what is planned for New Jersey.

I would implore Governor Christie — beg Governor Christie — to move forward with this program with all possible speed.

As much as I agree with Scotti that Christie should do his job, which includes executing laws passed by the state legislature, I can't share her sanguine view of the memo. The author, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, does express concern about large-scale, commercial operations:

Within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately-operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.

But Cole never suggests that small-scale and/or noncommercial dispensaries will be tolerated. In fact, he explicitly repudiates the notion that the Obama administration's forbearance goes beyond "individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law" and their "caregivers," defined as "individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana."

Cole also says nothing to alleviate the concern, cited by Christie, that state employees could be prosecuted for licensing and regulating dispensaries. Instead he reinforces that fear, saying people "who knowingly facilitate" the distribution of medical marijuana "are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law," and "are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution."

Does this mean the DEA will be raiding every dispensary, including small-scale, nonprofit ones? No. So far it has not raided any dispensaries that were explicitly authorized by state law (as opposed to dispensaries that operate in a legal gray area created by unclear rules for supplying medical marijuana in states such as California). And it has always focused on bigger, more profitable operations in drug cases, leaving the rest to the states. As the DOJ keeps emphasizing, the feds have limited resources, and enforcement of marijuana prohibition is handled mainly by the states. Furthermore, it is hard to see what legal theory could be used to prosecute state employees who oversee a dispensary system unless they directly grow, handle, or distribute marijuana. In any case, busting state-licensed dispensaries or hassling state regulators would create big political headaches for the Obama administration.

If I had to guess, I'd say these things probably won't happen. But the Cole memo offers no assurances on that score. Obstructionist governors such as Christie, Arizona's Jan Brewer, and Washington's Christine Gregoire, who claim to be worried about federal prosecution, can cite the new memo to back up their position. At the same time, governors who are braver or more sympathetic to medical marijuana, such as Vermont's Peter Shumlin or Delaware's Jack Markell, can use Scotti's interpretation of the memo to argue that the risk is small. In short, the Obama administration is so vague, evasive, inconsistent, and dishonest on this subject that you might as well ignore what it says.

[Thanks to Richard Cowan for the tip.]

Reason needs your support. Please donate today

Montana judge blocks new curbs on medical marijuana

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:07:14 GMT

By Emilie Ritter

HELENA, Montana | Fri Jul 1, 2011 12:45am EDT

HELENA, Montana (Reuters) - A judge has blocked parts of a Montana law that would have imposed tough new restrictions on state-sanctioned medical marijuana suppliers starting on Friday.

In a preliminary injunction issued on Thursday, state District Judge James Reynolds in Helena ruled those limits would effectively deny access to pot for many patients entitled to use it under the state’s 7-year-old medical marijuana statute.

Reynolds said in his 15-page ruling that he was refraining from making a judgment about whether marijuana has medical benefits, noting that issue already had been decided by Montana voters and the state Legislature.

Instead, he said provisions of the law passed earlier this year to overhaul the original voter-approved 2004 ballot measure legalizing pot for medicinal purposes went too far.

Reynolds specifically blocked provisions outlawing any profits in the supply of medical marijuana, including a ban on growers charging customers to recoup the cost of cultivation and a ban on advertising and promotion of medicinal pot.

He also barred enforcement of sections of the new law limiting cultivation to no more than three patients per supplier.

“The court is unaware of and has not been shown where any person in any other licensed and lawful industry in Montana — be he a barber, an accountant, a lawyer or a doctor — who, providing a legal product or service, is denied the right to charge for that service or is limited in the number of people he or she can serve,” Reynolds wrote.

He added that such restrictions “will certainly limit the number of willing providers and will thereby deny the access of Montanans otherwise eligible for medical marijuana to this legal product and thereby deny these persons this fundamental right of seeking their health in a lawful manner.”

A spokesman for the Montana attorney general did not return calls seeking comment.

Supporters of the new law said it was designed to close loopholes in the original 2004 statute they said are being exploited by some as a pretext for recreational pot smoking and large-scale drug trafficking.

But medical marijuana advocates who challenged the measure in court said the regulatory reform was deliberately crafted to make it unworkable, calling it a repeal attempt in disguise.

Governor Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, vetoed an outright repeal bill sent to him by the Republican-controlled legislature in April. But the regulatory overhaul he allowed to become law without his signature.

The number of Montana residents carrying cards allowing them to lawfully possess and use pot for treatment of one ailment or another has jumped from 4,000 in 2009 to nearly 30,000 this year.

Meanwhile, medical pot-growing facilities and dispensaries, many of them operating under one roof, have swelled to more than 4,800 statewide, according to the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services.

All have operated with little state control other than a quota that limits them to six plants per patient.

Although cannabis is still considered an illegal narcotic under federal law, 15 states and the District of Columbia have statutes making marijuana legal for medical purposes.

(Additional reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis; Writing by Steve Gorman; Editing by Peter Bohan)

Why Barney Frank and Ron Paul are wrong on drug legalization

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:28:27 GMT

By William J. Bennett, CNN Contributor

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Some want to end the “war on drugs” and legalize marijuana, says William J. Bennett
They come from left and right, but it’s still a bad idea, Bennett says
Keeping drugs illegal is one of the best ways to keep drugs away from children, he says
Bennett: Marijuana is more potent and causes more damage than we used to know

Editor’s note: William J. Bennett is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute. He was U.S. secretary of education from 1985 to 1988 and was director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush.

(CNN) — From certain precincts on the left, notably Barney Frank, to certain precincts on the right, notably the editorial page of National Review, we are witnessing a new push to end the so-called war on drugs and legalize drug use, starting with marijuana. Indeed, Ron Paul, Barney Frank’s co-sponsor in the latest legislative effort, said recently he would go so far as to legalize heroin.

It’s a bad idea. My friends at National Review begin their case by stating the illegalization of drugs has “curtailed personal freedom, created a violent black market and filled our prisons.” But the legalization of drugs, including marijuana, would exacerbate each of these problems.

Ron Paul, Barney Frank: End pot prohibition

Starting with the basics, keeping drugs illegal is one of the best ways to keep drugs out of the hands — and brains — of children. We know three things here: First, children who don’t use drugs continually tell us one of the reasons they don’t is precisely because they are illegal.

For example, since at least 1975, report after report has found that “perceptions of the risk and social disapproval of drug use correlate very closely with drug taking behavior.” When those in the drug prevention community ask teens who don’t use drugs why they don’t, time and again, the answer comes back “because it’s illegal.” This, of course, explains why a greater percentage of teens abuse legal substances like tobacco and alcohol over illegal drugs such as marijuana — even when they say marijuana is easily accessible.

Second, keeping drugs out of the hands of children is the best way to prevent drug addiction generally, as study after study has confirmed that if we keep a child drug free until age 21, the chances of use in adulthood are next to zero.

Third, we don’t need to guess at hypothetical legalization schemes. Our experience with legally prescribed narcotics has already proven it, and we now have an epidemic. This, despite doing everything the theorists have asked, from oversight to regulation to prescription requirements.

‘

Shut up!’ as marijuana debate heats up

RELATED TOPICS

Normalizing, de-stigmatizing, and legalizing illegal drugs lowers their price and increases their use. As a recent RAND study on California found, legalization of marijuana there would cut the price by as much as 80% and increase use from as little as 50% to as much as 100%. Just what California, just what our society, needs.

As for the current drug policies curtailing personal freedom, the question is: “Whose freedom?” The drug dealers’, sure — the drug consumers, no.

As any parent with a child addicted to drugs will explain, as any visit to a drug rehab center will convey, those caught in the web of addiction are anything but free. And it is not because of their incarceration or rehabilitation, it is because of the vicious cycle of dependency, waste and brain damage addiction and abuse cause.

Let us make no mistake about this, either: Marijuana is much more potent and causes much more damage than we used to know. Today’s marijuana tests on average at more than 10% THC (the psychoactive ingredient). We are even seeing samples of more than 30% THC. This is compared to the relatively lower levels of THC most legalizing proponents were more familiar with in generations past (under 4% in the early 1980s, even lower in the 1960s).

Chronic adolescent marijuana use has been found to be associated with “poorer performance on thinking tasks, including slower psychomotor speed and poorer complex attention, verbal memory and planning ability.” We are seeing study after study finding adolescent marijuana use responsible for “disrupted brain development” in teens. Worse, we are seeing more and more studies showing teen marijuana use linked to psychosis.

As for the high incarceration rates for simple marijuana use and possession, it is a myth. As government documentation actually shows, over 97% of sentencing on federal marijuana-related charges is for trafficking, less than 2% is for simple possession. Indeed, the only National Review authority with federal prosecutorial experience that I know of backs this point up: “Actual enforcement is targeted at big distributors. People who merely possess drugs for personal use well know they are substantially safe no matter what the statutes say.”

We have had a fair amount of experience with legalization and decriminalization schemes. What are those communities now saying? Citizens are trying to put the genie back in the bottle, from Northern California (where residents have complained that medical marijuana has “spawned crime, drug cartels and teenage pot use”), to the Netherlands (where drug tourism, use by minors, and border trafficking has increased), to England (where apologies have been made for endorsing decriminalization in light of the subsequent growth of teen drug treatment needs), to Colorado (where easy access has increased demand, “made a mockery” of the legal system, and is increasingly endangering public safety).

We have an illegal drug abuse epidemic in this country and it has not been given enough attention. But the cultural messages, as much as the law, matter. When we unified on this, as we once did, drug use went down. When we let up, as we now have, use increases.

The libertarian experiment promoted as a novel theory by some will only make things worse. More legalization equals more damage, waste, crime and abuse. Not less. That is why it is no time to surrender.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of William J. Bennett.

Tell Attorney General Holder - Keep Obama’s Promise and Respect State Medical Marijuana Laws

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:53:12 GMT

By: Brian Sonenstein Tuesday June 21, 2011 10:02 am

Attorney General Eric Holder is set to “clarify” his department’s stance on state medical marijuana laws in light of an increasing number of raids and threats against patients, caregivers and even state employees.

Shortly after President Obama took office in 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder issued his now infamous “Ogden memo.” In this memo, Holder ordered US Attorneys General to stop federal prosecutions of patients and caregivers in states where medical marijuana has been legalized.

But in recent months, these same US AG’s have unleashed an intense campaign of violence and intimidation on patients and caregivers. It seems as though, despite Holder’s clear directive two years ago, federal prosecutors are either confused about the department’s stance or have gone completely rogue.

The stories won’t stop piling up: the 26 year old Iraq War veteran gunned down by a SWAT team in Arizona during a botched raid in which no illegal evidence was uncovered; 28 raids in under 24 hours across Montana and California, crippling businesses and putting patients’ health and well-being in danger; threats to prosecute state employees for doing their jobs and implementing state law; and on, and on, and on.

These unfortunate events have begun to have a chilling effect on marijuana reform. In Washington, Governor Chris Gregoir has vetoed a bill for medical marijuana dispensaries, and in New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie is refusing to implement his state’s medical marijuana law — all due to the kinds of threats and intimidation coming from US Attorneys General.

But Holder’s silence surrounding these events has raised some alarming questions. Does Holder lack control over his prosecutors? Or is he quietly supporting their militant campaigns from the sidelines?

Hopefully, those questions will be answered as Holder is set to “clarify” his department’s stance on state medical marijuana laws as soon as today. Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Jared Polis have sent a letter urging the administration to respect state medical marijuana laws and stick to the language and intent of their 2009 memo.

We’re urging AG Holder to respect state law, too, with a petition that demands he honor Obama’s commitment to medical marijuana patients and put an end to federal raids and intimidation.

Click here to read the full letter and add your name.

Stay tuned for more information on AG Holder’s statement, possibly later this afternoon.

Sorry but the comments are closed on this post

MyFDL

Social Web
E-mail

The Way Forward

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:43:26 GMT

The Mexican army shows off a drug-trafficking suspect with his cash at the military headquarters in Tijuana / Shaul Schwarz / Reportage by Getty Images

Since time immemorial, Mexicans have argued that were it not for U.S. demand for illicit substances, Mexico would have a manageable drug problem. More recently, we have also contended that absent the U.S.’s laxity on arms sales and its tolerance for the possession of extraordinarily dangerous weapons, the violence in our country would not be what it has become. Lately our leaders have added a new gripe: Americans are hypocrites because they support prohibitionist and costly drug-enforcement policies — yet, through the specious fallacy of medical marijuana, are legalizing drugs without saying so.

Needless to say, these three points are absolutely valid, true, irrefutable … and futile. They are the equivalent of believing that flowers and fruits would thrive in the desert if only it rained. They would, but it won’t. Americans have not, and will not, reduce their overall consumption of drugs; they will not repeal the Second Amendment or reinstate the assault-weapons ban, which was introduced in 1994 and lapsed 10 years later; and the case against hypocrisy has always been overstated. (Read about Mexico’s Deadly Knights Templar.)

When Barack Obama met Mexican President Felipe Calderón recently, he is said to have told him that U.S. drug consumption has dropped over the past 40 years and that the U.S. jails more people for drug-related offenses than any other wealthy country, by far.

Unfortunately, on the second point, Obama was right. The first point is more debatable. After Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971, U.S. consumption jumped through the late ’70s and dropped slightly in the early ’80s. Since the mid-’90s, overall demand has remained constant.

On weapons, there are two problems in addition to futile Mexican posturing. First, firepower is fungible. Even granting that most arms used in Mexico come from the U.S. (in fact, only the traceable ones do), there is no reason to suppose that if they stopped moving south, other sources and suppliers would not fill the void. Otherwise, the abundance of guns in countries from Brazil to Afghanistan would be inexplicable.

Most important, though, violence in Mexico did not increase when, in 2004, the assault-weapons ban expired and George W. Bush declined to resubmit it to Congress. (Obama hasn’t either.) Willful homicide and every other form of crime had been diminishing in Mexico since the early 1990s and continued to do so until late 2007, precisely when Calderón’s war on drugs went into high gear. As for medical marijuana, it is quite true that its use in most U.S. states amounts to legalization without admitting it. There is nothing wrong with this, although full-fledged legalization of marijuana production, commerce and consumption would be better. But if U.S. society feels more comfortable with the hypocritical regulation of pot and other drugs, so be it. What is the point of Mexicans’ lecturing Americans about this, other than scoring debating points? (See pictures of a Mexican drug gang’s “holy war.”)

In fact, the U.S. seems to be doing just fine with its current drug policies, cynical as they may be. Violent and property-related crimes are at their lowest levels in 40 years. The recession has not brought an increase in crime. So Mexico is not only barking up the wrong tree; mixing metaphors, it is also asking the U.S. to fix something that isn’t broken. Perhaps another Mexican approach and a different U.S. policy might be more productive.

What would such an approach and policy entail? First, it would mean that instead of the U.S. pouring money into Mexico’s military-based drug war, there would be far greater funding for the construction of a single national police force, as in Chile or Colombia, in contrast to the present broken system in which the police are under the control of state and municipal governments. Taken seriously, such a policy would include U.S. trainers and advisers in Mexico — a risky proposition but one that many polls suggest Mexicans would support. Next, the U.S. could give far greater assistance and technical help in building (finally — it has never existed) a functional justice system in Mexico, with oral trials, an independent prosecution structure and a federalization of the criminal code, a necessary corollary to a national police force. (See the top 10 notorious Mexican drug lords.)

Finally, such a policy would include a far more receptive attitude in Washington to the case for legalization. Just weeks ago, the Global Commission on Drug Policy restated its views: the war on drugs has failed and cannot be won, and legalization should be seriously considered. Prominent Americans like Paul Volcker and George Shultz support that position; so do former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, together with ex-Presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso, César Gaviria and Ernesto Zedillo, as well as Latin American celebrities like Mario Vargas Llosa and Carlos Fuentes. Wouldn’t it be nice — as the Beach Boys once sang — if Obama paid attention to all of them, and to his predecessor Jimmy Carter, and looked at this option carefully instead of dismissing it out of hand?

Castañeda, a former Mexican Foreign Minister, is the author of Mañana Forever? Mexico and the Mexicans and teaches at New York University

Video: Singing Songs of Drug Violence.

Read about the ‘Caravan of Solace’ march against the drug war.

Montana judge not that happy with new medical marijuana laws

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:24:08 GMT

By Scot Kersgaard | 06.28.11 | 11:20 am

As Montana’s medical marijuana law is set to be constricted to the point where almost no one will have access to it, hope is rising that a judge may strike at least parts of the law this week.

The law, as set to be implemented July 1, would restrict medical marijuana to those who can either grow their own or convince someone to grow it for them at no charge. A lawsuit filed by medical marijuana advocates to stop implementation of the law has been heard and all parties are waiting for the judge’s ruling, expected any time now.

From Forbes:

A Helena judge said (last) Wednesday that he is “struggling” with Montana’s new medical marijuana law and indicated he may temporarily block at least parts of it before it takes effect on July 1.

District Judge James Reynolds specifically mentioned concerns with a provision that bars commercial marijuana operations by prohibiting providers from making a profit or being reimbursed for their expenses.

Reynolds said the state doesn’t have a similar prohibition on pharmaceutical companies that profit from prescription drugs. But the new law would force marijuana providers to give their product away to people with debilitating illnesses, he said.

“The state is truly relying on guardian angels coming forward,” Reynolds said.

If the judge lets all or most of the new law stand, medical cannabis advocates have a back-up plan, which is to go back to the voters.

For now, Montanans are in limbo, with some dispensaries already cutting their losses and shitting down and others hanging in there in the fierce belief that the judge will strike down the new law.

While the Legislature declared the law was making marijuana too easy to get, the restrictions would make it difficult for some of the state’s sickest people to get the medicine.

Comments

New Direction for medical marijuana in state of Alabama - The Crimson White

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:14:47 GMT

June 29, 2011 12:10 AM CST

Ron Crumpton

Alabama Medical Marijuana Coalition is an organization dedicated to the rights of patients. Its primary focus is organizing individuals and groups in the common goal of changing the laws concerning medical marijuana for patients in Alabama. It is the position of the AMMJC that excessive government regulations infringe on the physician’s ability and the patient’s right to properly treat their ailment. It is our goal, through aggressive legislation, community involvement and education to end these infringements and protect the rights and liberties of all Alabama patients.

Alabama Medical Marijuana Coalition is not just a medical marijuana organization; we are a patient’s rights organization. It is our goal to work with other groups in our communities. We have supporters who suffer from cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, Crohn’s disease and a host of other illnesses and ailments. We will actively seek out these groups on both the state and local level and help them with their efforts in the community. Helping these groups reach their goals will benefit the people in our organization.

We are proud to announce that we will be presenting “The Alabama Medical Marijuana Patients Rights Act” to the Alabama Legislature in the next session, and we believe that it stands a good chance of becoming law in this state.

However, we cannot do this without support from the community. This true grassroots organization depends on its supporters to become involved in the organization. If you support this cause, we need you to stand up for those who are unable to stand up for themselves.

We will be holding meetings throughout the state of Alabama. Our next event will be the Germania Springs Picnic, which is to be held on July 16 at Germania Springs Park in Jacksonville, Ala.

We need the general public to attend meetings. We need you to write letters to your state legislators and local newspapers. We need you to talk to the people who have influence on your state legislators, your doctor, your pastor, your city and county elected representatives. To put it simply, we need you to get involved.

The problem with our cause is that people tend to think that this is a path to general legalization. That is not the case.

If you have seen a cancer patient suffering from complete loss of appetite eat, or you have seen a Multiple Sclerosis patient with uncontrollable tremors who then has those tremors practically vanish, then you understand why this medication is so important. Patients who suffer from chronic pain, post-traumatic stress disorder or any of the numerous other ailments and illnesses can be treated with this safe and effective medication.

When the government stands between a doctor and a patient, it limits the ability to treat their illness and is a violation of the fundamental rights that this country was built upon. If you have any doubt of this, you can listen to Thomas Jefferson, the founding father who said, “If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

It is time for us to stand up and save patients from that tyranny. Join us today.

Ron Crumpton is a student at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He is the executive director of the Alabama Medical Marijuana Coalition.

Short URL: http://cw.ua.edu/?p=19403

Disclaimer: The Crimson White reserves the right to delete any comments deemed spam, obscene or unnecessarily inflammatory. Users are encouraged to be respectful of the opinions of others and to flag inappropriate comments for moderation.

Man Must Choose Marijuana Or Daughter

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:57:51 GMT

A strange twist to the controversial medical marijuana law. A father is in jeopardy of losing custody of his 10-year-old daughter, all because he can legally smoke marijuana.

Livingston Thompson Jr. has epilepsy. He’s been dealing with it for 20 years. And according to him, nothing has really helped except for the marijuana.

“It relaxes me. I’m not as stressed. I discovered that my epileptic seizures — some of them are stress activated,” said Thompson.

But his medication of choice could cost him his daughter, Shylynn.

“If I lost custody of my daughter it would crush me. They’d probably see a lot more episodes.”

That’s something Shylnn can’t handle.

“If my daddy lost custody of me I’d be sad, just as sad as he would be if he lost cusody of me. Because my dad has had me for ten years. And I don’t want to lose my dad,” said Shylynn.

Last year, Thompson spanked his daughter and Child Protective Services was called. It was decided that Shylynn wasn’t in any danger and could return home; but, Thompson now has to get periodic drug testing.

“I explained to the judge that should be modified because my client has a medical marijuana card,” said attorney Charles Ford.

The judge has decided that marijuana is not the best treatment for his epilepsy. And, that it’s in the best interest of the child that the parents are drug free. But the bigger question here is, with a state law that’s so unclear, could other parents fall into the same situation?

“If he tested positive there’s a strong possibility that he could lose his child,” said Ford.

Thompson says this is a fight he can’t afford to lose.

“I don’t want to lose my family,” said Shylynn.

Thompson can choose to appeal the judge’s decision. He can make the case that his medical marijuana does not impair his judgment as a father and that he needs it for his medical condition. If he doesn’t appeal, then he has to stop using, otherwise she could be taken from the household. An appeal would be precedent-setting because this is really the first time a judge has interpreted the law like this. If the decision stands, then similar cases could have the same outcome

###

Results from the High Times Medical Cannabis Cup 2011

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:59:16 GMT

PIX OF THE CROP - 4.12.11

Lounge

HIGH TIMES Medical Cannabis Cup in San Francisco - Results

Mon, Jun 27, 2011 4:22 am

Here are the official results from the Medical Cannabis Cup in San Francisco – June 25 & 26:

EDIBLES CUP

1st Place – Greenway Compassionate Relief’s Baklava

2nd Place – Bhang Chocolate’s Bhang Chocolate Triple Strength Fire Bar

3rd Place – Vapor Room Co-operative, Om Chocolate Dipped Peanut Butter Truffle

CBD AWARD

1st Place – Master Control Unit Collective, Alaskan Thunderfuck (9.23%)

2nd Place – Elemental Wellness, Center, Jamaican Lion (8.10%)

BEST NON-Solvent Hash

1st Place – Florin Wellness Center, Herojuana

CONCENTRATES CUP

1st Place – Philips Rx, Mars OG

2nd Place – Berkeley Patients Group, Sour Diesel Wax

3rd Place – The Cali Connection Seed Company Collective, Regulator Kush Wax

HYBRID CUP

1st Place – D & M Compassion Center, OG Kush

2nd Place – Buds & Roses, Star Dawg

3rd Place – Leonard Moore Co-Operative, The Pure

INDICA CUP

1st Place – Harborside Health Center (San Jose), Boggle Gum

2nd Place – Elemental Wellness Center, The True OG

3rd Place – 7 Stars Holistic Healing Center, 7 Star Pure Kush

SATIVA CUP

1st Place – Granddaddy Purple Collective, Bay 11

2nd Place – OrganiCann, Alpha Blue

3rd Place – Happy Lil’ Trees, Sonoma Coma

Smoking Pot Is Good For Moms

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:52:54 GMT

It seems like everything that we moms do is subject to intense scrutiny and judged by the “good-mom-eter.” If we dare stray from the straight and narrow we are automatically cast aside as evil women who are neglectful at best, abusive for sure and likely to end up having to pay for years of therapy.

This makes the moms in last week’s New York Post article who admitted to smoking pot regularly particularly brave. Of course, they did not use their names. The fact is, in certain circles, it is perfectly acceptable for mom to drink wine at play-dates, have a cocktail with dinner or some beer after the kids are in bed.

But pot? No way. Only “bad moms” do that! Not so.

Aside from being illegal, pot is actually much safer than alcohol. The statistics don’t lie. Despite marijuana’s legal status, 16.7 million people over the age of 12 smoked pot at least once in the month prior to taking a survey from the US Department of Health and Human Services. That is up 8 percent from the previous year.

As pot grows in popularity, so too does the truth about it, which is that really, as a drug, its effects are no worse than wine or beer or tequila. If mommy can drink booze, mommy can toke, too.

Now, obviously, sharing marijuana with children or doing it in front of them is a big no-no. But the chronic is famous for taking the edge off in a way that liquor just can not. For a busy mom whose stress level is incredibly high, a couple hits in the evening when the kids are well cared for is probably no big deal.

Oh, I know. So shocking. Unless mommy is harboring an addiction and can’t get out of bed in the morning, then I say more power to her. If she wants to forgo a glass of vino and take a couple hits off a joint instead, who are we to judge?

Generally speaking many moms need to lighten up. And maybe lighting up is just the way to get there. Look, drugs are bad. I know. I am not suggesting that moms encourage their kids to light up or that they engage in illegal behavior in front of them. But if a mom can handle it in moderation and it is not harming her or her relationship with her kids, then what is the problem?

Do you find this wrong?

Image via Torben Bjørn Hansen/Flickr

About the author Sasha Brown-Worsham

can’t decide whether she is a mother, writer or runner, but is usually all three at some point each day. She has written for dozens of print magazines, newspapers, and websites. She rarely ever writes on bathroom walls.

Facebook 'Weeds Social Club' Game Lets You Sell Virtual Pot

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:41:54 GMT

Forget about watering the zucchini: A new game for Facebook will let you tend your marijuana plants instead.

Launched on June 27 to coincide with the season premiere of hit Showtime series “Weeds,” the “Weeds Social Club” game will let eager fans and pot-curious users buy, plant, and sell different strains of marijuana.

In the game, players can visit different locations to buy different kinds of pot, such as “Jamaican Ganja” or “Schwag Weed.” Users plant their purchased seeds, raise the seedlings and harvest a mature crop. Then, users set prices for their pot and send it along to a hoodie-clad dealer to distribute the goods. Players can even buy bongs, televisions, and other accessories. As with Facebook’s other successful games, players can also spend real-world money to buy digital game points.

Businessweek reports that players will receive game tips from Andy Botwin, a character from the “Weeds” show. The game may also become a testing ground for new characters and plot points that could air on television.

“In the social realm, it’s a living, breathing experience,” Curt Marvis, producer of Weeds, told Businessweek, “one where you get a fan base of engaged users.”

“Weeds Social Club” won’t be the first Facebook app that turns drug dealing into a gaming experience. The old-school “Dope Wars,” a discontinued Zynga game, let users sell cocaine, heroin, acid, speed and quaaludes, as well as marijuana.

The “Weeds” game has been approved by Facebook, and its creators say it does not break any laws. The game’s developer, Ecko Code, also plans to launch more games based on other Showtime hits, including “Dexter.”

Judge has concerns over medical marijuana reform law - Hungry Horse News

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:50:15 GMT

By RICHARD HANNERS Hungry Horse News Hagadone Corporation

With restrictive state regulations set to go into effect July 1, the medical marijuana industry seems to be making headway in its lawsuit to block the new law. Meanwhile, three medical marijuana providers whose businesses were raided this spring were arraigned in federal court in Missoula.

In an effort to block the new medical marijuana laws, the Montana Cannabis Industry Association sued the state in district court in Helena claiming the law violates patients’ right to pursue good health.

With more than 30,000 registered medical marijuana users, Montana has one of the highest adult-user rates among the 15 states that allow medical marijuana use. Feeling the industry had grown out of control since the voters approved medical marijuana use in a 2004 initiative, the Montana Legislature enacted stricter regulations that included a provision that stops providers from making a profit or being reimbursed for their expenses.

When questioned by the Montana Cannabis Industry Association’s attorney, James Goetz, the top medical marijuana regulator for the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Service said the new law was difficult but not impossible to interpret and had unintended consequences. Roy Kemp noted that under the new law, for example, a husband could not grow medical marijuana for his sick, card-carrying wife if they lived under the same roof.

The right to health care does not give patients an unregulated scope of options, Assistant Montana Attorney General Jim Molloy said, pointing out that marijuana is still an illegal drug under federal law. He also said blocking the law would create unintended consequences.

As the three-day hearing closed on June 22, District Court Judge James Reynolds cited concerns he had with the new law and said he would issue a decision before July. Reynolds specifically pointed to the provision barring profits by commercial medical marijuana businesses. A similar provision does not exist for prescription drug manufacturers, he said.

The very next day, in federal court in Missoula, three medical marijuana providers were arraigned on identical charges of manufacturing marijuana, distribution of marijuana, possession of marijuana and money laundering. Each faced a mandatory five year federal prison sentence and up to 40 years in prison and a $5 million fine.

Jason Burns, 40, and Jesse Leland, 40, both of Helena, operated the Queen City Caregivers business in Helena. Joshua Schultz, 38, of Helena, operated Natural Medicine, in Great Falls. All three pleaded not guilty.

Their businesses were among 26 businesses across the state raided by federal agents and local law enforcement in March and April. Locally search warrants were executed in Columbia Falls, Whitefish and Olney. Thousands of marijuana plants, hundreds of kilograms of marijuana, cash, weapons and vehicles were seized in the raids. About a quarter of the state’s medical marijuana businesses closed following the raids.

“Marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled narcotic in the United States,” Michael Cotter, U.S. Attorney for the District of Montana, said about the June 23 arraignments. “Today’s indictment is a step toward ensuring the alleged large-scale distribution of the addictive and dangerous gateway drug of marijuana is curtailed in the state of Montana.”

Posted in Hungryhorsenews, News on Monday, June 27, 2011 2:19 pm.

###

Homegrown MMJ isn't staying at home - marijuana, department, memo

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:27:01 GMT

JERILEE BENNETT, THE GAZETTE FILE

Colorado Springs Police investigate several marijuana plants in a back yard of a home October 10, 2010.

Pot cops, state taking on new roles in policing marijuana industry

Homegrown isn’t staying at home

June 27, 2011 5:47 PM

JAKOB RODGERS

THE GAZETTE

Incomplete paperwork. Expired licenses. Too many marijuana plants for the number of patients registered with a grower.

Those have been the major issues in policing the burgeoning medical marijuana industry in Colorado Springs in the years since a U.S. Justice Department memo all but removed the threat of federal prosecution.

That’s about to change in a few days, when state regulators step into the void created by the Justice Department memo and begin enforcing a slew of new regulations Friday amid suspicions that homegrown medicinal marijuana isn’t staying at home.

Investigators have uncovered evidence that marijuana grown under the guise of supplying local dispensaries and patients has been shipped to at least five other states for sale on the black market, said Sgt. Brett Poole, who oversees Colorado Springs police detectives regulating the industry.

The Colorado Springs Police Department is investigating six cases of marijuana being shipped through FedEx and UPS to Arizona, Florida, Kansas, South Carolina and West Virginia, Poole said last week.

Authorities in those states intercepted the packages and contacted detectives in Colorado Springs, where they originated, Poole said. He characterized the shipment sent to Arizona as “high grade medical marijuana.”

The illegal shipments up the ante in what had largely been waged as a guerrilla war, with police occasionally raiding grow operations they said weren’t following the law and the growers claiming police were trying to shut them down through harassment.

“We want the legal businesses to do what they’re supposed to do,” said Sgt. Darrin Abbink, Colorado Springs police spokesman. “But there are people who are going to try to use it to do illegal activities.”

Police officials caution that the exact relationship between state and local authorities has yet to be finalized.

But, there’s no doubt police and state regulators will be kept busy ensuring compliance with licensing rules and investigating reports of illegal growing operations.

Since 2010, VNI detectives have fielded more than a dozen complaints a month regarding medical marijuana, Poole said.

The constant stream of calls prompted police to ask City Council last fall for $331,000 to fund a pot cop task force this year with three detectives and a code enforcement officer.

The department got half of what it asked for — two detectives, Poole said.

He’s since assigned detectives from elsewhere in VNI to help the two pot cops, who have been investigating medicinal marijuana being sold illegally out of state, as well as houses being “completely modified” to grow substantial amounts of marijuana, Poole said.

“There’s two parts to the industry,” Poole said. “One part is based on the state model for dispensaries and commercial grows. The other part of the industry is trying to grow under the guise of the caregiver model.”

Poole would not say whether anyone has been arrested in connection with the out-of-state marijuana shipments, and declined to offer details about the operations, saying the investigation is ongoing.

He also wouldn’t say how many “grow houses,” police have busted or how much marijuana was found at each site.

While police focus more on the illegal sale of marijuana, a host of investigators will be dispatched in the coming month to check grow licenses, zoning requirements and other requirements spelled out in a 73-page booklet of state-imposed rules.

A team of three investigators, an auditor and a secretary based at a new Department of Revenue enforcement office in Colorado Springs will begin monitoring every medical marijuana center and grow site in southern Colorado, said Julie Postlethwait, Department of Revenue spokeswoman.

The team is paid for by thousands of dollars in fees marijuana business owners have had to pay recently, which have allowed the state to hire one investigator per every 10 medical marijuana centers, Postlethwait said.

The department plans to open the medical marijuana enforcement office in Colorado Springs sometime in July. An exact date hasn’t been set because no lease had been signed, said Postlethwait.

Triton Gulczymski, who owns Crossroads Medical Marijuana Center in Colorado Springs, said everyone — from regulators to marijuana growers — has struggled to meet Friday’s deadline.

He welcomes the regulations as they give his business a sense of legitimacy. But it’s cost him more than $10,000 in fees and security-system purchases, putting a strain on his business. And the mounds of paperwork, he said, have been exhausting.

He expects his business to be 80 percent compliant by then.

“They (regulatory officials) said as long as they see we’re attempting to be compliant, they’ll try to work with us,” Gulczymski said. “They’re still playing catch-up, for sure.”

The new regulations, though still a few days away from going into effect, have already thinned the ranks of medical marijuana businesses.

Poole said the city has received word from the owners of some medical marijuana centers and grow sites that they will be closing due to the regulations.

“The new regulations are very structured and (in some cases) will be difficult for most of the industry to follow,” Poole wrote in an email to The Gazette.

—

Call the writer at 476-1654.

###

Krokodil - The drug that eats junkies

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

By Shaun Walker

Wednesday, 22 June 2011

REUTERS

A heroin user prepares the drug in Zhukovsky, near Moscow

Oleg glances furtively around him and, confident that nobody is watching, slips inside the entrance to a decaying Soviet-era block of flats, where Sasha is waiting for him. Ensconced in the dingy kitchen of one of the apartments, they empty the contents of a blue carrier bag that Oleg has brought with him – painkillers, iodine, lighter fluid, industrial cleaning oil, and an array of vials, syringes, and cooking implements.

Half an hour later, after much boiling, distilling, mixing and shaking, what remains is a caramel-coloured gunge held in the end of a syringe, and the acrid smell of burnt iodine in the air. Sasha fixes a dirty needle to the syringe and looks for a vein in his bruised forearm. After some time, he finds a suitable place, and hands the syringe to Oleg, telling him to inject the fluid. He closes his eyes, and takes the hit.

Russia has more heroin users than any other country in the world – up to two million, according to unofficial estimates. For most, their lot is a life of crime, stints in prison, probable contraction of HIV and hepatitis C, and an early death. As efforts to stem the flow of Afghan heroin into Russia bring some limited success, and the street price of the drug goes up, for those addicts who can’t afford their next hit, an even more terrifying spectre has raised its head.

The home-made drug that Oleg and Sasha inject is known as krokodil, or “crocodile”. It is desomorphine, a synthetic opiate many times more powerful than heroin that is created from a complex chain of mixing and chemical reactions, which the addicts perform from memory several times a day. While heroin costs from £20 to £60 per dose, desomorphine can be “cooked” from codeine-based headache pills that cost £2 per pack, and other household ingredients available cheaply from the markets.

It is a drug for the poor, and its effects are horrific. It was given its reptilian name because its poisonous ingredients quickly turn the skin scaly. Worse follows. Oleg and Sasha have not been using for long, but Oleg has rotting sores on the back of his neck.

“If you miss the vein, that’s an abscess straight away,” says Sasha. Essentially, they are injecting poison directly into their flesh. One of their friends, in a neighbouring apartment block, is further down the line.

“She won’t go to hospital, she just keeps injecting. Her flesh is falling off and she can hardly move anymore,” says Sasha. Photographs of late-stage krokodil addicts are disturbing in the extreme. Flesh goes grey and peels away to leave bones exposed. People literally rot to death.

Russian heroin addicts first discovered how to make krokodil around four years ago, and there has been a steady rise in consumption, with a sudden peak in recent months. “Over the past five years, sales of codeine-based tablets have grown by dozens of times,” says Viktor Ivanov, the head of Russia’s Drug Control Agency. “It’s pretty obvious that it’s not because everyone has suddenly developed headaches.”

Heroin addiction kills 30,000 people per year in Russia – a third of global deaths from the drug – but now there is the added problem of krokodil. Mr Ivanov recalled a recent visit to a drug-treatment centre in Western Siberia. “They told me that two years ago almost all their drug users used heroin,” said the drugs tsar. “Now, more than half of them are on desomorphine.”

He estimates that overall, around 5 per cent of Russian drug users are on krokodil and other home-made drugs, which works out at about 100,000 people. It’s a huge, hidden epidemic – worse in the really isolated parts of Russia where supplies of heroin are patchy – but palpable even in cities such as Tver.

It has a population of half a million, and is a couple of hours by train from Moscow, en route to St Petersburg. Its city centre, sat on the River Volga, is lined with pretty, Tsarist-era buildings, but the suburbs are miserable. People sit on cracked wooden benches in a weed-infested “park”, gulping cans of Jaguar, an alcoholic energy drink. In the background, there are rows of crumbling apartment blocks. The shops and restaurants of Moscow are a world away; for a treat, people take the bus to the McDonald’s by the train station.

In the city’s main drug treatment centre, Artyom Yegorov talks of the devastation that krokodil is causing. “Desomorphine causes the strongest levels of addiction, and is the hardest to cure,” says the young doctor, sitting in a treatment room in the scruffy clinic, below a picture of Hugh Laurie as Dr House.

“With heroin withdrawal, the main symptoms last for five to 10 days. After that there is still a big danger of relapse but the physical pain will be gone. With krokodil, the pain can last up to a month, and it’s unbearable. They have to be injected with extremely strong tranquilisers just to keep them from passing out from the pain.”

Dr Yegorov says krokodil users are instantly identifiable because of their smell. “It’s that smell of iodine that infuses all their clothes,” he says. “There’s no way to wash it out, all you can do is burn the clothes. Any flat that has been used as a krokodil cooking house is best forgotten about as a place to live. You’ll never get that smell out of the flat.”

Addicts in Tver say they never have any problems buying the key ingredient for krokodil – codeine pills, which are sold without prescription. “Once I was trying to buy four packs, and the woman told me they could only sell two to any one person,” recalls one, with a laugh. “So I bought two packs, then came back five minutes later and bought another two. Other than that, they never refuse to sell it to us, even though they know what we’re going to do with it.” The solution, to many, is obvious: ban the sale of codeine tablets, or at least make them prescription-only. But despite the authorities being aware of the problem for well over a year, nothing has been done.

President Dmitry Medvedev has called for websites which explain how to make krokodil to be closed down, but he has not ordered the banning of the pills. Last month, a spokesman for the ministry of health said that there were plans to make codeine-based tablets available only on prescription, but that it was impossible to introduce the measure quickly. Opponents claim lobbying by pharmaceutical companies has caused the inaction.

“A year ago we said that we need to introduce prescriptions,” says Mr Ivanov. “These tablets don’t cost much but the profit margins are high. Some pharmacies make up to 25 per cent of their profits from the sale of these tablets. It’s not in the interests of pharmaceutical companies or pharmacies themselves to stop this, so the government needs to use its power to regulate their sale.”

In addition to krokodil, there are reports of drug users injecting other artificial mixes, and the latest street drug is tropicamide. Used as eye drops by ophthalmologists to dilate the pupils during eye examinations, Dr Yegorov says patients have no trouble getting hold of capsules of it for about £2 per vial. Injected, the drug has severe psychiatric effects and brings on suicidal feelings.

“Addicts are being sold drugs by normal Russian women working in pharmacies, who know exactly what they’ll be used for,” said Yevgeny Roizman, an anti-drugs activist who was one of the first to talk publicly about the krokodil issue earlier this year. “Selling them to boys the same age as their own sons. Russians are killing Russians.”

Zhenya, quietly spoken and wearing dark glasses, agrees to tell his story while I sit in the back of his car in a lay-by on the outskirts of Tver. He managed to kick the habit, after spending weeks at a detox clinic ,experiencing horrendous withdrawal symptoms that included seizures, a 40-degree temperature and vomiting. He lost 14 teeth after his gums rotted away, and contracted hepatitis C.

But his fate is essentially a miraculous escape – after all, he’s still alive. Zhenya is from a small town outside Tver, and was a heroin addict for a decade before he moved onto krokodil a year ago. Of the ten friends he started injecting heroin with a decade ago, seven are dead.

Unlike heroin, where the hit can last for several hours, a krokodil high only lasts between 90 minutes and two hours, says Zhenya. Given that the “cooking” process takes at least half an hour, being a krokodil addict is basically a full-time job.

“I remember one day, we cooked for three days straight,” says one of Zhenya’s friends. “You don’t sleep much when you’re on krokodil, as you need to wake up every couple of hours for another hit. At the time we were cooking it at our place, and loads of people came round and pitched in. For three days we just kept on making it. By the end, we all staggered out yellow, exhausted and stinking of iodine.”

In Tver, most krokodil users inject the drug only when they run out of money for heroin. As soon as they earn or steal enough, they go back to heroin. In other more isolated regions of Russia, where heroin is more expensive and people are poorer, the problem is worse. People become full-time krokodil addicts, giving them a life expectancy of less than a year.

Zhenya says every single addict he knows in his town has moved from heroin to krokodil, because it’s cheaper and easier to get hold of. “You can feel how disgusting it is when you’re doing it,” he recalls. “You’re dreaming of heroin, of something that feels clean and not like poison. But you can’t afford it, so you keep doing the krokodil. Until you die.”

Some of the names in this story have been changed

Get updates on Twitter and Facebook

Follow @TheIndyNews

'Saltwater Cowboys' reunite, speak bluntly about drug smuggling past

Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:57:16 GMT

Daily News archive photo

This May 1978 photo from the Daily News archives shows officials gathering bales of marijuana - worth $2M dollars - dropped near Everglades City.

Saltwater Cowboys reunion where they talk 'bluntly' about smuggling pasts...

Drug smugglers, pot haulers, or Saltwater Cowboys: three names for nearly 200 Collier County residents arrested in the 1980s on charges related to marijuana and cocaine importation.

But Steve Whitlock and Tim McBride, who federal agents and local law enforcement caught in one of three massive operations from 1983 to 1989, said they have done their time behind bars and now want to publicly show what they accomplished in the decades since.

At a reunion of sorts, organized by McBride at Fred’s Diner in North Naples on Saturday night and attended by a dozen friends and family members, the pair sat beside each other and spoke candidly about the days of late-night runs through backwaters, payments so large the bills were weighed instead of counted, and the anxiety that went with smuggling tons of marijuana for years in their 20s.

Both now in their 50s, they said they have rebuilt their lives.

“It’s not a celebration of smuggling pot, patting ourselves on the back. It’s about who we are now,” said McBride, who wrote an as-yet unpublished book about his smuggling days.

Whitlock worked in construction and McBride in crabbing during their drug-hauling days. After their releases from prison in the early 1990s, Whitlock earned a bachelor’s degree from the Ringling College of Art and Design and became a successful marine illustrator based in Sarasota, while McBride stayed in the area to work in construction and raise his two daughters. He also now offers to do speaking engagements about “the plague of illegal drugs and the violent crime it breeds.”

There are regrets, surely. Pride isn’t a term associated with that part of their histories, they said. But Whitlock explained mounting debts at his plastering company in the mid-1980s that reached $60,000 gnawed at him.

“I had my back against the wall financially,” he said, seated at a table with a few other men who were also involved in smuggling, but were not caught.

“We weren’t stealing from people. We were importing a product, a commodity at the time,” Whitlock explained.

Operation Everglades in 1983 and 1984, and Operation Peacemaker in 1989, netted scores of area residents, from Chokoloskee to Naples, and more from around the state and southeastern U.S.

McBride and Whitlock were arrested for the same incident — a runoff of Pine Island in 1987 — on the charge of conspiracy to import marijuana. That was the last time they saw each other until 2010, when they ran into one another at a fishing store in Fort Myers. They stayed in touch, and are working on plans for a fishing tournament aimed at getting at-risk youth onto the water and out of trouble. It would be a dramatic shift from their first days on a boat together.

Early on, small fishing boats would make runs out to a “mothership” to offload the tons of marijuana, from Everglades City up to Fort Myers. Whitlock recalled a time when his 26-foot boat was so laden down with bales that he had to lay on top of them to drive.

Tom Smith, a former lieutenant who joined the Collier County Sheriff’s Office in 1977, described how drug running was a land, sea and air operation, with low flying planes dropping bushels of marijuana, crabbing and fishing boats hauling in tons off of ships, and U-Haul trucks filled bottom to top stopped on Alligator Alley en route to Miami.

“Through the mid-80s was the heyday of pot smuggling. It totally consumed a lot of the sheriff’s assets… it was a dangerous, dangerous time,” said Smith. There were makeshift runways illuminated by upward-pointing flashlights, and off of San Marco Road heading into Goodland, smugglers placed plywood sheets on top of mangrove roots so trucks could meet the boats.

Smith worked a case as a homicide investigator where two hit men from Miami came to Collier County looking to collect money from a drug deal. They carried two MAC 10 pistols with silencers.

“It was a pot deal that went bad, whereby they felt they had been ripped off and they came by to claim their money,” Smith recalled. Two people were killed.

“For anyone to think that the activities going on at that time were mild and had no criminal intent is flippant,” Smith said.

Maureen Sullivan-Hartung, former journalist with the Everglades Echo and author of “Hidden History of Everglades City & Points Nearby,” who attended Saturday’s reunion to research chapters for a second book about the area, had a different take.

“I think it’s fabulous that these guys, who have paid their debt to society, can reach out to see each other and catch up and see what changes each have made. These guys have really made a difference.”

###

For more photos click the 'Read Full Article' link below

5 Things Every Medical Marijuana Patient In Colorado Should Know

Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:11:22 GMT

5 Things Every Medical Marijuana Patient In Colorado Should Know

Joe | Jun 25, 2011 | Comments 0

As we have been reporting here at The 420 Times, there are many changes currently underway in the state of Colorado in regards to medical marijuana, and it’s hard for some to keep up. So we wanted to put together a list of some of the things patients in CO will need to know moving forward.

1) Starting at the end of July, medical marijuana caregivers will have to offer patients things like housekeeping, transportation, and meal preparation, causing more of a financial burden on caregivers, which will result in many of them going out of business.

2) Beginning July 1st, anyone not registered with the State will not be able to get their medicine from a medical marijuana center.

3) Registering your medical marijuana use with the state means your information and video recordings of your purchases will be shared with the CO Department of Revenue’s Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division and even worse, the DEA.

4) Under new rules, medical marijuana patients are not allowed to drive “under the influence” of medical marijuana, which means any blood THC content over zero. They are also not allowed to perform any task that could result in professional malpractice while “under the influence. ” Basically, medical marijuana patients are not allowed to work or drive.

5) More is coming. If politicians in Colorado have shown us anything, it’s a propensity to tinker with the state’s medical marijuana law. Hopefully someday full legalization will come to Colorado, and instead of constantly bickering over MMJ, Colorado lawmakers can start bickering over rules and regulations for recreational use.

- Joe Klare with an assist from Old Hippie

Medical pot providers face conspiracy charges

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:31:29 GMT

Medical pot providers face conspiracy charges

The Billings Gazette | Posted: Thursday, June 23, 2011 5:30 pm |

ELIZA WILEY/Helena Independent Record

Federal agents from the DEA, FBI and ATF tore through Montana Cannabis’ greenhouses in Helena on Monday March 14, 2011, destroying all the plants and medicine within a half-hour.

HELENA - Three medical marijuana providers were arraigned Wednesday in the first criminal case stemming from a series of federal raids that placed a chill over a once-booming pot industry and preceded sweeping changes to Montana law.

Jason Burns, Jesse Leland and Joshua Schultz pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court in Missoula to charges of conspiracy, manufacture of marijuana, money laundering, distribution of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.

All three have been conditionally released. None immediately returned messages left at phone numbers listed for their businesses.

Schultz, 38, operated Natural Medicine, of Great Falls, while Burns, 38, and Leland, 40, ran Queen City Caregivers in Helena. They were among more than two dozen Montana medical marijuana businesses, warehouses and residences raided by federal agents in March and April.

Agents seized thousands of marijuana plants, hundreds of kilograms of bulk marijuana, plus cash weapons and vehicles in those raids.

Afterward, up to a quarter of the state’s marijuana providers closed their businesses. The Department of Justice followed up with a warning letter to Montana political leaders and those in other states that federal prosecutors will pursue marijuana distributors, though not seriously ill patients who are following state law.

The spring raids and Wednesday’s indictment are part of an ongoing investigation into marijuana distribution in Montana, the U.S. attorney’s office said.

“Today’s indictment is a step towards ensuring the alleged large-scale distribution of the addictive and dangerous gateway drug of marijuana (is) curtailed in the state of Montana,” U.S. Attorney Michael W. Cotter of the District of Montana said in a statement.

The indictment was filed Monday and unsealed Wednesday. It alleges that Burns, Leland and Schultz grew marijuana plants at various places around the state, including Helena and Belgrade, and distributed the marijuana in Helena and Great Falls. The charging documents allege they grew more than 100 plants, sold the marijuana and then engaged in illegal interstate commerce with the money.

The indictment seeks the forfeiture of at least $1.3 million received in exchange for growing and selling marijuana, along with a 2001 Mercedes Benz and $7,135 seized from a Great Falls home.

The conspiracy and manufacturing charges each carry maximum penalties of 40 years in prison and $5 million fines. Money laundering carries a 20-year prison term and a $500,000 fine.

After the spring raids, Montana lawmakers, led by a GOP majority seeking to rein in what it called an out-of-control industry, tried to repeal the state’s medical marijuana law. Gov. Brian Schweitzer vetoed the bill.

Instead, the Legislature passed a strict overhaul of the voter-approved medical marijuana law that will ban commercial operations. The new law is due to go into effect on July 1, but a marijuana industry group is challenging it as unconstitutional.

District Judge James Reynolds indicated Wednesday that he might temporarily block parts or all of the law until the case is fully heard.

2 House members want to end federal ban on pot - Forbes.com

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:02:19 GMT

Associated Press, 06.24.11, 08:45 AM EDT

WASHINGTON — Two House members introduced a bill Thursday that would remove marijuana from the list of federal controlled substances and cede to the states enforcement of laws governing pot.

The legislation would eliminate marijuana-specific penalties under federal law, but would maintain a ban on transporting marijuana across state lines. It would allow individuals to grow and sell marijuana in states that make it legal.

The bill has no chance of passing the Republican-controlled House.

The bill was introduced by Democrat Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Ron Paul, a Texas Republican running for his party’s presidential nomination.

Four Democrats are co-sponsors: John Conyers of Michigan, Barbara Lee of California, Jared Polis of Colorado and Steve Cohen of Tennessee.

“Criminally prosecuting adults for making the choice to smoke marijuana is a waste of law enforcement resources and an intrusion on personal freedom,” Frank said.

“I do not advocate urging people to smoke marijuana. Neither do I urge them to drink alcoholic beverages or smoke tobacco. But in none of these cases do I think prohibition enforced by criminal sanctions is good public policy.”

The bill would have to go through the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said his panel would not consider it.

“Marijuana use and distribution is prohibited under federal law because it has a high potential for abuse and does not have an accepted medical use in the U.S.,” Smith said. “The Food and Drug Administration has not approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease.

“Decriminalizing marijuana will only lead to millions more Americans becoming addicted to drugs and greater profits for drug cartels who fund violence along the U.S.-Mexico border. Allowing states to determine their own marijuana policy flies in the face of Supreme Court precedent.”

Ron Paul Bill Would End Federal War on Marijuana - Conor Friedersdorf

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 07:33:38 GMT

Conor Friedersdorf - Conor Friedersdorf is an associate editor at The Atlantic, where he writes about politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction. Follow him on Twitter: @conor64

Ron Paul Bill Would End Federal War on Marijuana

By Conor Friedersdorf

Jun 23 2011, 7:30 AM ET

Rep. Barney Frank is co-sponsoring the first-of-its-kind legislation, which would permit states to legalize the drug

Are Republicans serious when they say that the federal government should cede power to the states? Where do liberal Democrats really stand on drug prohibition? Congress must now confront those questions, thanks to Reps. Ron Paul and Barney Frank. They’re cosponsoring legislation “to limit the federal government’s role in marijuana enforcement.” States would be free to keep the drug illegal, or to allow its use per the judgment of legislators and their constituents.

Hailed as the first bill of its kind to be introduced in Congress - that’s expected to happen later today - its states’ rights approach is significant, and forces defenders of federal drug policy into their weakest position. It’s one thing to argue that marijuana should be illegal. It’s another thing to insist that the federal government enforce a nationwide ban even as duly elected state legislatures signal that the people disagree. That is the essence of the matter. Under this bill, marijuana would be legalized only in states where the people and their representatives desire it. Is the federal government justified in stopping them? In the era of the Tea Party, when conservative Republicans are insisting that state governments be permitted to reject Obamacare, turn down bailout money, and otherwise flex their muscles, it’s a tough moment to insist, “Yes, marijuana is different: the feds should prevail.” Of course, the bill is likely to fail anyway. In killing it, however, various hypocrisies will be highlighted. As a result, federal prohibition of marijuana will wind up marginally less tenable than before.

Image credit: Baz Ratner/Reuters

More at The Atlantic

Conor Friedersdorf’s Archive

Don't Undermine the Medical Marijuana Industry - BusinessWeek

Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:57:14 GMT

Viewpoint June 21, 2011, 11:01AM EST

By Scott Shane

Consider two small business owners: One sells a product that medical researchers have shown is a major cause of health problems, from cancer to heart disease. The other provides a medical treatment that doctors prescribe for glaucoma, pain, and the side effects of chemotherapy. Which owner can borrow from a bank and deduct expenses on income tax returns? The answer is the first, who sells cigarettes; the second, who sells medical marijuana, cannot. (To be clear, dispensary owners aren’t prohibited from applying for bank credit. The trouble is anti-money laundering statutes intended to stop illegal drug dealers make banks reluctant to do business with legal dealers.)

In late May, two Democratic congressmen, Jared Polis of Colorado and Pete Stark of California, introduced bills to remedy the federal government’s bias against the owners of medical marijuana dispensaries. Representative Polis’s bill would permit medical marijuana sellers to borrow money from banks, while Congressman Stark’s bill would allow them to deduct business expenses from their taxes. Passage of these bills makes sense for four reasons.

The first is fairness. No small business owners should be denied access to financing or be subject to unfair tax rules simply because they run a business that some in government don’t like. The government should create a level playing field for all business owners. As Polis explained when introducing his bill, “It is simply wrong for the federal government to intrude and threaten banks that are involved in legal transactions.” Using a law designed to root out illegal drug dealers, terrorists, fraudsters, and money launderers as a back-door way to make life difficult for the operators of medical marijuana dispensaries is simply unfair. If Congress doesn’t like state medical marijuana laws, it needs to challenge the legality of these laws directly rather than stack the rules against them.

Favoring Tobacco over Marijuana

But fairness isn’t the only reason I support these bills. I also find it perverse that the government favors the tobacco business over the medical marijuana industry when the former is responsible for several costly medical problems and the latter provides a medically prescribed treatment. Not only does the government’s approach makes it difficult for people who need physician-prescribed marijuana to get the treatments they need, imposing pain and hardship, but the approach is also backwards. The government supports the sale of cigarettes, which cause cancer, but discourages the sale of medical marijuana, which is used to manage the side effects of the chemotherapy that these cancer patients must endure. As for healthy individuals who abuse the system to get high, isn’t that why we spend large sums of money to stop the illegal drug trade?

By blocking the growth of the medical marijuana industry, federal policy makers are missing a golden opportunity to encourage entrepreneurship. Government officials often speak of finding new, high-growth industries, which are rare. Consultancy See Change Strategy in Olney, Md., forecasts that medical marijuana, currently a $2 billion industry, will reach nearly $9 billion in five years. That’s about the same size as the dry cleaning and laundry service industry.

Finally, by opposing the medical marijuana industry, the federal government is missing the chance to cut government expenditures and raise taxes in one of the few areas where such actions would face little opposition by business owners. Unlike virtually every other industry, where higher taxes are vehemently opposed, the medical marijuana industry welcomes higher taxes. In Oakland, for example, the industry drove the effort to impose a 1.8 percent tax on gross sales from medical marijuana sellers.

The potential economic gains from the legalization of marijuana are far from trivial. A 2005 study by Jeffrey Miron, then a visiting economics professor at Harvard, found that government spending could be cut by $7.7 billion and tax revenue increased by $6.2 billion if marijuana sales were legal and taxed at the same rate as alcohol and tobacco. A $14 billion improvement in the government budget isn’t something to ignore, especially in the current environment of paralysis over how to reduce high deficits.

Allowing owners of medical marijuana dispensaries to borrow money and deduct their business expenses from their taxes seems like a way to make policy fairer, encourage a high-growth industry, and reduce government expenditures and raise tax revenues without much opposition. Those seem to me like the kinds of objectives our elected officials should be striving for when introducing bills into Congress.

Scott Shane is the A. Malachi Mixon III Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies at Case Western Reserve University.

Medical pot industry group asks judge to block law - BusinessWeek

Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:05:00 GMT

By MATT VOLZ

Associated Press

HELENA, Mont.

Medical marijuana patients and their health providers urged a judge Monday to block a new law that will eliminate commercial pot operations, saying they will have problems obtaining the drug after this month.

A medical marijuana industry group have called the new law unconstitutional and asked Helena District Judge James Reynolds for an injunction before July 1, when pot providers will be barred from making a profit and limited to providing marijuana to just three patients.

The new law also places additional checks on conditions for qualifying for the drug and on the doctors who certify medical marijuana patients.

State attorneys say the law will scale back an out-of-control industry while leaving seriously ill patients with access to the drug. But some patients and their loved ones say it will just force them to make illegal purchases by shutting down legitimate resources.

“The more I read about it the more absurd it is. They’re just trying to eliminate marijuana in Montana,” said Charlie Hamp, 79.

Hamp testified that his wife Shirley, 78, stirs a medical marijuana tincture into her morning coffee at home in Bozeman as a way to relieve the pain after her esophagus was removed and replaced with the lining of her stomach.

Charlie Hamp isn’t sure whether his wife will still be able to get that tincture from her provider after July 1, or whether the provider will be in business at all. Neither one of them knows how to make the tincture, nor do they want to ask their daughter and son-in-law to do it for them.

Montana Cannabis Industry Association attorney James Goetz said the main problem with the law is it will deny patients like Shirley Hamp access to medical marijuana. But it also will intrude upon the doctor-patient relationship and allow warrantless searches of patients and providers, he said.

“Marijuana, while not completely harmless, is remarkably safe. It has proven medicinal qualities. If a Montana citizen, in consultation with his or her doctor, wishes to have access to medical marijuana, that person should have access without undue governmental restraint,” Goetz said.

Assistant Attorney General Jim Molloy defended the new law, saying it is in line with what voters intended when they passed the state’s medical marijuana initiative in 2004. Seriously ill patients will still be able to grow the drug, hire a consultant to show them how, or have somebody grow it for them, he said.

“This is a lawsuit, your honor, about preserving the commercial marijuana industry that sprung up in Montana beginning in about 2008,” he said.

The hearing is expected to last through Tuesday, and it was not clear whether Reynolds will immediately make a ruling. The judge said he wants to know what would happen to medical marijuana regulations in Montana if the new law is blocked.

The Legislature passed its restrictive law in an attempt to rein in a booming medical marijuana industry that lawmakers say has been abused by recreational users and for-profit commercial entities. The bill’s passage this spring coincided with a series of raids against medical marijuana distributors in which drugs, cash and weapons were seized, causing several providers to shut down.

There are more than 30,000 medical marijuana users in Montana, with the start of the boom coinciding with a 2009 U.S. Department of Justice memo saying the federal government would not prosecute seriously ill patients who are following their states’ medical marijuana laws.

The number of people between 18 and 30 claiming chronic pain as the qualifying condition to become a medical marijuana patient — about 30 percent of the total number of users in Montana — indicates the users are not simply those with debilitating illnesses, Molloy said.

Medical marijuana users as a percentage of total adult population in Montana compared to other states is another indicator that something is amiss, Molloy said. Just over 4 percent of Montana adults are registered users, compared to .76 percent in Hawaii, 1 percent in Michigan and 1.34 percent in Oregon, he said.

“The situation is out of control, the Montana Legislature responded to it,” Molloy said.

Goetz said the law represents excessive governmental interference and that any law restricting rights must be scrutinized.

To support his case, he called two patients, three doctors, a social worker and a Harvard professor as witnesses about marijuana’s medicinal effects and the potential negative effects if the new law is allowed to take effect.

Bozeman oncologist Jack Hensold said he recommends medical marijuana to about three or four cancer patients a month to help them deal with nausea and other effects of cancer treatments.

He said he is concerned about the restrictions the law would impose and whether certain patients would be able to access the drug in the short term.

Cancer patient Pointe Hatfield said buying his medical marijuana from a provider is not a convenience, it’s a necessity. He tried to grow his own before, but the plants just died.

That’s why Hatfield, a 60-year-old Gardiner resident whose cancer is in remission, is worried how he will get his medical marijuana when a ban on commercial pot operations takes effect in Montana next month, patients and health officials told the judge.

Hatfield said he can’t understand why, if the state of Montana certifies him to use medical marijuana, he can’t go buy that drug just like getting a prescription filled at pharmacy.

“It’s the same as going to the drug store for an aspirin,” he said

Marijuana Legalization Initiative Launched In Washington State

Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

A mainstream coalition in Washington State has emerged in an attempt to pass a binding voter initiative to legalize the responsible adult use of cannabis, raise needed taxes and create alternative legal controls to the clearly failed policies of 74 years of Cannabis Prohibition.

It would set limits on how much cannabis people can have: an ounce of dried bud, 16 ounces of marijuana-infused foods in solid form, and 72 ounces of marijuana-infused liquids, or all three, Holcomb said. Limits are necessary to help ensure that people don’t buy large amounts for resale in other states, she said.

The Seattle Times breaks the news below and highlights some of the proposed initiative’s early and key supporters–including the former US Attorney, the current Seattle prosecutor and NORML Advisory board member Rick Steves.

The 20th annual Seattle Hempfest will have two important reform projects for the hundreds of thousands to truly rally around this year: a state legalization initiative (the ACLU’s or Sensible Washington’s) and the first ever federal legalization bill expected to be introduced at any moment here in the decidedly less hip and green Washington, D.C.

Will 2012 be the year of mass marijuana legalization initiatives in America? It appears that way now with Washington, California and Colorado on track for such; Oregon, Massachusetts and Ohio may follow suit.

A coalition that includes former U.S. Attorney John McKay, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes and travel guide Rick Steves is launching an initiative that would legalize marijuana in Washington state.

The group, led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, decided to push the initiative this spring after Gov. Chris Gregoire vetoed most of a medical-marijuana bill that had passed the state Legislature.

“We did some more public-opinion research, looked at the numbers and said, ‘Yeah, this is the time,’ ” said Alison Holcomb, campaign manager for the initiative and drug-policy director of the ACLU of Washington.

The initiative would regulate the recreational use of marijuana in a way similar to how the state regulates alcohol.

It would legalize marijuana for people older than 21, authorize the state Liquor Control Board to regulate and tax marijuana for sale in “stand-alone stores” and extend drunken-driving laws to marijuana, with blood tests to determine how much of the substance’s active ingredient is present in a driver’s blood.

Taxing sales would bring the state $215 million a year, conservatively estimated, Holmes said.

McKay, who spent five years enforcing federal drug laws as the U.S. attorney in Seattle before he was fired by the Bush administration in early 2007, said he hopes the initiative will help “shame Congress” into ending pot prohibition.

He said laws criminalizing marijuana are wrongheaded because they create an enormous black market exploited by international cartels and crime rings.

“That’s what drives my concern: The black market fuels the cartels, and that’s what allows them to buy the guns they use to kill people,” McKay said. “A lot of Americans smoke pot, and they’re willing to pay for it. I think prohibition is a dumb policy, and there are a lot of line federal prosecutors who share the view that the policy is suspect.”

Supporters would have until the end of this year to gather more than 240,000 signatures to get the initiative before the Legislature. Lawmakers could approve it or allow it to go to the ballot next year.

Read the rest of the article here.

First Day of Summer: Got Your Hemp Pack?

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Today marks the first day of summer and the last days of NORML’s 2011 spring membership drive, this week featuring a NORML & Rick Steves Travel Hemp Backpack for 50% off.

There are hardly better ambassadors for cannabis consumers than the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and best-selling travel author and popular TV host Rick Steves–who also happens to be on NORML’s Advisory Board.

These great hemp backpacks are made available by Rick in support of NORML’s longstanding law reform efforts and you can get these only from NORML and only this week for half off the donation amount usually needed to score one of these cool, conversation-starting hemp backpacks.

This special offer ends Sunday night, June 26…don’t procrastinate, please make a much appreciated and well utilized donation to a long standing non-profit organization that is in the nation’s capital (along with over 160 state chapters and affiliates) serving both cannabis consumers and the victims of Cannabis Prohibition laws–and putting the ‘grass’ in grassroots everyday!

Tell Attorney General Eric Holder to Leave Medical Marijuana Up to States

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would no longer spend scarce resources going after medical marijuana patients or providers. The “Ogden memo” clearly established that federal enforcement actions would not be taken against individuals or groups that act in clear and unambiguous compliance with state laws regarding medical marijuana. For the most part, the DOJ has followed this policy.

Now, after a series of letters to various state officials from U.S. Attorneys throughout the country that has led to confusion about what the Department of Justice will allow in terms of medical marijuana providers and cultivators, Holder will supposedly clarify where the federal government stands on state marijuana laws. This has many reformers worried that the Department of Justice will remove any protections that marijuana providers have had up to this point. This would force many patients back into the criminal market, as well as destroy the well-regulated medical marijuana industry in places like Colorado, Maine, and New Mexico, and prevent other states from enacting sensible dispensary regulation.

MPP has been working with Representatives Barney Frank and Jared Polis to put pressure on the DOJ to reaffirm the “Ogden memo” and let states regulate their medical marijuana programs as they see fit, free from federal interference. Yesterday, they sent this letter to Holder asking the same thing.

We need you to tell him, too.

Please sign this petition asking the Attorney General to respect state regulations of medical marijuana providers.

You can also call the Office of the Attorney General at (202)353-1555.

Share/Bookmark

Legalizing Marijuana Wont Kill the Mexican Drug Cartels

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:51:46 GMT

Legalization Wont Kill the Cartels

By SYLVIA LONGMIRE

Op-ED Contributor

Published: June 18, 2011

St. Louis

FOR a growing number of American policy makers, politicians and activists, the best answer to the spiraling violence in Mexico is to legalize the marijuana that, they argue, fuels the country’s vicious cartels and smugglers. After all, according to official estimates, marijuana constitutes 60 percent of cartels’ drug profits. Legalization would move that trade into the open market, driving down the price and undermining the cartels’ power and influence.

Unfortunately, it’s not that easy. Marijuana legalization has many merits, but it would do little to hinder the long-term economics of the cartels — and the violent toll they take on Mexican society.

For one thing, if marijuana makes up 60 percent of the cartels’ profits, that still leaves another 40 percent, which includes the sale of methamphetamine, cocaine, and brown-powder and black-tar heroin. If marijuana were legalized, the cartels would still make huge profits from the sale of these other drugs.

Plus, there’s no reason the cartels couldn’t enter the legal market for the sale of marijuana, as organized crime groups did in the United States after the repeal of Prohibition.

Still, legalization would deliver a significant short-term hit to the cartels — if drug trafficking were the only activity they were engaged in. But cartels derive a growing slice of their income from other illegal activities. Some experts on organized crime in Latin America, like Edgardo Buscaglia, say that cartels earn just half their income from drugs.

Indeed, in recent years cartels have used an extensive portfolio of rackets and scams to diversify their income. For example, they used to kidnap rivals, informants and incompetent subordinates to punish, exact revenge or send a message. Now that they have seen that people are willing to pay heavy ransoms, kidnapping has become their second-most-lucrative venture, with the targets ranging from businessmen to migrants.

Another new source of cartel revenue is oil theft, long a problem for the Mexican government. The national oil company, Pemex, loses hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of petroleum every year to bandits and criminal gangs who tap into pipelines and siphon it off. Now the cartels are getting involved in this business, working with associates north of the border to sell the oil to American companies at huge markups.

In 2009 a federal court convicted an American businessman of helping to funnel $2 million in petroleum products stolen from Pemex by a Mexican cartel, eventually selling it to a Texas chemical plant owned by the German chemical company BASF. The chemical company claims never to have known where the products came from.

Cartels are also moving into the market in pirated goods in Latin America. The market used to be dominated by terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, who operated in the triborder area of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay. Now the field is being overtaken by Mexican cartels, which already have so much control over the sale of pirated CDs, DVDs and software that many legitimate companies no longer even bother to distribute their full-price products in parts of Mexico.

Taking another page from traditional organized crime, cartels are also moving into extortion. A cartel representative will approach the owner of a business — whether a pharmacy or a taco stand — demanding a monthly stipend for “protection.” If those payments aren’t made on time, the business is often burned to the ground, or the owner is threatened, kidnapped or killed.

A popular cartel racket involves branded products. For example, a cartel member — most often from Los Zetas and La Familia Michoacana, two of the largest and most diversified cartels — will tell a music-store owner that he has to sell CDs with the Zetas logo stamped on them, with the cartel taking a 25 percent cut of the profits. Noncompliance isn’t an option.

With so many lines of business, it’s unlikely that Mexican cartels would close up shop in the event of legalization, even if it meant a serious drop in profits from their most successful product. Cartels are economic entities, and like any legitimate company the best are able to adapt in the face of a changing market.

This is not to say that drug legalization shouldn’t be considered for other reasons. We need to stop viewing casual users as criminals, and we need to treat addicts as people with health and emotional problems. Doing so would free up a significant amount of jail space, court time and law enforcement resources. What it won’t do, though, is stop the violence in Mexico.

Sylvia Longmire, a former officer and investigative special agent in the Air Force, is the author of the forthcoming book Cartel: The Coming Invasion of Mexicos Drug Wars

Editorial - A $1 trillion failure

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:48:35 GMT

By Anonymous

The MetroWest Daily News

Posted Jun 19, 2011 @ 12:45 AM

A milestone in America’s longest war passed quietly on Friday. Too quietly.

On June 17, 1971, President Richard Nixon declared that “Public enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.”

Forty years later, nobody is declaring victory.

Illegal drugs remain available and widely used around the world. The drug trade is now a global industry worth $320 billion. Here in the U.S., an estimated 25 million use illegal drugs regularly.

It is an industry more destructive than any other. Its profits go to criminal gangs and murderous thugs. Thousands of people die each year from drug-related violence and drug overdoses. Factor in untreated addiction, and the human costs of a failed drug policy are incalculable.

Other costs are easier to tally. An extensive investigation by the Associated Press puts the 40-year cost of the federal government’s War on Drugs at $1 trillion, including:

- $20 billion to fight drugs in other countries

- $33 billion on “Just Say No”-style campaigns that researchers say made no difference in drug use

- $49 billion in an effort to seal the borders, with no visible success

- $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million non-violent drug offenders, 10 million of them for possession of marijuana

- $450 billion to lock them up in federal prisons. Far more expense fell at the state level, where most drug crimes are prosecuted.

- $215 billion, the Justice Department estimates, for “an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction”

Drug use rises and falls. It peaked in the U.S. in 1979 and has drifted slowly downward ever since, with variations among drugs. That may be a tribute to the hard work done by thousands in prevention and treatment of addiction. It does not convince anyone that America can arrest its way out of its drug problems.

After four decades, it is finally becoming permissible for adults to state the obvious.

“The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world,” begins a new report by the independent Global Commission on Drug Policy, an outfit with elder statesmen like former Secretary of State George Schultz, ex-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and entrepreneur Richard Branson among its directors. It advocates legalization, harm reduction strategies, treatment and de-stigmatization of addiction.

As is often the case, the Obama administration has taken modest steps in the right direction. It has banned the phrase “war on drugs.” It repealed the odious disparity in sentencing between crack and powdered cocaine. Drug policy chief Gil Kerlikowske says the administration’s goal is to shift resources, but Obama’s proposed $15.8 billion drug control budget still spends twice as much on enforcement as on treatment and prevention.

Given the money spent, the lives destroyed and the fact that no one sees a light at the end of this tunnel, it is cold comfort that some in Washington know the truth about the War on Drugs.

“In the grand scheme, it has not been successful,” Kerlikowske told The AP. “Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified.”

It shouldn’t take 40 months, let alone years, for Washington to carry that thought to its logical conclusion: If it’s not working, try something else.

Rep. John Conyers Says Marijuana Should Be Decriminalized

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

At a press conference at the National Press Club on Friday, representatives of Institute of the Black World, as well as Rev. Jesse Jackson, Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, and others met to look at the impact that our nation’s failed war on drugs has had on minorities. One of the ideas mentioned most frequently to eliminate some of the negative effects of the drug war was to remove criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana.

While this is not a very radical statement, and does not address the problems associated with maintaining criminalization of the marijuana market, it is definitely a step in the right direction. It was little surprising coming from Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), who said he had never made such a statement before:

Good for you, Rep. Conyers! Now we just need the rest of Congress to come around.

Cannabinoid Administration Delays Huntington’s Disease Progression In Animals — Time To Initiate Human Trials

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The combined administration of the plant cannabinoids THC and CBD (cannabidiol) provide neuroprotection in rat models of Huntington’s Disease (HD), according to experimental data to be published in the Journal of Neuroscience Research.

Huntington’s Disease is an inherited degenerative brain disorder characterized by motor abnormalities and dementia produced by selective lesions in the cerebral cortex and, in particular, the striatum. There are presently no known conventional therapies available to alleviate HD symptoms or delay HD-associated striatal degeneration.

An international team of investigators from Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom assessed whether THC and CBD-rich botanical extracts could delay the progress of the disease in laboratory animals. Authors reported, “[O]ur data demonstrate that a [one to one] combination of THC and CBD-enriched botanical extracts protected striatal neurons against … toxicity.” By contrast, the administration of individual, selective synthetic cannabinoid agonists did not produce similarly favorable outcomes.

Investigators concluded, “In our opinion, these data provide sufficient preclinical evidence to justify a clinical evaluation of [one to one THC to CBD] cannabis-based medicine … as a neuroprotective agent capable of delaying disease progression in patients affected by HD, a disorder that is currently poorly man- aged in the clinic, prompting an urgent need for clinical trials with agents showing positive results in preclinical studies.”

Additional studies documenting the disease modifying potential of marijuana is available in the NORML handbook, Emerging Clinical Applications For Cannabis & Cannabinoids: Fourth Edition, available online here.

Additional information on this study will appear in this week’s NORML news update. To receive these e-mail updates free, please sign up here.

Jesse Levine - Has the Movement Opposing America's Drug War Broken Through to the Mainstream?

Sun, 19 Jun 2011 12:05:38 GMT

“Call off The Drug War” says former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in an op-ed for the New York Times. His article is released on the 40th anniversary of the day that President Nixon declared America in a “war on drugs.”

Carter aligns himself with a report released this month by the Global Commission on Drug Policy. That report argues that current strategies of imprisoning non-violent drug users and small time dealers has cost one trillion dollars, and led to 40 million arrests, but not reduced the availability or use of drugs. In short, the report says the drug war failed.

The report was endorsed by 16 world leaders, including former presidents or prime ministers of five countries, former US Secretary George Shultz, and the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

The 40th anniversary of the Drug War might well be remembered as the moment when the debate about Drug Policy shifted, and opposition to the drug war became main stream.

African American leaders have been historically conservative about the drug war but that seems to be changing. Jesse Jackson, a long time supporter of the drug war shifted sides and wrote in support of the Global Commission on Drug Policy’s report this month. Regarding the drug war, he writes in the Chicago Sun, “it would be impossible to invent a more complete failure.”

Leaders from African American and religious communities, including Rev. Jesse Jackson and Dr. Ron Daniels, held a forum Friday at the National Press Club in Washington DC to denounce current drug war policies and their racial bias. Despite the fact that the use and sale of drugs is no higher among African Americans than among white Americans, black men are sometimes jailed at rates 20 to 50 times higher than white men - for the same nonviolent drug offenses.

In his op-ed, Jimmy Carter explains how the prison population jumped from 500,000 when he left office in 1981 to 2.3 million in 2009. Carter blames the war on drugs for this trend. He says, “The single greatest cause of prison population growth has been the war on drugs, with the number of people incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses increasing more than twelve fold since 1980.”

In 1977 President Carter told congress, “the country should decriminalize the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana” and he “cautioned against filling our prisons with young people who were no threat to society.”

Today, in places like New York City the police are arresting record breaking numbers of young people for simple possession of marijuana. New York City has arrested 350,000 people for marijuana possession since 2002. About 70% percent of those arrested were under 30 years old.

A woman named Alika, a 26-year-old single mother in Brooklyn made news this week after being fired from her job with the New York City Housing Authority as a result of being arrested for possessing a small bag of marijuana in her purse. Criminal records are instantly accessible on the internet and the collateral consequences of drug arrests — like job loss and deportation — are routine and severe.

The drug war is deeply entrenched in our society. Systematic reforms will require support and courage from current politicians and not just former ones like Jimmy Carter. And our elected officials will not budge until the people who vote for them make their opposition to the drug war heard clearly.

The 40th anniversary of the war on drugs became an opportunity for leaders from diverse backgrounds to emerge with the unified message that the drug war failed. It is unusual and thrilling to see support for an issue that has been taboo for so long. We are witnessing a shift of opinion on drug policy. Is it too much to believe that we may also be seeing the beginning of a social movement?

Follow Jesse Levine on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kidpalmtree

Mulling it over

Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:06:18 GMT

Mulling it over

Frank Robson

June 19, 2011

Andrew Kavasilas has a licence to grow industrial hemp in Nimbin, NSW. Photo: Steve Holland

Grower and advocate Andrew Kavasilas reckons it’s high time we embraced the multiple uses of industrial hemp.

ANDREW Kavasilas has barely settled at our table in a Nimbin cafe when a hairy, wild-eyed young stranger rises from somewhere nearby and looms over us. Raising a closed hand above the table, the youth pauses theatrically before opening his fingers and spilling several marijuana buds among our coffee cups. Then, still without a word, he turns, adjusts his coat and swishes off up the main street.

”Bloody idiot,” grumbles Kavasilas. ”They’re everywhere around here - and you reach a point where you just lose patience.”

It’s not that Kavasilas doesn’t like pot. Quite the contrary. Until recently, he owned this cafe - the Oasis - and was a central figure in the rambunctious, ever-changing hippie culture that made Nimbin one of the world’s best-known ”cannabis-friendly” destinations for young travellers.

He took part in (legal) research into the growing of high-strength cannabis, wrote a book about its medical uses, ran a mail-order service providing the drug to medical users and was busted, in 2001, for possession when he and other Nimbin cafe owners conducted (illegal) ”trials” for the regulated sale of cannabis: selling small amounts to customers across the counter.

But over time, Sydney-born Kavasilas has grown weary of Nimbin’s rag-tag army of blow-ins, often just out of prison, who take advantage of the tolerant mood to sell hard drugs such as heroin on the streets.

”There’s been violence and real turf wars between some dealers,” he says. ”Normal people, who come here just to get a bit of pot for their own use were worried about getting embroiled in a violent incident or being stood over.”

So Kavasilas began focusing his knowledge of cannabis on industrial hemp - a variety with low levels of the psychoactive element tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) - grown not as a drug but to make clothing, textiles and building materials and as a nutritional food source using the seeds and oil.

”A few years ago,” he says, as another crowd of backpackers spills eagerly from a bus outside, ”I decided to go full-time into growing hemp for food.”

To improve his dealings with politicians and other influential types, Kavasilas shed his beloved dreadlocks, sold the Oasis Cafe and, with a state government permit, became one of a handful of farmers legally growing industrial hemp in NSW. At 46, the father of two still smokes the illegal variety. As is the custom in the Rainbow Country’s little slice of Amsterdam, he fires up openly at the cafe table and soon warms to his favourite theme.

”As a businessman and entrepreneur,” he says, ”I see hemp as the perfect product. It is the most nutritional grain for human consumption - better than fish oil for pregnant women - with a high content of omega three, six and nine plus all the known amino acids and a very good array of vitamins, minerals and trace elements, but delivered in a more digestible form than tablets.” Sounds good, but there is one not-so-small problem. While it’s legal (with a permit) to grow low-THC hemp for consumption in Australia, it’s illegal to actually consume it here in any form.

Australia is the only country in the world with such a prohibition, even though the hemp involved has no effect as a drug.

Australia’s official argument against hemp food is that it will undermine the national cannabis strategy implemented by the Howard government in 2006 by sending mixed messages about the safety and use of cannabis - and that police won’t be able to tell the difference between the low and high THC seed varieties.

Kavasilas, who’s been lobbying hard against the ban, reckons it’s as irrational as the original prohibition against marijuana that was rushed through the US Congress in 1937 - seemingly to benefit industrialists producing cotton and new synthetic fibres - and later adopted by most of the Western world.

Congressional hearings leading to the ban were told by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics that marijuana use caused ”insanity, criminality and death”. The same hearings were told by a Dr William C.Woodward, on behalf of the American Medical Association, that ”the [association] knows of no evidence that marijuana is a dangerous drug”.

Kavasilas says fears of hemp food undermining the cannabis strategy are silly because the strategy hasn’t worked. ”Australia has 2 million known cannabis smokers and the highest use per capita in the world. Through various state laws, we’ve decriminalised use and personal possession, [so] police and the judiciary can’t be said to be administering cannabis laws in the spirit in which they were written. Because that spirit was to wipe cannabis off the face of the earth.”

At his home in a peaceful valley near Nimbin, Kavasilas has an array of hemp foods - oils, milks, flours, cereals, snack bars - to show visitors involved in the legality debate.

His most recent callers were two representatives from the federal government agency Food Standards Australia New Zealand, which is supportive of the potential new industry.

The Food Standards reps were boning up on growing and processing aspects of hemp food in readiness for a meeting in December with the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, whose approval is needed to lift the prohibition. After feeding them hemp cake, Kavasilas took his visitors to a processing facility where he stores the seed from the 12 hectares of hemp he’s already grown - on two northern NSW properties where space was leased amid more conventional crops - but he can’t sell until the food wrangle is settled.

Interestingly, given the prohibition’s background, Americans are now legally devouring about $3 million worth of hemp foods a year. And while Australians can grow industrial hemp but not eat it, Americans can eat it but not grow it - not even with a permit. The whole lot has to be imported, mostly from Canada.

###

Today Marks 40 Years Of Failure

Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Pundits in The Hill, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Miami Herald, and mainstream media around the nation today are lamenting the 40-year-anniversary of Nixon’s declaration of the ‘war on drugs.’ Authors of these critiques include former President Jimmy Carter, former city of Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper and other luminaries. Events and vigils protesting America’s punitive drug policies are being held today across the country, including a press conference at Washington, DC’s National Press Club.

After 40 years it is apparent that the so-called ‘war on drugs’ is indefensible. As the Associated Press reported last year, even those in charge of waging this war it no longer can support it with a straight face.

AP IMPACT: After 40 years, $1 trillion, US War on Drugs has failed to meet any of its goals
via FoxNews.com

After 40 years, the United States’ war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn’t worked.

“In the grand scheme, it has not been successful,” Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. “Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified.”

Nevertheless, the costs of the ‘war’ — both fiscal costs and human costs — continues to grow unabated.

In 1970, hippies were smoking pot and dropping acid. Soldiers were coming home from Vietnam hooked on heroin. Embattled President Richard M. Nixon seized on a new war he thought he could win.

“This nation faces a major crisis in terms of the increasing use of drugs, particularly among our young people,” Nixon said as he signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. The following year, he said: “Public enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.”

His first drug-fighting budget was $100 million. Now it’s $15.1 billion, 31 times Nixon’s amount even when adjusted for inflation.

Using Freedom of Information Act requests, archival records, federal budgets and dozens of interviews with leaders and analysts, the AP tracked where that money went, and found that the United States repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs. In 40 years, taxpayers spent more than:

— $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.

— $33 billion in marketing “Just Say No”-style messages to America’s youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have “risen steadily” since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

— $49 billion for law enforcement along America’s borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

— $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

— $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

At the same time, drug abuse is costing the nation in other ways. The Justice Department estimates the consequences of drug abuse — “an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction” — cost the United States $215 billion a year.

Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says the only sure thing taxpayers get for more spending on police and soldiers is more homicides.

“Current policy is not having an effect of reducing drug use,” Miron said, “but it’s costing the public a fortune.”

After four decades of failure, isn’t it time we say ‘enough is enough?’

Nixon’s thoughts on the 40th anniversary of his “War on Drugs”

Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Get the facts about Nixon’s War on Marijuana Consumers – Pre-Order your copy of NORML’s Big Book of Marijuana Facts today!

It was forty years ago today,
Richard Nixon taught the world to hate
The people who would smoke a weed
Protesting war and hate and greed.
So may I introduce to you
The war you’ve known for all these years,
Richard Nixon’s Hopeless War on Drugs.

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Public-enemy-number-1-full.mp3)
Nixon speaks to TV reporters and refers to drug users as “Public Enemy Number One”.

It’s Richard Nixon’s Fascist War on Drugs,
For forty years it’s tried and failed,
It’s Richard Nixon’s Classist War on Drugs,
Where 20 million went to jail.
Richard Nixon’s Racist, Richard Nixon’s Futile,
Richard Nixon’s Hopeless War on Drugs.

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Left-wingers-push-dope.mp3)
Nixon from the White House Tapes speaking to aides about how weak societies support homosexuality and drugs and that’s why the left wing supports them in order to destroy America and turn it Communist.

It’s terrible to be here,
It’s certainly a shame.
You’re such a fine United States,
We’d like to see you change the stakes,
We’d love to end this war.

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Poppy-killing-insects.mp3)
Nixon discusses with his Secretary of Agriculture how they might breed an insect that would kill poppies in the field.

We so really need to stop the show,
So I thought that you might like to know,
That we’ve spent a trillion bucks on war,
Against people who are mostly poor.
So let us introduce to you
The case for legalizing herb
End Richard Nixon’s Hopeless War on Drugs.

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Turned-the-Corner-on-Drug-Addiction.mp3)
Nixon explains how after just one year into the War on Drugs, we’ve “turned the corner on drug addiction”.

(with apologies to Lennon and McCartney… but something tells me they’d agree…)

Clearing the Smoke - The Science of Cannabis

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:59:05 GMT

Clearing the Smoke - The Science of Cannabis

MontanaPBS Presents Clearing the Smoke: The Science of Cannabis

Clearing the Smoke reveals how cannabis acts on the brain and in the body to treat illness Details

Program: MontanaPBS Presents

Episode: Clearing the Smoke: The Science of Cannabis

MontanaPBS’s new documentary, Clearing the Smoke, reveals how cannabis acts on the brain and in the body to treat nausea, pain, epilepsy and potentially even cancer. Extensive interviews with patients, doctors, researchers and skeptics detail the promises and the limitations of medicinal cannabis.

Duration: (56:50) Premiere Date: 02/28/2011 Episode Expires: None
TV Rating: NR

To view the full experience of this website, please download and install Adobe Flash Player 9.

Did you know? Viewers like you are our largest single source of support. Donate Now

*** To view the video Click the link above MontanaPBS Presents

The Colorado Board of Health Makes Controversial Changes To Amendment 20 Rules For Medical Marijuana Caregivers

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:13:54 GMT

The Colorado Board of Health Makes Controversial Changes To Amendment 20 Rules For Medical Marijuana Caregivers

On Wednesday, the Colorado Board of Health approved some changes to Amendment 20, which allows for medical use of marijuana in the state, that directly effects medical marijuana providers. The changes have pot advocates frustrated saying it may drive some caregivers out of business.

According to a 9News report, beginning at the end of July, medical marijuana caregivers must start providing more significant service to their patient other than simply providing marijuana and how to best use it. The Amendment 20 changes suggest that caregivers should be open to providing transportation, housekeeping or even meal preparation for their patients. The rule does not affect marijuana dispensaries, which are regulated by different laws.

There are approximately 16,000 medical marijuana caregivers in Colorado, according to The Denver Post, who provide pot for patients that are poor, have no access to a dispensary or can’t grow for themselves. And for most medical marijuana caregivers, this rule change vastly alters their relationship with their patients. A pot advocate spoke to 9News saying:

The only people speaking for and on behalf of this language are law enforcement. This is a constitutional amendment based upon sick people in the State of Colorado. Shame on you. Shame on a lot of you if you pass this.

But law enforcement officials claim that the new rule is intended not to interfere with legitimate caregivers, rather to clearly differentiate between a medical marijuana caregiver and an illegal drug dealer that uses the smokescreen of caregiver as a way to sell pot.

Michael Marcella, a caregiver from Colorado Springs spoke to The Denver Post about the impracticalities of the rule changes for caregivers, who are concerned this creates too big of a burden on their already struggling businesses:

I make no money doing this. I’m going broke doing this. I’m doing this because I care about people.

Visit Sensible Colorado or Colorado Chronix to learn more about medical marijuana caregivers and patient rules and visit NORML for more information about medical marijuana law.

Help Fight Anti-MMJ Collective Senate Bill

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:05:40 GMT

Help Fight Anti-MMJ Collective Senate Bill

Key Vote on Nasty Anti-MMJ-Collective Bill SB 847

A nasty bill restricting medical cannabis collectives to non-residential areas will be facing a key vote in the Assembly Health Committee next Tuesday, Jun 21.

The bill, SB 847 by Sen Lou Correa, would make it illegal for collectives to grow, distribute, or operate within 600 feet of a residential area. The upshot would be to criminalize thousands of small-scale collective gardeners who happen to be growing on their residential property.

The bill does allow the 600-foot rule to be suspended at local option, but this wrongly puts the burden on local governments to protect collective growers from the risk of felony sales charges.

Constituents are urged to tell the Assembly Health Committee to oppose SB 847. With California under court order to reduce its prison population, the last thing we need is more medical marijuana felons.

Text of SB 847:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_847_bill_20110510_amended_sen_v97.html

ASSEMBLY HEALTH COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

http://asmdc.org/members/a27/committees?layout=item

Bill Monning (D Santa Cruz) 916-319-2027/ FAX 319:2127

Dan Logue (R Chico) 916-319-2003

Tom Ammiano (D SF) 916-319-2013

Toni Atkins (D San Diego) 916-319-2076

Susan Bonilla (D Martinez) 916-319-2011

Mike Eng (D Monterey Park) 916-319-2049

Martin Garrick (R Carlsbad) 916-319-2074

Richard Gordon (D Redwood City) 916-319-2021

Mary Hayashi (D Hayward) 916-319-2018

Roger Hernandez (D Baldwin Park) 916-319-2057

Bonnie Lowenthal (D Long Beach) 916-319-2054

Allan Mansoor (R Costa Mesa) 916-319-2068

Holly Mitchell (D- LA) 916-319-2047

Brian Nestende (R-Palm Desert) 916-319-2064

Richard Pan (D-Sacto) 916-319-2005

V Manuel Perez (D-Cathederal City) 916-319-2080

Jim Silva (R-Huntington Beach) 916-319-2067

Cameron Smyth (R-Santa Clarita) 916-319-2038

Das Williams (D-Santa Barbara) 916-319-2035

(Template for a letter to Assembly Health Committee Chair Bill Monning)

Dear Chairman Monning:

Americans for Safe Access strongly opposes SB 847 (Correa) to criminalize the location of medical marijuana collectives within 600 feet of residential areas.

This bill would make felons of thousands of medical marijuana patients who currently use their private residences to grow for more than one person. Because many patients cannot grow on their own property and don’t have other convenient or affordable sources of medicine, they frequently share collective garden space with other patients who do.

In the vast majority of cases, the only legal way to do so is as a “collective” under the Medical Marijuana Program Act (SB 420). (The only exception is if the grower can qualify as a patient “caregiver” under Prop. 215, but this is uncommon under terms of the Supreme Court’s Mentch decision).

SB 847 will therefore have the effect of unwittingly felonizing thousands of patients who currently have small, legal collectives on their own private, residential property.

With California already under court order to reduce its prison population, it is scarcely in the public interest to create thousands of new felons. Neither, of course, is it in the health interest of patients.

Although SB 847 theoretically allows exceptions by local option, this is a cumbersome and time-consuming mechanism, which wrongly puts the burden of action on local governments to reduce our prison population.

The inevitable upshot of SB 847 will be to increase the number of medical marijuana felons and prisoners in California. We urge the Committee’s “No” vote to this ill-considered legislation.

Sincerely,

Maine Lawmakers Approve Medical Marijuana Patient Privacy Act

Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

State lawmakers have given their initial approval to LD 1296, An Act To Amend the Maine Medical Use of Marijuana Act To Protect Patient Privacy.

LD 1296 seeks to protect the privacy of qualified medical cannabis patients by eliminating the 2010 mandate that citizens must be registered with the state in order to receive legal protection under state law. The measure also seeks to expand the number of qualifying conditions eligible for medical marijuana, and increases the amount of cannabis that patients may legally possess under a doctor’s supervision. LD 1296 also limits the ability of law enforcement to seize cannabis from lawful patients, and mandates for the return of any seized property within seven days.

Full text of LD 1296 is available online here.

You can track the status of this measure here.

Republican Gov. Paul LePage is expected to sign the bill,according to news reports.

Once signed, Maine will be one of the only states that provides full legal protections to medical marijuana patients without requiring them to register with the state.

You can urge Gov. LePage to support this legislation here.

Canadian Airline Passengers Fly the Weed-Friendly Skies

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Four Airline travelers in Canada heading from the West Coast to a medical marijuana conference in Toronto were allowed to bring their marijuana vaporizer on board the commercial flight earlier this month. The group, which includes Canadian Activist Lisa Kirkman, may be the first people in Canadian history allowed by an airline to use medical marijuana during a commercial flight.

Justin Timberlake Gets Honest About Marijuana in Playboy Interview

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Justin Timberlake, the singer and now A-list actor, was interviewed by Playboy this month and asked if he still smoked pot. Timberlake replied, “Absolutely”. He went on to explain that marijuana is the only thing that gets him to stop thinking, saying that sometime his brain needs to be turned off so he can relax. He added that some people are just better when high. Justin continues with the story of being punk’d on Ashton Kutcher’s show in the very first episode. He said he was so high when it happened, that he stopped smoking marijuana for months following the incident.

See the original post:
Justin Timberlake Gets Honest in Playboy Interview

Colorado Toddler Hospitalized Due to Marijuana Ingestion

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

For the second time this year, a toddler in Colorado was hospitalized due to ingesting marijuana accidentally that belonged to the parents. An 11 month old toddler was flown by helicopter life-flight to the Longmont United Hospital where the young girl was thought to be having a reaction to ingesting marijuana

Continue reading here:
Colorado Toddler Hospitalized Due to Marijuana Ingestion

Michigan City Bans Medical Marijuana ACLU Sues

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The Michigan chapter of the ACLU was in court today, arguing that just because marijuana remains illegal under federal law doesn’t mean that Michigan’s medical marijuana law is illegal. The case surrounds a Livonia ordinance that bans medical marijuana. Not just dispensing, but actual medical marijuana in any form

See original here:
Michigan City Bans Medical Marijuana, ACLU Sues

Air Force Discharges 30 for Spice Possession

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The widespread use of synthetic pot products like “Spice” has even affected the U.S. military. On Monday, Air Force officials announced they were discharging 30 airmen – including senior airmen – who were serving at Tinker Air Force Base (located just outside Oklahoma City) for possession and/or use of Spice as reported by The Oklahoman.

Air Force officials claim half of those busted were considered “habitual users” and were passing it on to other airmen. Military officials said service members testing positive for Spice can be court-martialed, demoted, dishonorably discharged, incarcerated for at least five years and docked pay. Dishonorable discharge results in permanent loss of all military/veterans benefits and bans the discharged from ever possessing a firearm.

Spice is a psychoactive commercial product consisting of herbs that can be smoked like pot doused with chemicals consisting of synthetic cannabinoid compounds that mimic the effects of THC. The creator of many of those chemicals, John W. Huffman, recently advocated the legalization of marijuana in light of the abuses of the chemicals he created solely for scientific research purposes.

Spice and other such products have been legal for several years, but have come under fire regarding recent controversies, including many users being sent to hospital emergency rooms for maladies both physical and psychological. Spice can contain a variety of synthetic cannabis compounds, but at least one of those chemicals used in three versions of Spice (Huffman’s JWH-018) along with four other chemicals were permanently added to the Schedule 1 list of the Controlled Substances Acts in March, outlawing them.

Special Agent Jeffrey Carlson of the Office of Special Investigations issued one unintentionally ironic comment: “Even though Spice doesn't seem as serious of a drug as cocaine or marijuana, we don't just turn a blind eye to it.”

Memo to Agent Carlson: Spice (and other synthetic pot products) and the potential harms these products represent are much more “serious” than nontoxic medically efficacious cannabis.

Cannabinoid Administration Halts Disease Progression Decreases Mortality In Primate Version of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)

Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The long-term administration of delta-9-THC, the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana, is associated with decreased mortality in monkeys infected with the simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), a primate model of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) disease, according to in vivo experimental trial data published in the June issue of the journal AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses.

Investigators at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center assessed the impact of chronic intramuscular THC administration compared to placebo on immune and metabolic indicators of SIV disease during the initial six-month phase of infection.

Researchers reported, “Contrary to what we expected, … delta-9-THC treatment clearly did not increase disease progression, and indeed resulted in generalized attenuation of classic markers of SIV disease.” Authors also reported that THC administration was associated with “decreased early mortality from SIV infection” and “retention of body mass.”

Investigators concluded, “These results indicate that chronic delta-9-THC does not increase viral load or aggravate morbidity and may actually ameliorate SIV disease progression.”

Clinical trials have previously documented that the short-term inhalation of cannabis does not adversely impact viral loads in HIV patients, and may even improve immune function.

Additional information on this suit will appear in this week’s NORML news update. To receive these e-mail updates free, please sign up here.

Marijuana Patients Hobson’s Choice: Work or Medicate?

Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

An employer may terminate an employee for his or her off-the-job marijuana use, even if the employee is authorized under state law to use cannabis medicinally, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled last week.

Off-the-job medical marijuana use does not bar firing: Wash. high court
via BusinessInsurance.com

The ruling stemmed from the case of a woman who suffered from migraines that caused chronic pain, nausea, blurred vision and sensitivity to light, according to court documents. She said conventional medications did not provide relief.

In June 2006, a doctor provided her a document authorizing marijuana possession for medical purposes, and about four months later TeleTech offered her a customer service job contingent on the results of a drug screening test.

The employer learned of her drug test results about the same time the plaintiff began training for the job and terminated her. The company’s drug-use policy does not make an exception for medical marijuana use, court records show.

… On appeal to the Washington Supreme Court, the woman argued that because the medical marijuana law explicitly does not require employers to accommodate pot use “in any place of employment,” it implicitly requires accommodation for use outside the workplace.

But eight justices agreed with lower courts and found that MUMA broadly protects a personal decision to use medical marijuana, but does not address impediments to doing so, such as an employer’s drug policy.

The case is Roe v. Teletech Customer Care Management LLC. The majority’s argument essentially comes down to this: “Washington courts have recognized that MUMA’s purpose is to protect the rights of qualifying patients to use medical marijuana in accordance with the advice and supervision of their physicians. … Washington court decisions do not recognize a broad public policy that would remove any impediment to medical marijuana use or impose an employer accommodation obligation.” You can read the Court’s decision here.

Though disappointing, the Court’s 8-1 decision upholding an employer’s right to arbitrarily discriminate against medi-pot users is frustratingly predictable. In 2010, the Oregon Supreme Court made a similar ruling in Emerald Steel Fabricators Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, finding that an employee who uses marijuana in accordance with state law is nonetheless “engaged in the illegal use of drugs” and may be fired for his or her off-the-job conduct. And In 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecom that: “California’s voters merely exempted medical users and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under two specifically designated state statutes. Nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use Act suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and obligations of employers and employees.”

In short, the west coast Courts have issued patients a classic Hobson’s Choice: ‘Use your medicine in compliance with state law but don’t seek gainful employment,’ or ‘Work, but refrain from using the medicine that most effectively alleviates your pain and suffering.’ The ‘choice,’ of course, is really no choice at all. It’s discrimination — plain and simple.

Further, it remains painfully obvious — to virtually everyone but the Courts — that employers lack any legitimate justification to sanction anyone for their off-the-job use of cannabis, much less legally authorized patients. As NORML Outreach Coordinator Russ Belville recently blogged — in a story picked up by the Colorado Independent and other media outlets — rising rates in the number of legal marijuana users is not associated with increased incidences of workplace accidents. In fact, just the opposite result is shown to be true.

Finally, scientific studies have consistently reported workplace urine testing programs are a poor method for identifying employees who are under the influence, and do not significantly reduce job accident rates. Writing recently in the journal Addiction, Investigators at the University of Victoria in British Columbia reviewed 20 years of published literature pertaining to the efficacy of workplace drug testing, with a special emphasis on marijuana – the most commonly detected drug. They found: “[I]t is not clear that heavy cannabis users represent a meaningful job safety risk unless using before work or on the job; urine tests have poor validity and low sensitivity to detect employees who represent a safety risk; drug testing is related to reductions in the prevalence of cannabis positive tests among employees, but this might not translate into fewer cannabis users; and urinalysis has not been shown to have a meaningful impact on job injury/accident rates. … Urinalysis testing is not recommended as a diagnostic tool to identify employees who represent a job safety risk from cannabis use.”

So why are the courts still affirming one set of rules for pharmaceutical users and another set of rules for herbal cannabis patients?

Stash for Mon Jun 13 2011

Mon, 13 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Download Link: Secret Stash - Register to access
Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2011-06-13.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

Brought to you by Cannabis Fantastic

Utah Attorney General welcomes legislative action to create medical marijuana law, just completed colon cancer treatments and “understands”
Korean rapper Crown J. gets 8 months in Korean jail for using marijuana… in Atlanta, Georgia.
Michigan reaps $8 million in medical marijuana program profits in just two years
Grants Pass woman rolls over in Portland-to-Boston trafficking scheme

Daily Toker Tunes

Brought to you by CannaBob and The Viper Hour on The NORML Network

Roots Monday: Ian Moore Band – “Champagne and Reefer”

NORML Legal Committee

Keith Stroup, NORML Legal Counsel and Founder, on Aspen Legal Seminar, Kentucky v. King, Washington State’s employment discrimination case against medical marijuana patients, update on federal legalization bills

Radical Rant

Oregon legislators sneak 2X-4X fee increase on medmj patients into budget

Washington State Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana Patient’s Rights

Sat, 11 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The Washington State Supreme court has ruled that an employee can be fired for using medical marijuana, even if the employee is using it at home and shows no sign of impairment on the job. The decision handed down today from the highest court in the state found that Washington state’s medical marijuana law allows [Read on . . .]

Read more from the original source:
Washington State Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana Patient’s Rights

New Study Reports Change in Brain Receptors for Daily Users of Cannabis

Sat, 11 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

A study on the effects of chronic marijuana use was presented at a recent annual meeting of the Society for Nuclear Medicine in San Antonio, Texas. The study was a collaboration between the US National Institute of Mental Health and the US National Institute on Drug Abuse.***

Here is the original post:
New Study Reports Change in Brain Receptors for Daily Users of Cannabis

***The staff at MedicalMarijuana.com would like you to note 'who' collaborated on this 'study'... then make your own determinations.

US Attorney for Oregon attempts to squelch First Amendment

Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Dwight Holton, the US Attorney for Oregon, tried to silence a lawful protest by marijuana legalization activists on City Hall steps in Portland this morning, according to attorney Paul Loney.

Holton recently authored a letter circulated to cannabis patients’ clubs threatening federal law enforcement action. The letter was endorsed by 33 of the 34 Oregon county district attorneys. Multnomah County D.A. Michael Shrunk declined to sign on, saying, “I don’t like to threaten things that we realistically are not geared up to do,” and “combating this cannot be termed a critical priority when balanced against others.” From the Holton letter:

“Oregon and Federal law make it illegal to sell marijuana – period, end of story,” said Holton. “The breathtaking surge in manufacture and distribution of marijuana in Oregon is putting marijuana in the hands of more and more healthy kids — and dispensaries are fueling this crisis. We are confident that responsible landlords and property owners will remove the operators of illegal dispensaries and ‘cannabis clubs’.”

In response to the crackdown, Madeline Martinez, proprietor of one of the threatened clubs, the World Famous Cannabis Cafe, called a press conference Friday afternoon at the Portland City Hall steps. The permit had been turned in on Monday, according to Oregon NORML Legal Counsel Paul Loney.

Speaking to NORML SHOW LIVE, Loney explained, “We got word that [US Attorney] Holton contacted [Portland City Councilman] Nick Fish and told him, ‘you shouldn’t let those guys [the marijuana advocates] have their press conference at City Hall.’” According to Loney, “Fish told him that we turned in our permit on Monday and what they’re doing is perfectly legal.”

Loney continued, “I think this is more of a story than the letter – a US Attorney, sworn to uphold the Constitution, trying to squash the First Amendment rights of Oregonians! We are going to be investigating this and bringing it up with his boss, [Attorney General] Eric Holder.”

Martinez, who also serves as director of NORML’s state affiliate, Oregon NORML, and on the board of directors of the national organization, stated, “Between the recent report from the United Nations recommending full legalization of cannabis, Eric Holder’s vague comments about working with medical cannabis states and the recent decree from the Oregon Department of Justice, many Oregon Medical Marijuana Program registrants are confused and worried for their safety.”

Loney told the assembled protestors, a crowd of roughly forty, that nobody has yet shown the cannabis clubs to be operating outside the law. “Judges decide the law in this county,” said Loney, “not sheriffs, not district attorneys.”

Patients in Oregon are permitted to reimburse any cardholding grower for the supplies and expenses involved in producing medical marijuana, but reimbursement for labor is forbidden by law. Cannabis clubs in Oregon claim to be operating on the principle of reimbursements and unsolicited donations. Loney, speaking on local television news Thursday, said explicitly that these cannabis clubs are not selling.

Anna Diaz, a board member of Oregon NORML and NORML’s 2011 Pauline Sabin Award Winner, spoke to NORML SHOW LIVE and explained “Sensible Oregon”. “It’s going to be an initiative like the ‘Sensible Washington’ one that will just remove marijuana from the criminal law, while still maintaining laws on DUI and not providing to children.” Diaz said the initiative is still being conceived and written. Once written, it will be circulated fo collect the one thousand signatures required in Oregon to begin official signature gathering.

If “Sensible Oregon” makes it to signature gathering, it will join the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act (OCTA) as initiatve petitions to legalize marijuana in Oregon. OCTA has already completed the certification of ballot title and is currently gathering signatures.

Cannabis On Craigslist: A Prosecutor’s Dream

Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Michigan Medical Marijuana Act: Keep Your Business and Medicine Legal

By Matthew Donigian, NORML Legal Intern, University of Illinois — College of Law

On November 4, 2008 63 percent of Michigan voters enacted the Michigan Medical Marihuana Program (MMMP). Since then the state of Michigan has registered over 75,000 patients, who are now eligible to receive medical marijuana for serious illnesses, including: Cancer, HIV, glaucoma, severe/chronic pain, severe nausea, etc. Like other states that have passed medical marijuana legislation, Michigan has made it safer for patients to receive the medicine they need. However, marijuana is still far from legal and both patients and caregivers should be sure they understand the limitations of the law.

Under Michigan law, medical marijuana patients who have been issued a registry identification card are allowed to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana. Additionally, medical marijuana patients are allowed to grow up to 12 marijuana plants. However, patients who choose to grow their own marijuana cannot have a caregiver growing for them.

Caregivers are required to follow laws similar to those followed by patients. Caregivers are required to register with a patient and the state, and if they are not registered as a patient’s caregiver, they may NOT dispense marijuana to them. Caregivers are allowed to register up to 5 patients and may possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana for each of their patients. If a patient has registered a caregiver to cultivate marijuana for them, the caregiver may keep up to 12 plants for that patient.

Restrictions on the amount of marijuana caregivers may possess can be difficult to follow.

First, it is difficult to know how much marijuana a plant will yield. This can make it difficult to stay under the 2.5 ounces allowed per registered patient. And since the weight of marijuana fluctuates greatly when the plant is being dried it is difficult to know how much a plant has actually yielded.

Second, many caregivers use clones of plants when growing a new crop, by taking cuttings from an adult plant and re-rooting them. However, the legality of this process is unclear. Since Michigan law only allows 12 plants per patient, and since clones must be cut before a plant has fully matured, it can be difficult for growers to stay under the number of plants allowed by the law, especially if they are already maintaining 12 plants per patient at the time the clones are cut.

In order to avoid having more marijuana than the law allows, many growers have begun selling dried marijuana or plants to qualified patients via craigslist. It is important to understand that this practice is ILLEGAL. Caregivers are only allowed to sell marijuana to their registered patients, and any other sale could lead to fines and/or imprisonment.

Caregivers should re-evaluate their business practices in order to stay in compliance with the law. Their safety and the safety of their patients depend upon it. More information may be attained by visiting Michigan’s online resource for the MMMP or by calling NORML at (202) 483-5500.

Colorado MMJ Expert to Become Cannabis Consultant for Other States

Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Matt Cook is largely considered an expert on pot and government. His efforts with the Department of Revenue have played a direct role in Colorado’s prevalent and highly successful medical marijuana industry.

Now Cook is eyeing work as a cannabis consultant for other states interested in implementing …More ***

***For the FULL story, click here not the link above.... It will make you click the link we are providing here to actually read the real story... We think this is News worth sharing but didn't realize the extra steps involved. Sorry!

Thank you for your support!

The Staff at MedicalMarijuana.com

Utah AG “Tempted” to Use Medical Marijuana

Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

In an interview Wednesday, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said that he had been tempted to use medical marijuana while undergoing treatment for cancer. He cited many of the reasons other medical marijuana patients do for wanting to use this treatment, including intense pain and being unable to keep anti-nausea medication down long enough for it to work. Unfortunately, medical marijuana is not legal in Utah, so Shurtleff was unwilling to use it, even when offered it by a friend.

This experience apparently taught Shurtleff why people would want to use this medicine. He even said that with the proper controls he would support a medical marijuana program in Utah, so that others in his situation wouldn’t have to choose between obeying the law and relieving their suffering. Hopefully, this will be a small step toward enacting such a bill.

Under current state law, Utah residents can be jailed for six months and fined $1,000 for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. Sale of any amount nets a sentence of up to five years and a $5,000 fine.

While Shurtleff is to be commended for his change of heart, it is unfortunate that he had to go through such a horrible experience to finally see the necessity for medical marijuana access and patient protections. Our leaders shouldn’t have to feel the pain that patients feel to treat them with compassion.

Share/Bookmark

Doin’ the Texas Shuffle: Willie Nelson’s Pot Fine Increased

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Willie Nelson should write a song about his experiences in Huspeth County, Texas. Arrested there in November by border patrol, the amount of marijuana confiscated eventually changed from six ounces to less than two. The deputy sheriff even suggested Nelson would have to sing in court before the case was closed. On Wednesday, Nelson pled no contest and was fined $500.

Here’s how it all went down:

Nov. 26, 2010: Nelson is arrested in Sierra Blanca, Texas in a Border Patrol bus search. The amount is reported to be six ounces of marijuana.

Nov. 29: Detention report says amount is “2-4 OZ.” Above that amount is a felony.

Dec. 6: Deputy Sheriff Mike Doyal says Nelson “had a little bag of marijuana… that man’s what, 77 years old? What are we gonna do to him?”

Mar. 24, 2011: Hudspeth County Attorney Kit Bramblett says Nelson will get off with a $100 fine, but not before singing “Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain” in Judge Becky Dean-Walker’s courtroom. “Between me and the sheriff, we threw out enough of it or smoked enough so that there’s only three ounces, which is within my jurisdiction,” Bramblett joked. Court costs of $278 upped Nelson’s bill to $378.

Mar. 30: Judge Dean-Walker says Nelson doesn’t have to sing in court. “It got out of hand,” she explains about Bramblett’s gag.

June 7: Nelson pleas no contest to the possession charge. He’s fined $500, plus $287 in court costs for a total of $787. Bramblett now says officials have determined that there was a “little bit less than two ounces” of marijuana inside the bus. “He (Nelson) got the same thing I’d give to anybody,” Bramblett added.

Nelson tells CelebStoner: “They are treating it like a minor traffic ticket. They were very nice all the time I was with them and I’m sure they would just as soon it didn’t happen.”

Oregon budget bill to double medical marijuana registry fees

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

(PORTLAND, Ore.) – Fees for registering with the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program will double, from $100 per year to $200 per year, due to a Budget Bill that passed out of the Joint Ways and Means Committee and into the main chambers late Wednesday. The increase in fees was included in one of the over 30 bills that the Committee “barreled through” on Wednesday.

Bob Wolfe, Director and Spokesperson for the Oregon Marijuana Policy Initiative (OMPI), agrees. He describes the increase in fees as a “de facto tax” and questioned those behind the increase. “Medical marijuana patients are ill, disabled, and often poor. This stealthy budget item is a de facto tax on vulnerable people. I’d like to know which scurrilous legislator or bureaucrat is responsible for this disgusting maneuver,” he said.

OMPI is a coalition of twelve large patient organizations, including Oregon Green Free, Mama’s, The Human Collective, and Oregon NORML, as well as many other independent advocates of medical marijuana. OMPI represents thousands of patients in Oregon, and has been active working at the legislature to protect Oregon Medical Marijuana Patients protection under the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act.

While Oregon is slashing its many aspects of its budget, the Oregon Health Authority will receive an increase over current spending to its budget of nearly 11%, reports OregonLive. The increased fees for OMMP patients are expected to contribute about $7 million dollars over the biennium, and will go towards a program for drinking water and emergency medical services.

OregonLive further reports: “Conspicuously absent Wednesday was the public safety budget, which includes money to run state prisons. Lawmakers are still struggling for ways to stem the escalating cost of incarceration.” Continue reading…

Seniors' medical pot collective stirs up trouble

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Joe Schwartz is a 90-year-old great-grandfather of three who enjoys a few puffs of pot each night before he crawls into bed in the Southern California retirement community he calls home.

The World War II veteran and stroke sufferer smokes the drug to alleviate debilitating nausea and is one of about 150 senior citizens on this sprawling, 18,000-person gated campus who belongs to a thriving — and controversial — medical marijuana collective operating in the middle of one of the largest retirement communities in the United States.

The fledgling collective mirrors a nationwide trend as more and more senior citizens turn to marijuana, legal or not, to ease the aches and pains of aging. But in Laguna Woods Village, tucked in the heart of one of the most conservative and wealthiest counties in California, these ganja-smoking grandparents have stirred up a heated debate with their collective, attracting a crackdown from within the self-governed community.

Many members of the two-year-old collective keep a low profile, but others grow seedlings on their patios and set up workshops to show other seniors how to turn the marijuana leaves into tea, milk and a vapor that can be inhaled for relief from everything from chemotherapy-related nausea to multiple sclerosis to arthritis.

The most recent project involves getting collective members to plant 40 seeds from experimental varieties of marijuana that are high in a compound said to have anti-inflammatory properties best suited for elderly ailments. The tiny plastic vials, each containing 10 seeds, are stamped with names like "Sour Tsunami."

Under California law, people with a variety of conditions, from migraines to cancer, can get a medical marijuana card with a doctor's recommendation and join a pot collective to get what they need. All the members of Laguna Woods Village's collective have medical marijuana cards and are legal users under state law, but the drug is still banned under federal law.

Lonnie Painter, the collective's president and perhaps most activist member, worries daily about his high-profile position within the tiny community of pot users. The 65-year-old grandfather supplements regular painkillers with marijuana tea for osteoarthritis and keeps stacks of marijuana collective applications on a desk in the living room, just a few feet from the Lego bricks his 7-year-old grandson plays with on his frequent visits.

"We've got people who don't like it here, they don't like marijuana and they still have that 'communism' and 'perversion' and 'killer weed' attitude," said Painter, who has shoulder-length gray hair, a white goatee and wears several gold necklaces. "What I get more worried about is myself getting put in jail. If you were just a patient you'd be safe, but if you are active and involved in any way in making it available for others, the federal government can come and scoop you up."

In the first two years of the collective's life, however, Painter and other members have had more trouble from their fellow residents than from the government.

When things first got underway, Painter and three others were growing about two dozen plants with names like Super Silver Haze in the Laguna Woods Village community garden. Photos show his 800-square-foot (74-square-meter) plot overflowing with marijuana plants taller than a grown man butting up against the staked tomatoes and purple flowering clematis of other gardeners.

But the Golden Rain Foundation, the all-volunteer board that governs the community, cracked down and prohibited the cultivation of marijuana on all Laguna Woods Village property. The vote followed the report of the theft of two marijuana plants, tangerines and a rake and shovel from the community garden, according to meeting minutes of the Community Activities Committee's Garden Center Advisory Group.

The foundation, which maintains the community's 153 acres (62 hectares) of golf courses, seven clubhouses and other amenities, adopted the policy late last year after a lengthy legal review.

"We thought that it was not proper. It sets a precedent. Our gardens are for flowers and vegetables, and that's all, and it's been that way since 1964 or 1965 when this was started," said Howard Feichtmann, who was chairman of the Garden Advisory Group. "We thought that's what it should remain and not get involved with medical marijuana or anything else that is considered on the fringe."

Those with medical marijuana cards can still grow the state limit of six mature plants per person in their private residences.

Susan Margolis, who sat on the Garden Center Advisory Group, said the debate has divided people along generational lines in a community where the average age is 78 but new residents can move in at 55. She estimated that up to 10 of her younger neighbors take medical pot for ailments but said many older residents are fiercely opposed.

"This did stir up a lot of feelings," said Margolis, 67, who said those opposed to the public pot plots had valid safety concerns. "There are a lot of people that have never used marijuana and there are younger people who have used marijuana who say, 'Come on now, this is just ridiculous.'"

After the vote, the collective had to rip its plants out and has struggled to produce the pot it needs for its members.

At first, the senior citizens tried to run their own grow site by creating a greenhouse in a rented facility off-site, but they lost thousands of dollars of crop when someone plugged a grow light into the wrong outlet, giving the plants 24 hours of light a day during the critical flowering period instead of 12 hours. Then, they gave seedlings to a grower operating a greenhouse in Los Angeles, but that ended just as badly: The place was busted by police, and all the plants were confiscated and destroyed.

Now, a fellow Laguna Woods Village resident and collective member recently started growing for the group in two off-site greenhouses whose location Painter and others declined to provide. The all-organic supply is distributed to members on a sliding scale, from $35 an ounce to about $200 an ounce based on ability to pay and need. Many members also grow their legal limit of six seedlings on private patios or in space-age looking indoor tents designed to coddle the growing weed.

The collective's website, which includes three albums of photos of the pot plants growing alongside regular produce, dresses down the community's board members for the collective's rocky path, calling them "ill-informed, intolerant tyrants" who have violated members' rights.

"It's just so difficult and it shouldn't be because it makes me feel like I'm doing something criminal but I'm not," said Barbara Ayala, a Laguna Woods Village resident and collective member who says she received nasty emails when she organized a day-long medical marijuana workshop. "I'm only trying to provide people with medicine ... that is the best quality that we can provide."

###

Source: USA TODAY
Copyright: The Associated Press 2011
Link: http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/medical/alternative/story/2011/06/Seniors-medical-pot-collective-stirs-up-trouble/48188956/1

Hey CNN Give Gary Johnson a Chance!

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Teapot Party candidate Gary Johnson is steamed about being excluded from CNN’s Republican debate on June 13. “I didn’t crawl out from under a rock to run for president of the United States,” the former two-term New Mexico governor tells Fox. “I’m that other choice, but I’ve got to have a shot to be able to present that.”

Johnson was included in Fox’s GOP debate on May 5. The June 13 debate, sponsored by CNN, includes every candidate from the May 5 debate except Johnson. How come? CNN claims Johnson doesn’t have enough public support, but Johnson contends his name “wasn’t even on” some of the polls that CNN used to determine the debaters. As of now they are Reps Ron Paul and Michelle Bachman, former Govs Milt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Rick Santorum, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and business Herman Cain.

If you’d like to see Gov. Johnson be part of this debate, please sign the petition at change.org.

For more info, go to Gary Johnson 2012.

Also see: It’s Time for Pot Legalization

Oregon Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are Put on Notice

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

On Friday, like many other states that have received their dance card from the Feds, Oregon’s top lawmakers along with the Federal Justice department delivered a direct warning that dispensaries in Oregon were doing business on borrowed time.

See the rest here:
Oregon Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are Put on Notice

Arizona Refuses to Accept Dispensary Applications

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The Director for the Arizona Department of Health Services met with potential dispensary operators, but politely declined to accept a binder from them that held all of their filled out applications papers. Under rules previously adopted by the department, the application process was to take a month beginning today, but as reporters filled a conference room in the Department’s headquarters, to watch the exchange, Mr. Humble presented the group of prospective applicants with a form letter acknowledging their attempt to turn in their paper work, and an explanation of his refusal.

Go here to see the original:
Arizona Refuses to Accept Dispensary Applications

America’s Drug Czar: Programmed To Oppose Popular Drug Policy Reforms

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Predictably. Reflexively. Mandated by law.

Yawn….

So the current U.S. drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske*, in true Pavlovian style, reacted negatively to the umpteenth commission report issued last week opining that 1) the war on some drugs has totally failed to achieve any of its stated goals, 2) policy reforms based on public health–not arrest and incarcerate–models are most effective, 3) the war on some drugs wastes preciously needed tax dollars, military expenditures, destabilize international borders and cause havoc in the banking and financial industries and 4) that legalization should readily be on the table, notably legalizing cannabis.

As if a bell rang, the U.S. drug czar’s office dutifully rolled out a brief and defensive commentary published in The Hill (a virtually DC-only publication for inside-the- beltway-types) that touches upon the Obama administration’s only-slightly-different-from-previous-drug czars’-approach-to-maintaining-the-status quo…

*Mr. Kerlikowske is likely going to be resigning soon as drug czar (which is understandable as it is one of the most thankless bureaucratic positions in Washington, D.C. as a job with a prescription for failure) to become the next police chief of Chicago…

Drug policies must be rooted in science
By Gil Kerlikowske
06/06/11

Last week, the Global Commission on Drug Policy issued a report calling for the decriminalization of illicit drugs based on the notion that global efforts to reduce drug use have been a failure. Certainly, given the stature of the Commission and the long-term challenge of drug policies both nationally and internationally, the Commission’s message may appear compelling at first. But there are serious flaws with both the report’s conclusion and its proposed remedy.

We agree with the Commission that balanced drug control efforts are necessary, which is why this administration’s National Drug Control Policy is a marked departure from past strategies. We support diverting non-violent offenders into treatment instead of jail by encouraging alternatives to incarceration. And as a former police chief, I and my colleagues know that we cannot arrest our way out of the drug problem. As I’ve often stated before, drug use should be addressed as a public health problem because we know drug addiction is a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated. Legalizing illicit drugs increase drug use and the need for drug treatment, while also making it more difficult to keep our communities healthy and safe.

Our National Drug Control Strategy is science-based. And science shows that illegal drug use is associated with specialty treatment admissions, fatal drugged driving accidents, mental illness, and emergency room admissions. Illicit drug use has huge costs to our society, outside of just criminal justice costs.

A recent report by the Department of Justice’s National Drug Intelligence Center about the economic impact of illicit drug use indicates that the costs of illicit drug use on health care and productivity alone, are over $80 billion. Making illicit drugs legal would not reduce any of these factors. Nor is drug use a victimless crime. Just last month, during a visit to the Pediatric Interim Care Center in Kent, Washington, I saw firsthand the tragic impact drug use has on newborn babies.

In addition, despite the Commission’s assertions, efforts to reduce drug use over the last several decades have, in fact, achieved success. Overall drug use in the United States is half of what it was thirty years ago, cocaine production in Colombia has dropped by almost two-thirds, and the very same U.N. World Drug Report cited by the Commission concluded that, “Demand for cocaine in the U.S. has been in long-term decline.”

This administration’s efforts to reduce drug use are not born out of a culture war or drug war mentality, but rather out of the recognition that drug use strains our economy, public health, and public safety. The President’s inaugural National Drug Control Strategy – released one year ago – focuses on both the public health and public safety aspects of drug use and addiction. It focuses on addiction as a disease and on the importance of preventing drug use, as well as providing treatment to those who need it, including those who are involved in the criminal justice system. For the first time, it emphasizes support for millions of individuals who are in recovery from drug addiction.

And the United States is not alone. Our international partners across the globe – including Mexico’s President Calderon, Colombia’s President Santos, and Costa Rica’s President Miranda – have all clearly stated their opposition to drug legalization.

It is, of course, tempting to opt for seemingly easy answers to the world’s drug problems. They appear intractable at times. But we have made real progress and the steps we take in the future must be rooted in science and evidence-based policies that will make our communities healthier and safer.

Gil Kerlikowske is the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Inventor of “synthetic pot” / “K2? / “Spice” says legalize the natural marijuana

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

We get many comments on our stories about K2/Spice, the chemical “JWH-018″ and others like it that the media have dubbed “fake pot” or “synthetic marijuana.” The reason there is even such a chemical is that the scientist who invented it, John W. Huffman, could not get access to natural cannabis to study cannabinoids. Now he’s telling ABC News what we’ve been saying for decades: prohibition creates more dangerous drugs!

(ABC News) now that “Spice” and other forms of imitation pot are sending users to emergency rooms across America, the retired professor has an idea of how to stem the epidemic. If the federal government would legalize the real thing, says Huffman, maybe consumers wouldn’t turn to the far more dangerous fake stuff.

Huffman, who developed more than 400 “cannabinoids” as an organic chemist at Clemson University, says that marijuana has the benefit of being a known quantity, and not a very harmful one. We know the biological effects of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, Huffman told ABC News, because they have been thoroughly studied. “The scientific evidence is that it’s not a particularly dangerous drug,” said Huffman.

“I talked to a marijuana provider from California, a doctor, a physician,” explained Huffman, “and he said that in California, that these things are not near the problem they are in the rest of the country simply because they can get marijuana. And marijuana, even for recreational use is quite easy to get in California, and it’s essentially decriminalized. And marijuana is not nearly as dangerous as these compounds.”

Sandwich Artist Sells More than Subs

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

A Florida woman who was employed as a sandwich artist with Subway was arrested last Thursday after under cover investigators caught a tip she was selling marijuana from the location. The 47 year old sandwich artist, would slip a dime bag to customers who asked for extra meat on the side of their subs. The buyer of a sandwich with a side, would then slip $10 into the tip jar, and the transaction was complete.

Read the original:
Sandwich Artist Sells More than Subs

Florida Welfare Recipients Must Have a Clean Drug Test to Qualify

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Florida Gov. Rick Scott singed a controversial bill this week that makes welfare recipients in his state, first submit to a urine, blood or hair sample for drug testing before they receive benefits. After signing the bill, he told reporters, “The goal of this is to make sure we don’t waste taxpayers’ money, and hopefully more people will focus on not using illegal drugs.” A positive test will get you an immediate ban on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for six months. If you try again for assistance, and test positive a second time, you will get a three-year ban on state assistance for families.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a state cash program supported by block grants from the federal government and is the best known source of funding for cash welfare for needy families with children. It provides cash for food, medical care and emergency cash to help struggling families get by. The new drug testing requirements will be costly to the average Floridian, taxpayers will reimburse welfare applicants for a negative drug test. The applicants of the program must pay for their own test if it comes back positive. The Florida Governor says that the program will actually save big dollars as they won’t have to give assistance to those who choose to spend any money on drugs.

Some details of the new law, the Department of Children and Families must inform the applicant that they can avoid a drug test if they do not apply for the benefits they are seeking. The state must assure that each applicant has “a reasonable degree of dignity while producing and submitting a sample”. And if you are now screaming “what about the children?!?”, parents who fail drug tests can still jump though some hoops and get some benefits for their children if they name a state-approved designee to collect the money, but the designee must also pass a drug test.

About 233,000 Floridians applied for cash assistance last year, including 114,000 families. The ACLU if Florida is considering a law suit over the new law. A statement from the groups director this morning said, “Once again, this governor has demonstrated his dismissal of both the law and the right of Floridians to personal privacy by signing into law a bill that treats those who have lost their jobs like suspected criminals,” Howard Simon of the ACLU said in his statement. “This wasteful program created by this law subjects Floridians who are impacted by the economic downturn, as well as their families, to a humiliating search of their urine and body fluids without cause or even suspicion of drug use.”

But the controversy over the bill doesn’t end there. Many Floridians are saying that Rick Scott, a tea party backed conservative, also signed a bill earlier this year to drug test state workers every three months. And one company that will most likely benefit from all this drug testing going on in Florida is a company called Solantic, that already conducts drug tests on thousands of employees for employers. The company of several chain-like clinics was founded by Florida’s Governor, Rick Scott, who under pressure sold his share of it on April 29th. We don’t know the specifics of the private business deal, but late last year, Scott put the value of his majority share of the company at $62 million in a financial disclosure statement he had to submit to run for office.

###

Florida Governor Rick Scott To The State’s Poor: I Want Your Urine!

Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Kellen Russoniello, George Washington Law School student, NORML legal intern

On May 31, 2011, unpopular Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a bill that mandates all those seeking public assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (commonly known as welfare) to pass a drug screen. Those that fail the test will not be eligible for benefits for one year. The law will become effective on July 1.

Furthermore, the law requires those seeking assistance to pay for the cost of the screening. The expense can be recovered if the applicant qualifies for benefits. If you fail the test though, tough luck: your money belongs to the state. Those who are denied may designate another person to receive the benefits on behalf of their children, but they must also pass a drug test.

In justifying his signature, Governor Scott stated that it is “unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction.” So instead of supporting effective treatment and prevention, the law will implement a costly and ineffective means to try and deter drug use. Not to mention the law is most likely completely unconstitutional.

A Michigan law similar to this one was struck down in 2000 and affirmed in 2003 by the 6th Circuit. Michigan lawmakers had enacted a law allowing for suspicion-less searches of welfare recipients. A class action lawsuit was brought by applicants alleging that these drug tests violated the Fourth Amendment. The applicants won.

Although the Supreme Court has recognized certain situations in which a suspicion-less drug test is allowed (including testing railroad employees, customs agents whose line of work causes them to be directly involved with drug interdiction, and high school athletes and other students involved in extracurricular activities), the testing under the Florida law does not seem to further a special need of the government which outweighs the privacy interest of the individual. In order to demonstrate this special need, the state generally must show that public safety is in jeopardy. The Michigan government made the argument that drug use put children at the risk of abuse and neglect, but this argument was rejected by the district court. (It could be argued that the denial of benefits is more detrimental to public safety than not testing potential recipients). Testing welfare recipients for drug metabolites does nothing to further public safety, and therefore the government will most likely fail to meet the strict test set forth by the Supreme Court.

Those convicted of drug trafficking charges are already ineligible to receive welfare. Even if you can justify this by saying that they cause harm to communities, this new law places the focus on users. Legal challenges are expected and should come down in favor of the applicants, although with the Supreme Court’s recent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, if the case were to rise that high there may be cause for concern.

* * *

Editor’s note: 1) Isn’t it interesting how elected politicians like Rick Scott (often with no legislative hearings at all) are so quick to want to control the living habits of poor citizens who receive state funding, but they never insist on drug testing requirements to issue state funding and grants to rich land developers, corporations, business executives, professional sports team owners or religious leaders–just the poor?

2) Looks like Governor Scott may have more than ideological reasons to push the state of Florida into using taxpayers’ money on massive drug testing programs for welfare recipients and state employees…as reported in the Palm Beach Post in March:

“Floridians deserve to know that those in public service, whose salaries are paid with taxpayer dollars, are part of a drug-free workplace,” Scott said in a statement. “Just as it is appropriate to screen those seeking taxpayer assistance, it is also appropriate to screen government employees.”

Until last week, Scott’s communications office in Tallahassee had ignored repeated requests for comment on the potential for a conflict of interest. On Friday, as national media began to call as well, the office issued this response:

Any perception that the governor’s business interests pose a conflict of interest with his health policies are “baseless and incorrect,” said Scott’s deputy communications director, Brian Hughes.

Privately, one Scott official acknowledged that every time the governor discusses health policy, his urgent care business would be “the elephant in the room.”

Shortly before he was inaugurated, Scott’s lawyers met with attorneys at the Florida Commission on Ethics. Subsequently, they moved his Solantic holdings into a revocable trust in his wife’s name, making her the controlling investor in the privately held company. No public records were created from the ethics meeting.

During the election campaign, he had estimated the worth of his Solantic holdings at $62 million. Jacksonville-based Solantic has 32 clinics statewide, including two in Palm Beach County, and plans rapid growth and an eventual initial public offering, according to company documents.

Suffolk University Law Professor Marc Rodwin, author of several books on conflicts of interest in medicine, said the movement of Scott’s ownership to his wife’s trust was insufficient to eliminate the ethical issues.

“He owned the company and transferred it into his wife’s name,” Rodwin said. “It’s a conflict of interest.”

Connecticut Legislature Decriminalizes Marijuana

Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The good news just keeps on coming. The Connecticut House of Representatives just passed a bill to decriminalize possession of less than half an ounce of marijuana! The Senate passed the bill over the weekend, so it now heads to the desk of Governor Dan Malloy who is sure to sign it. Malloy has been a strong supporter of decriminalization and deserves much of the credit for this bill passing.

With today’s vote, the penalty for possession of less than half an ounce of marijuana will drop from a misdemeanor to a civil violation. First offense possession of a small amount of marijuana, or paraphernalia intended for it, will be punishable by a $150 fine, with penalties escalating to $200-500 for a second offense, and mandatory treatment for a third offense. Most importantly, violators will be cited rather than arrested and will not be saddled with a criminal record. Connecticut is the 14^th state to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, joining neighboring Massachusetts, which became the 13^th state when voters passed an initiative written and sponsored by MPP’s ballot committee in 2008.

Congratulations to Lorenzo Jones and the staff of A Better Way Foundation, and the Drug Policy Alliance, who together led the lobbying effort to pass SB 1014. Also, thanks and congratulations to our members in Connecticut who made calls and sent emails to their legislators in support of this common-sense reform.

Decriminalization is not the magic solution that solves all our problems, but it is a step in the right direction. During the floor debate it was noted that 20 people spent time in a Connecticut jail this year just for possession of a small amount of marijuana and, shockingly, another 10,000-12,000 were arrested for the same. That means, thanks to this bill, thousands of otherwise law-abiding people who simply choose to use a substance safer than alcohol will not be arrested and will not receive criminal records.

Makes sense to me.

Follow @MarijuanaPolicy

Share/Bookmark

Obama/FEDs Cave to Patient Pressure on Safe Access!

Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:28:42 GMT

THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2011 AT 11:59PM

In a monumentally historic move made by the Obama Administration via comments from Attorney General Eric Holder, the Feds announced today that they would begin to work with Governors and State lawmakers in seeking a legal compromise that allows for State-sponsored medical cannabis dispensaries to be legal on the Federal level. Holder's comments were brief and somewhat vague, but certainly hugely beneficial news for patients and safe access. Some confusion whether all dispensaries in a state with legalized medical cannabis would be tolerated, or whether only dispensaries in medical cannabis states with specific licensing / authorization provisions for dispensaries in their laws would be acceptable. Or perhaps even only State Owned facilities would allowed, or some other such condition, what's clear however is that the the old line of zero tolerance and oppressive mass raids completely flying in the face of public will are set to give way to serious negotiation and debate!

The announcement came while Attorney General Holder was in Rhode Island for a tour of The Institute for the Study & Practice of Nonviolence in Providence Thursday. Rhode Island's Governor had just recently been one of the first to receive a threatening letter warning against implementing a new state dispensary system. This move by The White House is a huge victory for patients, providers, advocates and liberty in general; today may prove to be the day that the Federal "Wall" of Prohibition against safe access has finally cracked, and will fall completely from here on. The idea that The Federal Government has stopped it's blatant rejection of scientific evidence and popular will in trying to curtail safe access means that a real compromise is now on the table. The notion that a Federal acknowledgement of the legitimacy of medical cannabis, and a guarantee of equal rights to all patients across America may be coming into reality soon. All bets are off, all the cards are on the table and how the chips fall is going to be the result of the continued hard work and constant advocacy of patients and patriots alike!

It would seem perfectly reasonable to expect the Obama Administration to hold true to this new promise to patients but it is not a certainty, advocates and patients have every right to be doubtful as the DOJ has broken a previous truce via the Ogden memo in January, 2009 vowing to cease prosecutions of patients and providers following state laws. The medical cannabis community must stay vigilant and active in making sure this latest Federal decry regarding respecting and protecting safe access is heeded with all serious intent. Words are a start but actions defines truth when dealing in societal change, the eyes of the world are now on President Obama and the Federal Government to honestly hold true to their pledge of legitimizing safe access Federally! For all in the movement, today is a battle won towards a greater victory in the war, much to celebrate we have indeed!

PFFL Staff

###

SOURCE: Patients for Full Legalization
AUTHOR: PFFL Staff
DATE: June 2, 2011
LINK: http://www.patientsforfulllegalization.org/news/2011/6/2/obamafeds-cave-to-patient-pressure-on-safe-access.html

Global Commission Declares War on Drugs a Failure

Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

By Kellen Russoniello, George Washington Law School student, NORML legal intern

In the first sentence of a new report, current and former world leaders agree that “[t]he global war on drugs has failed.” They then call for drastic reform in both national and global drug policy. As the report recognizes, the current regime is a criminal justice and public health nightmare.

Released on June 2, 2011 by The Global Commission on Drug Policy, the report details the need for a new approach in drug policy. The Commission is comprised of nineteen current and former high-ranking policymakers from around the world, as well as experts in the field. Included in this committee are former presidents of Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, and Switzerland, the current prime minister of Greece, former UN High Commissioners, and a former US Secretary of State.

The report lays out four core principles that should be the guideposts for developing national and international drug policies: Basing policy on scientific evidence; basing policy on human rights and public health principles; developing and implementing a globally shared drug policy that recognizes diverse political, social, and cultural realities; and pursuing drug policy through comprehensive means including both law enforcement and the citizenry.

Additionally, the Commission outlines eleven recommendations for developing a more rational drug policy. These include removing criminal penalties for drug use and developing effective treatment, prevention, and harm reduction programs.

Especially notable for NORML supporters is the Commission’s call for governments to experiment with the legal regulation of cannabis in order to cut down on violent organized crime and provide safety and security to citizens. The taxation and regulation of illegal drugs “is a policy option that should be explored with the same amount of rigor as any other.” The report also calls for examination of the scheduling system and the placement of cannabis in that system.

The other recommendations are designed to eliminate the dogma of current drug policy and the stigma on current drug users and sellers. Ultimately, the Commission recognizes the following:

[F]or every year we continue with the current approach, billions of dollars are wasted on ineffective programs, millions of citizens are sent to prison unnecessarily, millions more suffer from the drug dependence of loved ones who cannot access health and social care services, and hundreds of thousands of people die from preventable overdoses and diseases contracted through unsafe drug use.

For us, the points made in the report are not news: marijuana policy reformists have been making these arguments for almost three quarters of a century. But it is heartening to hear that such powerful figures in international policy are not only realizing the harm of prohibition, but openly speaking about that harm and calling for alternatives. Additionally, the report is getting massive news coverage. The Drug Policy Alliance reported that over 1,000 news stories about the Commission’s report have been published worldwide.

You can use this report to make a difference. Send a message to your legislators and urge them to read the report. Find your legislator here.
Also, check out Erik Altieri, Communications Coordinator for NORML, discussing the report in an interview with CBS-Pittsburgh.

Oregon US Attorney and 33 of 34 District Attorneys vow crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries

Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Well, when you open a medical marijuana patient lounge in the most conservative, pot-hating county in the state, call it “Wake ‘n’ Bake”, and get your picture in the paper brandishing a six-foot bong, there will probably be repercussions…

(Oregonian) Federal and state law enforcement officials put the owners of medical marijuana dispensaries on notice today, warning them that selling marijuana for any purpose, including medical use, was against both federal and state law.

“Are we supposed to believe that people go to places like “Wake N Bake” to get medicine?” said U.S. Attorney, Dwight C. Holton. “Oregonians, who adopted a medical marijuana law in good faith, deserve an answer—are these places where people go to get medicine, or are these just drug dealers hiding behind the medical marijuana law?”

Holton issued a joint statement today along with 33 Oregon district attorneys, Clatsop County Sheriff Tom Bergin, president of the Oregon State Sheriff’s Association; and Newport Police Chief Mark Miranda, president of the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police.

The officials also warned people who knowingly financed a marijuana dispensary or allowed one “to operate on your property also violates federal law and could subject financiers and landlords to civil and criminal penalties–including forfeiture of any assets used in support of the criminal enterprise.”

One law that seems to always escape the notice of D.A.’s and Sheriffs on the marijuana issue is one that isn’t written down in any Oregon Revised Statutes:

The law of supply and demand.

There are close to 40,000 legal consumers (registered medical marijuana patients) of a product (cannabis). There will be someone to supply them that product. Econ 101 tells you when there is an inelastic demand for a product and an artificial restriction of supply, you get ridiculously high prices. Can you name another dried vegetable matter that retails for $280 an ounce?

Oregon crafted a medical marijuana law where the only legal means of supply are to (a) manufacture your own or (b) hire someone to manufacture it for you at a salary of $0.00. Option (a) does not work for the majority of the consumers because they’re busy or infirm or unskilled and manufacturing takes skill. How many aspirin would you consume a year if you had to skin the bark off your willow tree to make it?

Option (b) is the only choice for most. Say you’re a middle-aged person who just returned from the doctor with a diagnosis of cancer and your chemo begins Friday. Maybe you smoked a joint in college, otherwise your knowledge of cannabis plants and people who grow them is limited to Cheech & Chong movies. You don’t have the time to grow your own, even if you did, you don’t know how, and where do you get that seed or clone plant?

Maybe you’re one of the majority who are pain patients and you do have some time to establish your supply of medicine. Where do you find this kindly grower with expertise at producing medicine-grade cannabis who’s going to donate fifteen hours a week of his time tending to the manufacture of your product for the salary of $0.00? A posting on the bulletin board at work seems unlikely. Craigslist, sure that should be safe and easy, no way anybody would prey on someone in pain to make a buck.

Take a minute, if you’re not a medical marijuana patient and don’t know one, and imagine if you’d put up with this system to get a gallon of milk, much less a medicine you need to live a decent life. Imagine raising and milking your own cow or telling the dairy farmer you’ll pay for the cow’s feed, water, and care if he gives you a free gallon of milk every day. Oh, and the dairy farmer is only allowed to give (not sell) that milk to four customers, he can only raise six cows and have at most eighteen calves (which become cows the minute they grow taller than three feet) and any extra must be immediately slaughtered.

Meanwhile, there are another 360,000 illegal consumers of the product and an entire illegal infrastructure of manufacture, delivery, and retail supporting it, largely thanks to the artificially high profits. Call it Option (c). Remember the law of supply and demand – those 40,000 legal consumers will be supplied. As options (a) and (b) are largely unworkable, option (c) has filled the void and tried to dress itself up in (b)’s ill-fitting clothing.

There are “cannabis clubs” where legal consumers pay money to get in and are given a freely given a small amount of cannabis that is donated by legal producers — but nobody is selling. There are “patient lounges” where legal producers are (out of the goodness of their hearts) freely donating carefully measured amounts of product to legal consumers, who are, in turn, freely donating cash to the legal producers — but nobody is selling. There are “farmer’s markets” where legal consumers are reimbursing legal producers to cover expenses; it just so happens that every different grower growing different strains with different yields in different mediums in different counties with different water and electricity rates discovers their expenses coincidentally and consistently match the prices offered by the illegal suppliers.– but nobody is selling.

Law enforcement’s reaction in the legislature was to fight to reduce the number of legal consumers and tightly restrict the producers. This is a colossal misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand. The legal consumers won’t stop now that they’ve discovered the one medicine that works for them; they will just be even more at the mercy of those who’d exploit them. The legal producers won’t stop supplying the medicine if they suffer a crackdown; they will abandon the well-lit relatively-safe clubs and return to alleys and parking lots and raise prices.

Oregon and America will simply have to come to the realization that cannabis is a popular consumer good and it will be bought and sold. We can allow it to continue as is, with patients struggling to get it and spending too much when they do, with police resources spent in futile attempts to stop healthy people from getting it, with state and local governments exercising no control over it an receiving no tax revenue from it, and with artificially high profits and lack of civil recourse leading to crime and violence. Or we can try something new (dare I say trail blazing?), and create reasonably regulated systems of production, distribution, and use that serve patients and recreational users while creating jobs, tax revenue, and improving public safety.

Russ Belville
NORML Outreach Coordinator

P.S. The clearance rate for sex crime in Oregon is 35% and for property crime it’s 20%. There’s also some kid tagging up my neighborhood with “SHIMR”. I’m much more concerned about those situations than whether one adult is selling pot to another adult in a place that checks IDs and valid medical marijuana cards, even if it is called “Wake ‘n Bake”. Can’t we end this silly charade of determining which pot smokers are healthy enough to put in a prison cell and work on catching real criminals?

40 years

Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The ACLU blog is marking the 40th Anniversary of Nixon’s declaration of a “War on Drugs.”

June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon’s declaration of a “war on drugs” — a war which has cost roughly trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world’s largest incarcerator. To mark the occasion, we will be running a series of blog posts throughout the month about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.

Keith Humphreys thinks Nixon is getting a bad rap.

As President, he dramatically reduced federal criminal penalties for marijuana possession and launched the largest expansion of drug addiction treatment in U.S. history. I refer of course to Richard M. Nixon, who is today widely remembered as the President who launched the “war on drugs”. Why are his well-documented progressive drug policies almost completely forgotten today, leaving us with a collective memory of Nixon as the original snarling drug warrior?

But Mark Kleiman sets him straight.

Yes, but Nixon’s rhetoric outlived his policies, and is doing damage to this very day.

He invented drug-policy-as-culture-war, and the idea that drug policy was a struggle between the pure-minded Republicans and the druggie Democrats, the party of “acid, amnesty, and abortion.” [...] Nixon’s other great contribution was the idea of blaming Mexico for U.S. drug problems, leading to policies such as “Operation Intercept.” [...]

Nixon is remembered as a nasty SOB because he was a nasty SOB [...]

'Mr Nice' Tells Story Of Cannabis Smuggler Howard Marks

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Mr. Nice, a riveting British film which will be released in the United States on Friday, June 3, tells the story of the legendary Howard Marks, a Welsh-born Oxford University student whose initial dabbling in marijuana dealing led to a career as an international cannabis smuggler.

His chosen vocation resulted in supposed connections to the Irish Republican Army, MI-6 and the Mafia -- all amid side jobs and cover gigs as travel agent, teacher and spy.

Watching an advance screening copy of the movie last night, Viki and I were glued to our seats by this compelling tale of a rural young Welshman's transformation into one of the biggest cannabis dealers on the planet. Howard Marks, with his sharp, analytical business mind and fearless, calm demeanor, would have done well at anything, but thank goodness he chose the noble calling of weed smuggler.

From its evocative early scenes of the 1960s where the innocent young Marks is introduced to the world of hashish, to his meetings with IRA operatives in Ireland, members of the Brotherhood of Eternal Love in California, and hash smugglers in Pakistan, Mr. Nice almost always hits the sweet spot, with star Rhys Ifans doing an incredible job of capturing Marks' character.

Continue reading "'Mr Nice' Tells Story Of Cannabis Smuggler Howard Marks"...

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/06/mr_nice_tells_story_of_cannabis_smuggler_howard_ma.php

Source: Toke of the Town
Author: Steve Elliot
Date: June 2, 2011

Vermont Governor Signs Dispensary Bill Despite U.S. Attorney Letter

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Vermont Governor Pete Shumlin – who MPP helped elect – just signed a bill to make Vermont state law the eighth to explicitly authorize and regulate dispensaries where registered patients can purchase medical marijuana. Today’s signing marks the culmination of a two-year lobbying effort led by MPP and the third bill signing we’ve been a part of just this month. Many thanks to Governor Shumlin and the bill’s sponsors, Senators Jeanette White, Hinda Miller, and Dick Sears for their leadership, and the dedicated patient advocates throughout the state who made the case for adding dispensaries to Vermont’s medical marijuana law.

MPP’s lobbyists and several of the state’s most committed patient advocates watch as Vermont Governor Pete Shumlin signs S. 17

Today’s signing bucks a trend of sorts. Governors in Rhode Island, Arizona, and Washington have all put the brakes on bills or laws to allow dispensaries, after receiving threatening letters from U.S. Attorneys in their states. Shumlin and legislative leaders received a similar letter on May 4, the day before the House of Representative was slated to vote on the dispensary bill. We were able to address concerns in the House and the administration, and the next day the House passed the measure 99-44 – with a copy of the letter on the desk of each representative.

One reason we were able to convince elected officials to move forward is that, despite the letters, there has still never been a raid on any dispensaries in states that explicity recognize and regulate dispensaries and that are in compliance with those laws. On the other hand, it’s unfortunate, but not uncommon, to see raids of dispensaries in places with more ambiguous laws that don’t specifically address dispensaries. In other words, in practice, it seems U.S. Attorneys are abiding by a narrow interpretation of the policy announced in the 2009 “Ogden memo,” in which these attorneys were instructed not to take action against anyone in “clear and unambiguous compliance” with state law.

Ironically, that means the best way to avoid any federal enforcement action is to do exactly the opposite of what Washington, Arizona, and Rhode Island’s governors are doing, and instead embrace state laws that explicitly authorize and regulate dispensaries, like Gov. Shumlin and Delaware Gov. Jack Markell. Let’s hope today’s signing marks the end of this troubling trend.

Follow @MarijuanaPolicy

Share/Bookmark

The Drug War Has Failed

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

NPR this morning (and a host of major media sources around the world):

Report: ‘The Drug War Has Failed’

The global war on drugs has failed and governments should explore legalizing marijuana and other controlled substances, according to a commission that includes former heads of state, a former U.N. secretary-general and a business mogul.

A new report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy argues that the decades-old “global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world.” The 24-page paper will be released Thursday.

“Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won,” the report said.

The 19-member commission includes former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and former U.S. official George P. Schultz, who held cabinet posts under U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. Others include former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, former presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia, writers Carlos Fuentes and Mario Vargas Llosa, U.K. business mogul Richard Branson and the current prime minister of Greece.

Instead of punishing users who the report says “do no harm to others,” the commission argues that governments should end criminalization of drug use, experiment with legal models that would undermine organized crime syndicates and offer health and treatment services for drug-users in need.

The commission called for drug policies based on methods empirically proven to reduce crime, lead to better health and promote economic and social development.

The commission is especially critical of the United States, which its members say must lead changing its anti-drug policies from being guided by anti-crime approaches to ones rooted in healthcare and human rights.

“We hope this country [the U.S.] at least starts to think there are alternatives,” former Colombian president Cesar Gaviria told The Associated Press by phone. “We don’t see the U.S. evolving in a way that is compatible with our [countries'] long-term interests.”

The office of White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said the report was misguided.

The report is available to read here.

Once again FORMER world leaders endorse marijuana legalization

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The marijuana internets are abuzz with the latest headline about world leaders declaring the War on Drugs to be a failure and calling for the legalization of marijuana. Here are a few:

World Leaders: Time to End Marijuana Prohibition

Who’s Who of World Leaders Call Global Drug War a “Failure”

World Leaders Recommend Ending The ‘Failed’ Drug War

These headlines cover the report released by the Global Commission on Drug Policy yesterday. However, I think the preceding headlines fail to make an important distinction, one that was not lost on the editors at NPR (emphasis mine):

‘Global War On Drugs Has Failed,’ Former World Leaders Say

MEMBERS OF THE GLOBAL COMMISSION ON DRUG POLICY

It’s rarely current world leaders expressing these sentiments. They seem to only speak out after they are out of office and lacking the power to help end that “failure”. I’ve been reporting on the “former leaders” who call for an end to the Drug War since 2008:

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox calls for debate on marijuana legalization

Latin American ex-presidents urge US to decriminalize marijuana, rethink drug war

Former UK Drug Warrior: “What harms society is the illegality of drugs…”

Fortunately a few brave leaders speak out while they are still in office:

Argentine president calls for decriminalization of drug use

Jamaica lawmaker calls for legalizing small amounts of marijuana for private use

And when they succeed in decriminalization of drug use, they get amazing results:

United Nations backs drug decriminalization

The success of drug decriminalization in Portugal

The report itself makes many of the same recommendations NORML has been touting for four decades now. The former world leaders recommend that we stop ”the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others.” They point out that “models of legal regulation of drugs” should be instituted by governments to reduce the power of organized crime and protect the health of citizens and that this “applies especially to cannabis.” They explain that a realistic government drug policy would avoid “simplistic ‘just say no’ messages and ‘zero tolerance’ policies in favor of educational efforts”. It’s nice to finally have world leaders, even former ones, recognizing we were and are right.

Unfortunately, it’s the current ones – the ones who have the power to make these changes – we have to convince… and they’re not budging from their “Schedule I dangerous drug what about the children?!?” rhetoric:

(Los Angeles Times) ”Making drugs more available — as this report suggests — will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe,” said Rafael Lemaitre, spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

More available? Almost 1 in 4 high school kids can get a bag of weed within an hour and say it’s easier to buy than beer and prescription drugs. Twenty-five million American adults are using cannabis annually and fifteen million use monthly. Marijuana is already quite available, it’s just a question of who controls and profits from the market – regulated businesses or violent criminals.

“Legalizing dangerous drugs would be a profound mistake, leading to more use, and more harmful consequences,” drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said this year.

Administration officials dispute the idea that nothing can be done to reduce the demand for drugs in the United States. A spokesman for the White House drug agency said U.S. consumption peaked in 1979, when surveys showed that 14% of respondents had used illegal drugs in the previous month. Now that figure has dropped to 7%.

Remember that when Gateway Gil says “drugs”, he means “marijuana”. Among 12th graders, monthly use of marijuana peaked in 1978, but amphetamines peaked in 1981, cocaine use peaked in 1985, ecstasy use peaked in 2000, hallucinogen use peaked in 1975, heroin use peaked in 2000, and sedative use peaked in 1975. Since marijuana is far more popular (15 million annual users) than all other drugs combined (6 million annual users), any movement of the marijuana numbers moves the “drugs” numbers.

And since he brought it up, I’d remind Gateway Gil that his claim of that monthly drug use dropped in half since 1979 came as sixteen states passed medical marijuana laws and two states decriminalized marijuana possession. Your predecessors warned us that if we legalized marijuana, even in those very specific and limited ways, it would be a profound mistake, leading to more use, and more harmful consequences. It’s understandable, since you and your predecessors are bound by law to oppose any move toward legalization, so you can understand when we completely ignore your Chicken Little warnings about legalization.

Californians Contact Your State Legislators About Marijuana Now

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

This Friday, June 3, is the last day for bills to be voted on in the California Legislature for passage to the other legislative house. Two major marijuana bills are before the Legislature and need action -- one each in the Senate and the Assembly. It's time to contact your state legislators now and tell them you support SB 129 and AB 1017. Below, you can find easy links to do just that. Legislation that would make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against persons who are authorized under state law to use medical marijuana is pending in the California Senate. Senate Bill 129 declares it unlawful under state law "for an employer to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person, if the discrimination is based upon the person's status as a qualified patient or a positive drug test for marijuana," if the drug test result is indicative of previous, off-the-job marijuana use (e.g., a positive test for marijuana metabolites on a urine screen).

Find your Legislature Representative by clicking HERE.

Gary Johnson: ‘Marijuana Is a Lot Safer Than Alcohol’

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Republican prez hopeful Gary Johnson spent considerable time addressing drug policy issues during his interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity on May 27. “What I’m advocating is the legalization of marijuana,” he told the conservative pundit. “Having done both I can tell you that marijuana is a lot safer than alcohol.” Hannity said, “Marijuana is in a different category” than hard drugs like heroin and crack. But he stopped short of endorsing a change in government policy, stating: “The idea that America would legalize or go down this road is repugnant to me.”

Gary Johnson 2012

Dutch Coffeeshop Ban Looms

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The Dutch government appears to be moving ahead with plans to ban tourists from purchasing marijuana in coffee shops. Although the Netherlands has long been known for liberal drug policies, “far-right political leaders” have spearheaded the new rules. According to a letter from Dutch health and justice ministers to the parliament, the ban is an effort to combat “nuisance and criminality associated with coffee shops and drug trafficking.”

Public Forum Will Support North Carolina Medical Marijuana Bill

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

If If you or someone you care about has cancer or another debilitating medical condition that modern medicine is not helping -- or the medicine is causing more side effects than it is worth -- and you've considered using medical cannabis, you know how important legal access can be.

North Carolina House Bill 577, the "North Carolina Cannabis Act" would help seriously ill patients by providing them with safe and legal access to medical marijuana, and a public forum has been scheduled to help educate legislators and the public about the bill.

The day will kick off with a press conference at 9:30 a.m., in room LB 1328. The North Carolina Cannabis Act House Bill 577 of 2011's Public Forum is scheduled for 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. in the Legislative Auditorium between the House and Senate Chambers. A lunch break at 1 p.m. out on the Halifax Mall, between the legislative buildings, will be sponsored by the North Carolina Cannabis Patients Network (NCCPN).

Many patients from across the country and locally will attend to share how cannabis therapy has helped them and why safe access to medical marijuana should not be illegal for the sick and suffering patients of North Carolina who need this medication.

?The event is organized by Rep. Kelly Alexander, the Carolina Cannabis Coalition, and the NCCPN so that legislators and the public in North Carolina can inform themselves about House Bill 577 and what it will mean to thousands of North Carolinians who so desperately need medical cannabis to live a better quality of life.

Mike Hyde of the Cash Hyde Foundation, "Cancer Fears Me,' will visit from Montana to testify about how cannabis helped save the life of this two-year-old son Cash, diagnosed with stage 4 brain cancer. Mike believes cannabis extract, which he helped Cash to ingest through his feeding tube in the cancer center, helped to cure his son of cancer and save his life.

Cash is the youngest cardholder to become a registered cannabis patient in the United States. He will turn three years old on June 21. The Hyde family now travels around educating everyone they can about the healing that occurred with the aid of cannabis extract.

Additionally, a federal marijuana tin belonging to Irvin Rosenfeld, one of the four remaining federal marijuana patients in the United States, will be on display. Irv receives 300 joints every 25 days in these tins from the U.S. government.

Craig Beresh of the American Cannabis Coalition will attend from San Diego, California to speak on the legal environment surrounding medicinal cannabis.

There will also be many more patients whose lives have been beneficially touched by medical cannabis who will share their stories.

You are invited to attend and support North Carolina's Cannabis Act, House Bill 577 of 2011. North Carolinians can help by just picking up the phone and asking their legislators to attend this event. When you call, please mention that any legislator who attends will receive a free lunch, courtesy of NCCPN.

What: North Carolina Cannabis Act House Bill 577 of 2011's Public Forum

When: Tuesday, June 7, 10 a.m.-3 p.m.

Where: 16 West Jones Street, Raleigh, N.C., in the Legislative Auditorium located centrally between the House and Senate chambers

For more information, contact Rebecca Forbes, (919) 337-7057 or email director@carollinacannabiscoalition.org.

Woman Busted on Phony Pot Charges Sues Prosecutor

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Hollywood, Florida woman is suing the Broward State Attorney’s Office for negligence and malicious prosecution. Robin Brown, 49, was arrested at her place of work for possessing a substance erroneously believed to be marijuana. The “marijuana” was eventually properly tested and turned out to be nothing more than a sage mixture.

In March 2009 Robin Brown, 49, was bird-watching in the affluent city of Weston when Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy Dominic Raimondi spotted her burning a mixture of sage, sweet grass and lavender and mistook it for cannabis. (Sage is a pungent and aromatic herb used to attract certain birds for better viewing, though Brown was burning it for spiritual purposes).

After completing her bird watching for the day, Brown returned to discover Sheriff Raimondi and Florida Fish and Wildlife’s Lieutenant David Bingham looking inside her vehicle. Brown showed the officers her backpack with the binoculars and bird guidebook and they eyed the sage mix Brown was carrying. They asked her if it was pot, and she told them it wasn’t, but Raimondi reportedly said, “Smells like marijuana to me.”

Raimondi then conducted a standard “Duquenois-Levine” or D-L test, the consistent results of which are controversial at best. The D-L test was positive for pot, but Brown protested, showing the officers the online site where she bought the sage. The officers confiscated the rest of the sage mix from Brown’s vehicle, telling her they’d conduct a lab test and if that confirmed the D-L results, she’d be arrested.

Three months later, in June 2009, Sheriff Raimondi arrived at Massage Envy where Brown works and humiliatingly handcuffed her in front of her clients, co-workers and boss. Brown alleged she was never read her rights and while jailed, was forced to undergo a degrading and unnecessary body cavity strip-search.

Only after her release did Brown’s attorney discover that Assistant State Attorney Mark Horn ordered her arrest before the sage mix was actually tested in the crime lab and that she had been busted for the D-L field results only, which resulted in the possession charges against her being subsequently dropped.

Broward County Circuit Judge John Bowman predictably dismissed Brown’s lawsuit against Horn in January 2011 because prosecutors receive immunity from lawsuits when performing their duties. But Brown hasn’t given up the fight, appealing her suit to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal in order to obtain a jury trial, a jury more likely being prone to hold errant prosecutors accountable for their actions than a circuit court judge.

Source: High Times
Author: Mark Miller
Date: June 1, 2011
Link: http://hightimes.com/news/mmiller/7133

America’s One Million Legalized Marijuana Users

Tue, 31 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

At Least 1 – 1.5 Million Americans are Legal Medical Marijuana Patients

Market for these patients in sixteen states and D.C. estimated at between $2 – $6 billion annually

MAY 31, 2011 - We don’t know his or her name, but somewhere in one of sixteen states and the District of Columbia is America’s 1,000,000th legal medical marijuana patient. We estimate the United States reached the million-patients mark sometime between the beginning of the year to when Arizona began issuing patient registry identification cards online in April 2011.

Between one to one-and-a-half million people are legally authorized by their state to use marijuana in the United States, according to data compiled by NORML from state medical marijuana registries and patient estimates. Assuming usage of one-half to one gram of cannabis medicine per day per patient and an average retail price of $320 per ounce, these legal consumers represent a $2.3 to $6.2 billion dollar market annually.

Based on state medical marijuana laws, the amounts of cannabis these legal marijuana users are entitled to possess means there is between 566 – 803 million pounds of legal usable cannabis in America. These patients are allowed to cultivate between 17 – 24 million legal cannabis plants. There may possibly be more, as California and New Mexico “limits” may be exceeded with doctor’s permission and some California counties explicitly allow greater amounts, so there may be as much as one billion pounds of state-legal cannabis cultivated in America.

Active Medical Marijuana State (Total population of sixteen medical marijuana states + D.C. = over 90 million. D.C., Delaware, and New Jersey programs are not yet active.)	# Legal Medical Marijuana Patients (% of state population)
California (1996) - No central state registry, 2% – 3% of overall population estimate by Dale Gieringer at California NORML by comparing rates in Colorado & Montana.	~750,000 (2.00%) ~1,125,000 (3.00%)
Washington (1998) - No registry, 1% – 1.5% of overall population estimate by Russ Belville at NORML by comparing rates in Oregon & Colorado.	~67,000 (1.00%) ~100,000 (1.50%)
Oregon (1998) - Centralized state registry data published online.	39,774 (1.04%)
Alaska (1998) - No data online, verified by author’s call to Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics.	380 (0.05%)
Maine (1999) - Centralized state registry data published online.	796 (0.06%)
Nevada (2000) - 2008 figures from ProCon.org, awaiting return call from state for official number.	860 (0.03%)
Hawaii (2000) - Estimate from Pam Lichty of Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii; program is run by law enforcement who are reluctant to release data.	~8,000 (0.59%)
Colorado (2000) - Centralized state registry data published online.	123,890 (2.46%)
Vermont (2004) - No data online, verified by author’s call to Vermont Criminal Information Center.	349 (0.06%)
Montana (2004) - Centralized state registry data published online.	30,609 (3.09%)
Rhode Island (2006) - Centralized state registry data published online.	3,069 (0.29%)
New Mexico (2007) - Centralized state registry data published online.	3,615 (0.18%)
Michigan (2008) - Centralized state registry data published online.	75,521 (0.76%)
Arizona (2010) - Centralized state registry data published online.	3,696 (0.06%)
TOTAL US LEGAL MARIJUANA USERS	~1,100,000 (1.22%) ~1,500,000 (1.67%)

Yet after fifteen years, one million patients, and half-a-billion pounds of legal marijuana, few if any of the dire predictions by opponents of medical marijuana have come to fruition. Medical marijuana states like Oregon are experiencing their lowest-ever rates of workplace fatalities, injuries, and accidents. States like Colorado are experiencing their lowest rates in three decades of fatal crashes per million miles driven. In medical marijuana states for which we have data (through Michigan in 2008), use by minor teenagers is down in all but Maine and down by at least 10% in states with the greatest proportion of their population using medical cannabis.

Medical Marijuana State	Age 12-17 Monthly Use When Passed	Age 12-17 Monthly Use in 2008	Highway Fatalities When Passed	Highway Fatalities in 2009	Workplace Injuries / Illness When Passed	Workplace Injuries / Illness in 2009
California (1996)	7.70%	6.86%	3,989	3,081	7.1%	4.2%
Washington (1996)	9.90%	7.17%	662	492	9.2%	5.3%
Oregon (1998)	9.60%	8.22%	538	377	6.8%	4.5%
Alaska (1998)	10.40%	8.03%	70	64	7.4%	4.6%
Maine (1999)	7.20%	9.06%	181	159	8.8%	5.6%
Nevada (2000)	9.54%	7.52%	323	243	7.2%	4.4%
Hawaii (2000)	8.72%	7.07%	132	109	6.2%	4.2%
Colorado (2000)	10.80%	9.10%	681	465	n/a	n/a
Vermont (2004)	11.11%	10.86%	98	74	5.6%	5.1%
Montana (2004)	10.00%	8.60%	229	221	7.2%	5.3%
Rhode Island (2006)	9.74%	9.46%	81	83	5.2%	n/a
New Mexico (2007)	8.73%	8.19%	413	361	5.0%	4.8%
Michigan (2008)	n/a	7.36%	980	871	4.5%	4.2%

Fourteen of the seventeen medical marijuana jurisdictions have mandatory registries while two (California and Colorado) offer optional registries and one (Washington) has no registry system. Estimating California’s patient numbers is hampered by its registry system being on a county-by-county basis. California NORML’s Dale Gieringer estimates between 2% – 3% of the state’s population are holding medical marijuana recommendations – meaning possibly over one million medical marijuana patients in California alone.

California’s patient population can be estimated from data from other medical marijuana states where patients are required to register, shown in the table below. The top two of these are Colorado and Montana, which, like California, have a well developed network of cannabis clinics and dispensaries, and which report usage rates of 2.5% and 3.0%, respectively. Other states, where medical marijuana is less developed, report lower rates of 1% and less. However, California is likely to be on the high side because it has the oldest and most liberal law in the nation. Significantly, California is the only state that permits marijuana to be used for any condition for which it provides relief – in particular, psychiatric disorders, such as PTSD, bipolar disorder, ADD, anxiety and depression, which account for some 20%-25% of the total patient population. Adjusting for this, usage in California could be as much as 25% to 33% higher than in Colorado and Montana, which would put it well over 3% of the population (1,125,000).

A 2%+ patient population estimate is supported by data from the Oakland Patient ID Center, which has been issuing patient identification cards to its members since 1996. The OPIDC serves patients from all over the state, but especially the greater Oakland-East Bay area of Northern California, where its cards are honored by law enforcement. As of 2010, the OPIDC had issued ID’s to 19,805 members from five East Bay cities (Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, Hayward and Richmond), amounting to 2.4% of the local population.Because the cards were issued over a period of 14 years, they include numerous patients who have lapsed, moved, or deceased. On the other hand, they do not include many other local patients who have current recommendations but never registered with the OPIDC.

We have made a similar estimate for Washington State’s patients, who are the only ones in the nation with no registry system in place (Gov. Gregoire recently signed a bill that initiates a voluntary registry). With a law very similar to Oregon’s concerning qualifying conditions, applying Oregon’s 1.04% patient population figure gives us about 69,000 patients in Washington. However, Washington State’s larger urban centers (Seattle and Spokane), combined with a more liberal law than Oregon’s regarding who can sign recommendations (osteopaths, naturopaths, and nurse practitioners can recommend in Washington) and the lack of a state registry’s burden to patient compliance with the program suggests a higher estimate of 1.5% – 2% may be appropriate. Numbers like Colorado’s 2.5% and Montana’s 3% are improbable as Washington lacks the greater patient access to dispensaries seen in those states.

Delaware, New Jersey, and D.C.’s programs are not operational yet, so they are not shown in our data table. Most of the other state’s programs produce reports of patient registry numbers. With Arizona signing up over 3,600 patients since mid-April, when it’s online-only registration went into effect, Arizona is on track to register over 30,000 patients this year.

Quick Facts about Medical Marijuana States:

The 1.1 – 1.5 million estimated and registered medical marijuana patients in America are legally entitled to cultivate 17 – 24 million cannabis plants and possess 283 – 402 tons of harvested buds.
The seventeen jurisdictions with medical marijuana encompass over 90 million Americans and 162 votes in the 2012 Electoral College.
Patients make up over 3% of the population of Montana, almost 2.5% of Colorado, over 2% of California. and over 1% of Oregon, and Washington.
After Michigan at 0.76% of population, every other medical marijuana state has less than 3 in 1,000 (0.3%) patients in its population.
California, Colorado, Washington, Michigan, Oregon, and Montana comprise over 98% of the legal medical marijuana patients in America.
More than 3 out of four (77% – 83%) of all medical marijuana patients live on the West Coast.
Rhode Island and Vermont, two states where over 10% of the adult population uses marijuana monthly, have patient populations of 0.29% and 0.05%, respectively.
Monthly teen use of marijuana is down in every medical marijuana state except Maine.
Annual highway fatalities are down in every medical marijuana state except Rhode Island.
Incidents of workplace injuries and illnesses are down in every medical marijuana state.

New CO Rules Not Curbing Growth of MMJ Industry

Tue, 31 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

As Colorado’s new tougher regulations on the medical marijuana business take hold — rules its sponsors predicted would curb sales — the industry is showing remarkable resilience. The state Department of Revenue is preparing to issue its first dispensary licenses and to aggressively enforce the new regulations.

Still, of the 818 dispensaries that originally applied for licenses in August, 759 have managed to navigate the rules and remain on track to receive one. That is a drop-off of about 7 percent.

If there is a pot bubble in Colorado, it hasn’t popped yet.

When the bill creating the new rules was passed by the legislature last year, one of the sponsors, then-state Sen. Chris Romer, predicted it would “close down as much as 50 percent of the existing retail structure.”

That doesn’t appear to have happened yet due to a combination of a product “that so many need” and the industry’s ability to cope with the changing rules, said Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, a trade group.

“There will be probably some fallout, but I think this industry is pretty well grounded,” Smith said.

Romer, a Denver Democrat, and co-sponsor Rep. Tom Massey, a Poncha Springs Republican, say dispensary numbers are likely to shrink after July 1, the date when Revenue Department auditors begin actively checking on compliance.

“My priority was responsible regulation, so I’m pleased that the initial phase has worked to ensure compliance with the law,” Romer, who is running for Denver mayor, said in a statement. “As we move into full implementation, I expect we’ll see additional dispensaries that don’t meet the strict state regulations closed.”

Snipped

Complete Article: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18173169

Source: Denver Post (CO)

Author: John Ingold, The Denver Post

Published: May 31, 2011

Website: http://www.denverpost.com/

Contact: openforum@denverpost.com

When police officers see the light

Mon, 30 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

A rather moving segment featuring Neil Franklin, Executive Director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, at a panel discussion at Riverside Church in New York. He is visibly disturbed by what the drug war has done to the people, and by his part in it before understanding its destruction. A very heartfelt mea culpa. To see video, click 'READ FULL ARTICLE' button above.

2011 Medical Cannabis Cup San Francisco

Mon, 30 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

HIGH TIMES will return to San Francisco June 25 & 26 to host a medical cannabis competition like no other. Join the world's premier marijuana magazine in the City by the Bay where the best medicinal marijuana, hashish and edibles will be crowned!

Don't miss your chance to take in a mind-blowing two-day expo, cultivation, legalization and activism seminars, and of course a very special VIP party.

Grab your tickets today!

For more info, or to purchase tickets, head to

http://medcancup.com/san-francisco

National Drug Intelligence Center fails intelligence test

Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Drug Intelligence Center has released a major new report (that appears to have been prepared at significant expense) titled: The Economic Impact of Illicit Drug Use on American Society 2011

The National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) prepares an annual National Drug Threat Assessment (NDTA) that provides federal policymakers and senior officials with a comprehensive appraisal of the danger that trafficking and use of illicit drugs pose to the security of our nation. To expand the scope of its NDTA, and to provide the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and other federal officials with a broad and deep understanding of the full burden that illicit drug use places on our
country, NDIC has prepared this assessment— The Economic Impact of Illicit Drug Use on American Society. The assessment is conducted within a Cost of Illness (COI) framework that has guided work of this kind for several decades. As such, it monetizes the consequences of illicit drug use, thereby allowing its impact to be gauged relative to other social problems.

In 2007, the cost of illicit drug use totaled more than $193 billion.

$193 billion. In one year? Wow.

How is illicit drug use costing us so much? Let’s look at what they’re including…

Crime includes three components: criminal justice system costs ($56,373,254,000), crime victim costs ($1,455,555,000), and other crime costs ($3,547,885,000). These subtotal $61,376,694,000.

Health includes five components: specialty treatment costs ($3,723,338,000), hospital and emergency department costs for nonhomicide cases ($5,684,248,000), hospital and emergency department costs for homicide cases ($12,938,000), insurance administration costs ($544,000), and other health costs ($1,995,164,000). These subtotal $11,416,232,000.

Productivity includes seven components: labor participation costs ($49,237,777,000), specialty treatment costs for services provided at the state level ($2,828,207,000), specialty treatment costs for services provided at the federal level ($44,830,000), hospitalization costs ($287,260,000), incarceration costs ($48,121,949,000), premature mortality costs (nonhomicide: $16,005,008,000), and premature mortality costs (homicide: $3,778,973,000). These subtotal $120,304,004,000.

Now, you have to read the actual report to understand what they mean by some of those terms above, but are you already starting to get the picture?

The vast majority of those costs are directly attributable to prohibition, not illicit drug use.

Criminal justice costs of $56 billion, for example, include the police, courts, and prisons that enforce drug laws.

And the absolute largest portion of the total costs by far is “lost productivity.” Here’s my favorite: $48 billion attributable to lost productivity due to prison. That’s right, they’re considering it a cost to society that people are not being productive because they’ve been arrested for drug offenses and are in jail. And they attribute this cost to illicit drug use. They even invented a really bizarre-sounding term: drug-induced incarceration.

Now I’ve heard of drug-induced hallucinations before, but drug-induced incarceration? I don’t think so. It takes a law and a judge to induce an incarceration.

Most of the other so-called costs of illicit drug use are equally suspect. Take a look at the lost labor productivity from drug users who aren’t incarcerated. They’ve essentially looked at the income of those who use illicit drugs and compared it to those who don’t and called the difference “lost productivity.” That ignores all sorts of social and class implications related to the status of illicit drugs and also whether drug use drives unemployment or the reverse is true.

Take a look at treatment costs and you’ll find they not only count the cost of treatment, but the cost of lost productivity for those in treatment, and yet treatment may be not a result of illicit drug addiction, but of court mandate.

Or health costs. How much of the health costs mentioned are because illicit drugs are unregulated, leading to overdoses and other health problems? And death. They also counted the lost productivity of every person in history who died because of illicit drugs and would have been alive to work in 2007 otherwise. This means they counted all the people who died from heroin laced with all sorts of adulterants – a direct result of unregulated drugs.

The more you look at the report and analyze it, the more you see it as a damning report on the cost of the drug war to society. And yet it’s actually presented as a justification for the drug war.

The base line they use for the report is a drug-free America.

It is important to note that this analysis occurs within the context of a “what if” scenario in which illicit drug use no longer exists.

So essentially, they are comparing a mythical non-illicit-drug-use state with today’s illicit-drug-use state. Except that that’s not really true. They are completely ignoring prohibition. In a non-illicit-drug-use state, there would be no prohibition. Prohibition is not something that just exists because drug use exists. It is an active and significant factor that’s been added to the equation. To ignore a factor of such magnitude renders the entire report meaningless.

Imagine that the government had bizarrely decreed that corn was only allowed to be planted in rocky desert areas. Now imagine that a government report studied the attempts to grow corn and concluded, without any reference to the decree, that corn was not a viable crop for the United States. How stupid would those analysts look? And yet, this is the same kind of stupidity used in this National Drug Intelligence Center report.

It gets worse.

After listing a bunch of costs that are truly attributable to the drug war and not to illicit drug use, the analysts actually conclude that this report justifies the drug war and the drug policies that the federal government are pursuing.

…it is relatively easy to draw inferences from the findings presented above.

It is important that illicit drugs be made as difficult and costly to obtain as possible. This points to the value of law enforcement efforts. [...]

The findings thus validate the basic premises of the National Drug Control Strategy. Strong law enforcement efforts that reduce cultivation, production, and distribution of illicit drugs both limit consumer access and enhance
public safety…

Incredible. I’ve seen a lot of junk science in my time, but I’d be hard pressed to come up with a more blatant example of just making up a conclusion that had nothing to do with (and in fact was contradicted by) the data presented.

Poll: Eighty Five Percent Of Grandparents Favor Marijuana Legalization

Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

85% of Grandparent Respondents Favor Marijuana Legalization, According to GRAND Magazine Reader Poll

Online Magazine for Grandparents Releases Response Results to Op-Ed Question Posed in its March/April Issue

St. Petersburg, FL. (PRWEB) May 26, 2011

Attitudes about the criminalization of marijuana may be changing among the elders of our society, as the more than 70 million of the baby boomer generation, one to widely experiment with recreational drug use, have and will become grandparents.

GRAND Magazine, the online magazine for today’s grandparents, released today results from their poll question which appeared in the March/April issue. It asked readers if it was time to legalize marijuana. 85% responded that they agreed it was.

The reader respondents who are pot proponents argued in their responses that it is hypocritical to outlaw pot when cigarettes, alcohol and fat-laden foods are legal but account for so many health issues among our population. They point out that marijuana is used to treat medical symptoms such as pain and nausea, and that in some states it is legal for shops to dispense medical marijuana. The billions that are spent in the U.S. on policing and courts related to this issue could be spent on better schools or infrastructure.

Grandparents who are part of the baby boomer generation (those born from 1946 to 1964)(1) have a unique perspective on marijuana, having come of age during a time when pot use became mainstream. 21st century grandparents are a group with a significant influence on the country’s youth as they are the primary caregivers for more than 6 million children(2). In fact, approximately 75 percent of all non-parental care of children is provided by a grandparent(3), representing a large shift in family dynamics. Now it seems that as they guide and influence new generations, they view marijuana use increasingly as a harmless indulgence rather than a gateway to a lifetime of drug abuse.

Among the reader response comments were:

“I am a grandparent strongly in favor of decriminalization. I would much rather my grandkids smoke pot than use cigarettes or alcohol. I expect I will need cannabis for my health soon and don’t want (it) to be illegal. The whole charade needs to stop; we are blowing far too much money on the drug war and have no positive results to show for it. The whole approach is counterproductive,” said D.W., Guysville, OH.

“I am a grandparent of a 17 year-old granddaughter who has been struggling with drug addiction since she was 14 years old. I believe that marijuana is a gateway drug and it has always been her reluctance to give up pot that has brought her back again and again to more dangerous drugs. I understand that the same arguments that have been used for years with the responsible adult consumption of alcohol apply to responsible adult use of pot. … I would vote against legal sale of marijuana…,” said A.C.

To read additional reader responses, click here (http://www.grandmagazine.com/article.asp?id=485)

The link to the page in the GRAND magazine March/April online edition op-ed reader poll that asks, ‘Is it time to legalize marijuana?’ is: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/grand/20110304_v3/index.php#/51/OnePage

GRAND Magazine

GRAND magazine is an online bi-monthly magazine that serves the more than 70 million U.S. grandparent market. It is delivered exclusively in digital format. It is published by GRAND Media, LLC, which was established in 2004. For more information about GRAND magazine visit: http://www.GRANDmagazine.com.

1. U.S. Census Bureau

2. American Community Survey, 2007, U.S. Census Bureau

3. State Fact Sheet for Grandparents and Other Relatives Raising Children, 2007, AARP Foundation, Brookdale Foundation Group, Casey Family Programs, Child Welfare League of America, Children’s Defense Fund, and Generations United

###

For the original version on PRWeb visit here.

Rockin’ Friday: Black Tusk – “Red Eyes Black Skies”

Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Black Tusk (Relapse Records) is a 3 piece Metal band from Savannah, Georgia, United States and formed in 2005. The Savannah scene has produced so many great bands you’d be excused for thinking that sludge is in the water there, but there’s no excuse for overlooking BLACK TUSK. The band’s sophomore release and first for Relapse Records rips into you with locomotive riffing and powerful percussion, creating a furious display that incorporates the fury of punk and the precision of thrash metal within a familiar Southern-fried landscape. If ‘Taste the Sin’ is wrong, you won’t want to be right!

The song “Red Eyes, Black Skies” is a No Holds Barred, Riff Heavy, Fast, and straight to the “joint” song, that will fill your clinched fists full of Black Tusk!

So Stashers, check out Black Tusk, with your Red Eyes Blazin’ as we Fly HIGH through the Black Skies to defeat Prohibition!

http://www.blacktuskterror.com/
http://www.myspace.com/blacktusk
http://www.twitter.com/blacktuskband

Black Tusk
“Red Eyes, Black Skies” (mp3)
from “Taste The Sin”
(Relapse Records)

Buy at Amazon MP3
More On This Album

Arizona US Attorney: I never threatened Gov. Brewer’s state employees

Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Remember Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer saying “For the state employees charged with administering the medical marijuana program or the Arizonans who intend to participate as consumers, it’s important that we receive court guidance as to whether they are at risk for federal prosecution.”

Remember her concluding those official remarks by saying, “The State of Arizona has worked to follow the wishes of voters. But I won’t stand aside while state employees and average Arizonans acting in good faith are unwittingly put at risk. In light of the explicit warnings on this issue offered by Arizona’s U.S. Attorney, as well as many other federal prosecutors, clarity and judicial direction are in order.”

We sure do. What we don’t remember is any direct threat to state employees by the US Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke… and neither does he!

(Yuma Sun) PHOENIX — The top federal prosecutor in Arizona said Gov. Jan Brewer and Attorney General Tom Horne are distorting the facts on the issue of medical marijuana and risks of federal prosecution of state workers.

Burke, in an interview with Capitol Media Services, said his letter simply spelled out the priorities his office has in going after those who sell, transport or use marijuana. More to the point, he said that letter never mentioned state workers.

“It’s fair to read into my letter what I included and what I didn’t,” he said. “And if I didn’t include state employees, I think that’s telling in itself.”

Gubernatorial press aide Matthew Benson said his boss does not believe that silence means state workers have nothing to fear.

“If that’s what he meant, why didn’t he say that?” Benson asked.

But Burke said there was a simple way of dealing with the question.

“You would think that a letter back from Attorney General Horne, as opposed to ‘I’m going to file a lawsuit and have a press conference’ might have been a better course of action,” he said.

Benson conceded that Burke’s letter never mentions state workers.

What Gov. Brewer was reacting to was the threat letters in Washington State over its proposed dispensary system. So, a different state, different US Attorney, different governor, and a completely different law where the state employees would have had greater exposure to prosecution. Sure, Gov. Brewer, you’re no trying to thwart the will of the people… you’re just scared of threats a thousand miles away over some other law.

America’s 750000th Medical Marijuana Patient

Thu, 26 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

We don’t know his or her name, but somewhere in one of sixteen states and the District of Columbia is America’s 750,000th legal medical marijuana patient. The United States reached the three-quarter-million-patients mark as Arizona began issuing patient registry identification cards online in April 2011.

Fourteen of the seventeen medical marijuana jurisdictions have mandatory registries while two (California and Colorado) offer optional registries and one (Washington) has no registry system. Delaware, New Jersey, and D.C.’s programs are not operational yet. Most of the other state’s programs produce reports of patient registry numbers. With Arizona signing up over 3,600 patients since mid-April, when it’s online-only registration went into effect, the fourteen operational programs have served well over 750,000 legal medical marijuana patients.

Quick Facts about Medical Marijuana States:

The 754,799 estimated and registered medical marijuana patients in America are legally entitled to cultivate 11,200,739 cannabis plants and possess 197.78 tons of harvested buds.

The seventeen jurisdictions with medical marijuana encompass over 90 million Americans and 162 votes in the 2012 Electoral College.

Patients make up over 3% of the population of Montana, almost 2.5% of Colorado, and over 1% of California, Oregon, and Washington. After Michigan at 0.76% of population, every other medical marijuana state has less than 0.3% patients in its population.

Rhode Island and Vermont, two states where over 10% of the adult population uses marijuana monthly, have patient populations of 0.29% and 0.05%, respectively.

Most importantly, in all of these states, trains still run on time, fewer teenagers are using marijuana, economies still produce goods and services, traffic safety has increased, and hoardes of pot zombies aren’t roaming the streets in search of sttrraaiinns!

Active Medical Marijuana State	# Legal Patients
California (1996) No central state registry, only counties, estimate by Americans for Safe Access	~400,000
Washington (1998) No registry, estimate by author extrapolating Oregon’s 1.04% patient population to Washington’s population	~69,000
Oregon (1998)	39,774
Alaska (1998) No data online, verified by author’s call to Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics	380
Maine (1999)	796
Nevada (2000) 2008 figures from ProCon.org, awaiting return call from state for official number	860
Hawaii (2000) 2008 figures from ProCon.org, awaiting return call from state for official number	3,240
Colorado (2000)	123,890
Vermont (2004) No data online, verified by author’s call to Vermont Criminal Information Center	349
Montana (2004)	30,609
Rhode Island (2006)	3,069
New Mexico (2007)	3,615
Michigan (2008)	75,521
Arizona (2010)	3,696
TOTAL US	754,799

DEA licenses 55 unnamed Big Pharma pot farms

Thu, 26 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

UPDATE: Paul Armentano confirms that the author of the quoted East Bay Express piece has jumped the gun with this pronouncement. There may be 55 companies that want to produce the generic Marinol using naturally-extracted THC, but that would still have to come from Dr. El Sohly’s farm at U. Miss. See the comments section for more explanation. I apologize for the mis-hype.

Remember the saying, “It’s not paranoia if they’re really out to get you?” Well, is a conspiracy theory about Big Pharma takeover of medical marijuana still a conspiracy when you have evidence?

(East Bay Express) The Drug Enforcement Administration told Legalization Nation in an e-mail last week that 55 unnamed companies now hold licenses to grow cannabis in the United States, a fact that contradicts the widespread belief that there is only one legal pot farm in America, operated under the DEA for research purposes. It appears as if the upswing in federally approved pot farming is about feeding the need of pharmaceutical companies who want to produce a generic version of THC pill Marinol and at least one other cannabis-based pill for a wide variety of new uses.

In other words, if big corporations grow dope with the government and put it in a pill, it’s medicine. But if you grow it at home or at a city-permitted pot farm and then put it in a vaporizer, it’s a felony.

It’s a weird piece of news that comes at a strange and contradictory time for the drug war. As US attorneys send threatening letters to states and cities, including Oakland, warning them against “commercial cultivation” of marijuana, the DEA is quietly handing out licenses for commercial cultivation.

NORML’s Paul Armentano has informed us about the end of the patent on Marinol and how these drug companies want to create similar pills with THC extracted from natural sources rather than synthetic ones, which are more expensive. ”Natural sources” are raw cannabis plants, of course. Silly Stoners Against Legalization, it was never Big Tobacco you had to worry about from legalization of pot, it was Big Pharma you had to worry about from medicalization of pot.

Arizona police stonewall change stories in killing of Iraq War vet in raid

Thu, 26 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Radley Balko from Reason Magazine is my hero for his unparalleled coverage of police malfeasance in the service of armed no-knock raids, usually on drug suspects. His reporting in the Huffington Post on the story of Jose Guerena, while shocking, is not surprising when you’ve read as many “botched drug raid”* (as HuffPo titles it) stories as I have. Just peruse the database at http://cato.org/raidmap for a few minutes to get a feel for how the War on Drugs has become an actual shooting war with cops gunning down citizens who are often innocent of any crime or merely committing personal-use drug crimes.

In short, an armored and armed SWAT team was conducting no-knock raids on a set of homes believed to be involved in marijuana trafficking. Jose Guerena, a Marine with two tours of Iraq under his belt, awoke from sleeping after working a night shift to the sounds of armed intruders breaking into his home. Remembering that two of his wife’s relatives were murdered by home invaders and their three-year-old wounded, Jose orders his wife and four-year-old in the closet to hide while he grabbed his AR-15 rifle to meet the intruders.

When the cops see Guerena at the end of the hallway, they fire 70 rounds in 7 seconds, hitting Jose with 60 of them. At first, cops claimed they saw the flash of his rifle’s muzzle, indicating he was firing, but later recanted and told reporters that actually Guerena’s AR-15 safety was still on as he was shot. As Guerena lie bleeding to death, the cops prevented any paramedics from attending him for over an hour. They claim it is because the raid was still a volatile situation… I guess, unlike the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, where medics were treating victims within minutes even as the scene had yet to be secured.

Please visit Huffington Post and read Balko’s coverage of the cops’ latest double-speak, innuendo, and outright lying as they desperately try to cover their ass over the senseless murder of an American veteran.

*I hate the term “botched drug raid” when there is a no-knock SWAT raid on a drug suspect. You’re breaking into a person’s home without warning, pointing guns, and somebody gets killed? There’s nothing “botched” about that. That is the intent of the raid: go in with overwhelming force, subdue suspects if you can, kill what fights back.

Arizona police stonewall change stories in killing of Iraq War vet in raid

Thu, 26 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Montana stops issuing medical marijuana cards

Wed, 25 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

(Flathead Beacon) HELENA – The state Department of Health and Human Services says it has stopped issuing new medical marijuana cards.

Spokesman Jon Ebelt says his agency is complying with a new medical marijuana law that required the department to stop issuing the cards on May 14.

The new law gives the department powers to issue cards again using stricter patient criteria after June 1.

OK, so for the next week, nobody gets medical marijuana cards. Then starting June 1, hardly anybody will get medical marijuana cards. And all those current medical marijuana patients who cannot get their cards renewed will just stop using marijuana and go back to expensive, toxic, side-effect-laden pills, because surely they wouldn’t break the law now to continue living symptom-free like they had been legally for the past six years.

Help Montana NORML end this madness.

Support The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011

Wed, 25 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Texas Republican Ron Paul and a coalition of 25 co-sponsors are once again seeking to allow for the commercial farming of industrial hemp.

House Bill 1831, The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011, would exclude low potency varieties of marijuana from federal prohibition. If approved, this measure will grant state legislatures the authority to license and regulate the commercial production of hemp as an industrial and agricultural commodity.

Several states — including North Dakota, Montana, and Vermont– have enacted regulations to allow for the cultivation of hemp under state law. However, none of these laws can be implemented without federal approval. Passage of HR 1831 would remove existing federal barriers and allow states that wish to regulate commercial hemp production the authority to do so.

“We are pleased to see the re-introduction of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act in Congress. Vote Hemp is currently working with a Democratic Senator who is preparing to introduce companion legislation in the Senate in support of industrial hemp farming,” says Vote Hemp President, Eric Steenstra. “It is due time for the Senate as well as President Obama and the Attorney General to prioritize the crop’s benefits to farmers and to take action like Rep. Paul and the cosponsors of H.R. 1831 have done. With the U.S. hemp industry valued at over $400 million in annual retail sales and growing, a change in federal policy to allow hemp farming would mean instant job creation, among many other economic and environmental benefits,” adds Steenstra.

According to a 2005 Congressional Resource Service report, the United States is the only developed nation that fails to cultivate industrial hemp as an economic crop. As a result, U.S. companies that specialize in hempen goods — such as Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, Patagonia, Nature’s Path, and Nutiva — have no choice but to import hemp material. These added production costs are then passed on to the consumer who must pay artificially high retail prices for hemp products.

Previous versions of The Industrial Hemp Farming Act were introduced, but failed to receive a public hearing or a committee vote. Please write your members of Congress today and tell them to end the federal prohibition of industrial hemp production. For your convenience, a prewritten letter will be e-mailed to your member of Congress when you enter your contact information below.

For more information about industrial hemp, please visit:http://www.votehemp.org.

Thank you for assisting NORML’s federal law reform efforts.

Continue reading here:
Support The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011

US Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) endorses marijuana decriminalization

Wed, 25 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Presidential Hopeful Tim Pawlenty Offers No Hope for Medical Marijuana

Wed, 25 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

On Monday, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty announced his decision to run for President of the United States. This should have been cause for concern for marijuana reformers and medical marijuana patients, and today that concern was justified.

Gov. Pawlenty has been no friend to marijuana reform in the past. In 2009, he vetoed a bill that would have allowed only terminally ill Minnesotans to use marijuana to ease their pain in their final days. Even though this bill was narrowly tailored to address the concerns of law enforcement, Pawlenty vetoed it regardless, citing… further law enforcement concerns.

This is the same guy who supported a court decision that could have made possession of bong water a felony.

Given this disturbing behavior, and the damage that an anti-marijuana zealot in the White House could do to all the progress we have made in the last few years, we decided to find out if T-Paw still feels the same about the issue.

He does.

After speaking today at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. on such subjects as limited government, federal interference in health care, and saving taxpayer money, MPP’s Bob Capecchi asked the former governor how he could justify vetoing the Minnesota medical marijuana bill, given his stances on these issues.

Pawlenty dodged these obvious inconsistencies completely, and deferred to his standard rhetoric.

“Marijuana? Yeah,” Pawlenty said. “Well… I stood with law enforcement on this issue. We just have a respectful difference on this issue.”

He also mentioned that law enforcement have pretty serious concerns about medical marijuana. Is one of those concerns losing the ability to waste taxpayer money arresting sick people? This difference of opinion doesn’t seem respectful to seriously ill people, let alone to ideological consistency or integrity.

Marijuana reform could become a huge issue during the next presidential election. It is important that we keep putting pressure on candidates to clearly state their position on the issue, and to hold them accountable for that stance in the polls. We need to confront every candidate at every opportunity! Some of us are sure to get chances to question the candidates prior to the election, so let’s use them!

Please send any video of candidates answering such questions to outreach@mpp.org.

Stoners Against Legalization II: Colorado Boogaloo

Wed, 25 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Remember all the fun we had in 2010 with the “Stoners Against Legalization”? These were a loose collection of starry-eyed idealists, anti-authority anarchists, and unscrupulous medical marijuana business owners who believed that keeping healthy people out of jail for using pot would end the gravy train they’re enjoying from their current medical marijuana laws. I dubbed them the “I Gots Mine” crowd and unleashed a torrent of blogging fury to call them out and expose them as the enemies of legalization they are.

Well, get ready for Round Two. An unprecedented coalition of pro-legalization groups, including Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project, Safer Alternatives For Enjoyable Recreation, Sensible Colorado, National NORML, Colorado NORML, and Mile High NORML, filed eight ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana in Colorado. From those eight they will see which pass muster from the Secretary of State’s office, which gets the best official ballot title, and which poll with the best chance of winning.

However, one group, Cannabis Therapy Institute (the folks that brought you Miguel Lopez making a scene at the Capitol that killed a patient-friendly amendment… and then blamed the legislator who submitted it!) is fuming mad that they weren’t given the chance to vet the language before submission. Here are some of the reasons why CTI thinks we should continue to lock up people who are too healthy to be a part of their marijuana club:

Ironically, Denver conservative cannabis group SAFER has always espoused the belief that marijuana should be treated like alcohol. But the MPP/DPA/Sensible/SAFER (MDSS) initiative treats cannabis much stricter than alcohol. By limiting cannabis consumers to one ounce at a time, unlike alcohol with no limits, the MDSS initiative will ensure greater scrutiny on cannabis consumers than any alcohol consumer ever had.

“Conservative cannabis group SAFER”? Wow, I’ll have to check with National Review, The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, and The Christian Science Monitor so they can write articles on their conservative brethren. Oh, and FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, all those AM talkers on right-wing radio, they’re all big fans of SAFER and marijuana legalization.

So let’s get this straight: because a legalization initiative might limit you to purchase and possession of an ounce, instead of allowing you to buy as much as you want and possess as much as you want, you’d prefer that healthy Coloradoans continue to be arrested, jailed, and saddled with a lifetime criminal record? If your input is “We ought to be able to have all the marijuana we want!” and you seriously think that will pass in a state that rejected one ounce legalization by a 59% vote in 2006, I’m not surprised if you weren’t consulted.

The MDSS Initiative would also allow for and set Constitutional standards for driving discrimination, employment discrimination, and tenant discrimination of marijuana users. The MDSS Initiative makes “Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana” a new Constitutional crime, completely wiping away victories scored by patient advocates to kill a THC/DUI bill in the state legislature this year.

News flash: Driving under the influence of marijuana is a crime in Colorado NOW. Here is the scary language in Section 6 of the initiatives CTI is scaremongering:

6. Employers, Driving, Minors and Control of Property.

(A) Nothing in this section is intended to require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale or growing of marijuana in the workplace or to affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees.

So… employers can continue to do to cannabis consumers what they do NOW, but at least those consumers won’t be arrested and jailed for cannabis use. And those consumers would have a better case to fight discrimination against cannabis use since it will be legal. CTI would prefer an initiative that forbids employer discrimination and without it, those healthy cannabis consumers should continue to be locked up. Despite the fact that Prop 19 had that kind of anti-discrimination language and it was cited as a major reason the business community opposed it.

(B) Nothing in this section is intended to allow driving under the influence of marijuana or driving while impaired by marijuana or to supersede statutory laws related to driving under the influence of marijuana or driving while impaired by marijuana, nor shall this section prevent the state from enacting and imposing penalties for driving under the influence of or while impaired by marijuana.

So… the cops can still bust you under the DUID laws that exist NOW. Now read carefully, do you see any of that THC/DUI language CTI mentioned they killed? No? CTI would prefer an initiative that protects cannabis consumers from driving discrimination and without it, healthy cannabis consumers ought to still be locked up even when they’re not driving.

(C) Nothing in this section is intended to permit the transfer of marijuana, with or without remuneration, to a person younger than twenty-one years of age or to allow a person younger than twenty-one years of age to purchase, possess, use, transport, grow, or consume marijuana.

To their credit, at least CTI (to my knowledge) isn’t bellyaching about this paragraph. My personal preference would be an age of 18 but I’m politically wise enough to know that nothing under 21 has a shot in hell of passing.

(D) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a person, employer, school, hospital, detention facility, corporation or any other entity who occupies, owns or controls a property from prohibiting or otherwise regulating the possession, consumption, use, display, transfer, distribution, sale, transportation, or growing of marijuana on or in that property.

So… your landlord, boss, etc. can still prevent you from possessing and using marijuana on their property like they can NOW. CTI would prefer an initiative that allows you to take your marijuana into any public space and without it, healthy cannabis consumers should still be locked up if caught with marijuana in their private spaces.

Back to CTI. Another of their complaints is that taxes would be collected on marijuana sales and would go to the big bad gub’mint!

Some of the 8 versions of the MDSS Initiative reportedly also allow a 15% excise tax, which will create more funding for the Department of Revenue marijuana police force. The MMED already has a budget larger than the entire Colorado Bureau of Investigation, all funded by the medical marijuana industry. Do we really want to be handing over a 15% per ounce extra tax to buy more handcuffs?

Handcuffs for all those cannabis consumers who will not be arrested for buying, selling, and possessing one ounce of legal marijuana? So let’s be clear; CTI thinks if marijuana is legalized, no money should go toward the enforcement of those laws.

And let’s make one provision of the initiative perfectly clear: It specifically and directly does not affect Colorado’s medical marijuana laws:

7. Medical marijuana provisions unaffected. Nothing in this section shall be construed:

(A) To limit any privileges or rights of a medical marijuana patient, primary caregiver, or licensed entity as provided in section 14 of article XVIII and the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code;

So if you’re healthy, you get an ounce away from the home, three mature and three immature plants in the home and all the marijuana produced on the premises (a.k.a. “a shit-ton of marijuana”):

3. Personal Use of Marijuana. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Colorado law or the law of any locality within Colorado or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under Colorado law for persons twenty-one years of age or older:

(A) Possessing, using, displaying, purchasing, or transporting marijuana accessories or one ounce or less of marijuana.

(B) Possessing, growing, processing, or transporting no more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants, and possession of the marijuana produced by the plants on the premises where the plants were grown, provided that the growing takes place in an enclosed, locked space, is not conducted openly or publicly, and is not made available for sale.

(C) Transfer of one ounce or less of marijuana without remuneration to a person who is twenty-one years of age or older.

And if you’re sick or disabled you can still get your card and have your three plus three plants, two ounces away from the home, and the new legalization allowance of all the processed marijuana at your grow site, and you still have an affirmative defense for more. But because some of the taxes might buy handcuffs, according to CTI, the healthy people should be arrested and locked up for even one plant.

Beyond complaints with the language, CTI adjusts the tinfoil hat and offers explanations why this out-of-state cabal (whose Mason Tvert and Brian Vicente are Coloradoans) went ahead with legalization initiatives without the CTI’s blessing:

This unilateral move by MPP/DPA/Sensible/SAFER cast doubts that any cannabis law reform ballot initiative in Colorado would be successful. These conservative groups seem to want to duplicate the strategy of dividing and ignoring the progressive grassroots, as MPP/DPA did in their medical marijuana campaigns of 1997/98 nationwide.

“These conservative groups” that WON their medical marijuana campaigns in 1997/98, you mean? That helped to WIN the medical marijuana law in Colorado? CTI keeps trying to paint this as some sort of “conservative” vs. “progressive” argument and in the very next sentence, shred any credibility one might have of their understanding of those ideological terms:

Many people don’t know that billionaire currency manipulator George Soros funded Amendment 20 in 1997/98 through the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), headed by Rob Kampia in DC, and the Open Society Institute, headed by Ethan Nadelmann. Nadelmann now works with the Drug Policy Alliance, based in New York and California, but also funded by Soros…

Yes, George Soros, the man demonized by conservatives from Glenn Beck to George Will as the liberal billionaire scourge trying to legalize drugs , is CTI’s conservative boogey man.

No, what this is really a “divide” between is the rational, educated, politically mature adults and the people who have their hearts in the right place but their brains in vapor-lock by thinking a majority of the voting public is ready to treat marijuana like tomatoes. In politics, you don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If there is an opportunity to prevent the arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment of cannabis consumers and you are publicly opposing it, you are my enemy as much as the prohibitionists who will be voting along with you against reform.

The real fun Stoners Against Legalization tirades take place in the comments:

Kathleen Chippi in reply to Enough CTI

I’m sick of you f’ing know nothings–I’m starting to believe your cops infiltrating to cause problems.

No matter because enough people appreciate and respect CTI and ACT and other local groups that this will be prop 19 all over again, and we will help kill it with smiles on our faces. It is better to have NOTHING different rather than have shit language screw with patients, caregivers and voters in general for years to come…we have heard the “we can fix it later” and we know that means nothing will be fixed. They also promised to fix A20 13 years ago and they have done nothing.

This language and any language will fail as the national groups have split the vote and were not even in 2012.

You read it right: she and her allies will kill legalization with a smile on their faces. That’s something you’d expect a drug czar or a narc to say, huh?

Kathleen Chippi in reply to Paul

Paul Armentino? The NORML nazi? Come on Pual where is the evidence of things I have done to hold up the ‘industry’? Love to see something other than personal attacks.

Yeah, you Nazi, enough with the personal attacks.

Robert in reply to Paul

If this is Paul Armentano, we know about your organization and its commitment to legalization; your President said NORML did not care about legalization in West Virginia and that it is too easy to get cannabis in California — you aren’t national and you aren’t for legalizing cannabis either. Asking WW to exclude us from about the only media forum where the grassroots of Colorado can speak is a fascist impulse.

You keep using this word “fascist”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

By the way, it wasn’t Paul Armentano. Oddly enough, Paul has a little too much on his plate reviewing thousands of medical and scientific studies on cannabis to engage people who violate Godwin’s Law on WestWord comments sections.

Corey Donahue in reply to Paul

[W]hy are you supporting language in our Constitution when you reside out of state Paul? And why are you supporting language that is called “legalization” but only up to 6 plants and 1 oz, which would make it illegal over 6 plants or an oz?

Seriously, this is the level of political reason and basic logic the Stoners Against Legalization possess. If you make it legal to have six plants (and ALL the cannabis you harvest from them) and an ounce (outside the home), that’s not legalization because people with 30 grams and seven plants could be prosecuted. Which leads me to believe if it was twelve plants and a pound or a hundred plants and a pickup truck load, those wouldn’t be legalization either, because people above those limits could still be busted.

High Country Caregiver

The legal 1 oz laws are total garbage. The same laws got passed in Breckenridge and they mean nothing. An initiative like this is not legalization, and I will never be fooled into voting for fools trying to make fools of us pot heads just trying to get high and have fun. Anything shy of making cannabis as legal as tomatoes is just further prohibition and should be voted down.

If marijuana can’t be grown by anyone, anywhere, bought and sold in farmer’s markets, available to children (kids can have tomatoes), and grown in unsecured backyard gardens, then adults over 21 who possess less than an ounce and grow six plants at home should continue to be arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated. (HCG, you need nobody’s help to look the fool.)

What all these detractors misunderstand is the word “legalization”. What they want is “deregulation” – they’re looking for no regulations, as in “treat it like tomatoes”. Sorry, folks, legalization requires regulation and marijuana is never going to be treated like tomatoes. For one, tomatoes do not get you high. Nobody is worried about their kids sneaking tomatoes from your garden. Nobody is concerned with how many tomatoes you’ve eaten before you drive a car. Nobody’s worried about people overeating tomatoes and how they may behave in public afterward.

Members Of Congress Introduce Multiple Medical Marijuana Reform Bills

Wed, 25 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

A coalition of United States House lawmakers — led by NORML 2011 national conference keynote speaker Jared Polis (D-CO) — today introduced a trio of measures in Congress to reform federal marijuana laws. The measures are:

The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act;
The Small Business Banking Improvement Act of 2011; and
The Small Business Tax Equity Act of 2011.

Representative Polis has issued the following press release outlining the significance and the intentions of these measures.

Bipartisan Coalition Urges Sensible Drug Policy
Introducing Three Bills to Protect Access to Medical Marijuana

Washington, May 25 – In a sign of growing bipartisan Congressional support for reforming our nation’s drug laws, a coalition of Republicans and Democrats today offered three bills that would ensure fair treatment of cannabis businesses under tax and banking law, and change existing law to reflect the medical efficacy of marijuana. The bills were authored by Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA), Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO).

Stark’s bill – the Small Business Tax Equity Act – would allow medical marijuana dispensaries to take the full range of business expense deductions on their federal tax returns, just like every other legal business is permitted to do under the law. It is co-sponsored by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), as well as Frank and Polis.

“Our tax code undercuts legal medical marijuana dispensaries by preventing them from taking all the deductions allowed for other small businesses,” Stark stated. “While unfair to these small business owners, the tax code also punishes the patients who rely on them for safe and reliable access to medical marijuana prescribed by a doctor. The Small Business Tax Equity Act would correct these shortcomings.”

The States’ Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act, authored by Frank and co-sponsored by Stark, Polis and Rohrabacher, would make individuals and entities immune to federal prosecution when acting in compliance with state medical marijuana laws. It would also direct the administration to initiate the process of rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act so that it is placed in a schedule other than Schedules I or II.

“The time has come for the federal government to stop preempting states’ medical marijuana laws,” Frank said. “For the federal government to come in and supersede state law is a real mistake for those in pain for whom nothing else seems to work. This bill would block the federal prosecution of those patients who reside in those states that allow medical marijuana.”

Polis’ Small Business Banking Improvement Act, which is cosponsored by Stark, Frank and Paul, would ensure that medical marijuana businesses that are state-certified have full access to banking services by amending the Bank Secrecy Act.

“When a small business, such as a medical marijuana dispensary, can’t access basic banking services they either have to become cash-only—and become targets of crime—or they’ll end up out-of-business,” said Polis. “In states that have legalized medical marijuana, and for businesses that have been state-approved, it is simply wrong for the federal government to intrude and threaten banks that are involved in legal transactions.”

Stark and Polis welcomed Congressman Paul’s support for their bills.

“It is time to get the federal government out of state criminal matters, so states can determine sensible drug policy for themselves,” added Paul. “It is quite obvious the federal war on drugs is a disaster. Respect for states’ rights means that different policies can be tried in different states and we can see which are the most successful. This legislation is a step in the right direction as it removes a major federal road block impeding businesses that states have determined should be allowed within their borders.”

NORML and many of our allied organizations have been working closely with the staff of Reps. Frank, Polis, and others on these measures, and we commend these representatives for courageously standing up for the rights of patients and their providers. NORML will have more information about these bills, and how you can contact your members of Congress in support of these efforts, imminently in our ‘Take Action Center.‘

Arizona to sue to clarify medical marijuana act

Wed, 25 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

By David Schwartz
PHOENIX | Tue May 24, 2011 9:38pm EDT

(Reuters) - Arizona will file a lawsuit in federal court to learn whether a controversial medical marijuana law passed by voters last November is legal, Arizona's governor said on Tuesday.

Republican Governor Jan Brewer said the state will file the court action by Friday to make sure that Arizona does not put state workers and consumers in jeopardy as it implements its voter-sanctioned Medical Marijuana Act.

The decision to seek clarification comes after the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, Dennis Burke, warned in a letter to state health officials earlier this month that the cultivation, sale and distribution of marijuana is still against federal law and subject to prosecution.

In it, Burke said he would "vigorously prosecute individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing, distribution and marketing activity involving marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law."

Brewer said she wants to follow voter's wishes, but remains concerned.

"I won't stand aside while state employees and average Arizonans acting in good faith are unwittingly put at risk," she said in a prepared statement released Tuesday.

"In light of the explicit warnings on this issue offered by Arizona's U.S. Attorney, as well as many other federal prosecutors, clarity and judicial direction are in order," she added.

Arizona became the 15th state in the nation to approve medical marijuana. Last November, voters gave the go-ahead to a ballot measure by a razor-thin margin.

The state has been accepting applications from individuals seeking to used marijuana for medical purposes since April.

Figures show that 3,696 people have been given cards to use marijuana for a range of medical problems, with the bulk of the users approved because of chronic pain.

The legal action also comes as the state readied to accept applications statewide on June 1 for those seeking to dispense the drug under the new law. There will be 125 dispensaries allowed under Arizona Department of Health Service rules.

Officials have said the dispensaries would start operating in late September or early October. But a governor's aide told Reuters that Brewer wants to put the dispensary part of the law on hold pending a decision on the legal case.

###

Source: Rueters

Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/25/us-arizona-marijuana-idUSTRE74O0B720110525

Lawsuit Demands Feds Respond: Marijuana as a Schedule II Drug?

Wed, 25 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

In 2002, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis submitted a petition to request that marijuana be reclassified, but they have never received an answer. Today, they filed a lawsuit in the Washington DC Circuit Court asking for President Obama’s administration to respond to the petition. The groups represented in the coalition are Americans for Safe Access, Patients out of Time and several individually named patients. What they filed today was a “writ of mandamus.” They say the government’s unreasonable delay in giving them an answer is in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. A writ of mandamus is a request to legally protect the rights of someone suffering a grievance and denied a legal right. The coalition is asking for the administration to respond within 60 days.

Note that a previous petition to reschedule cannabis filed by NORML in 1972 went unanswered for 22 years before being denied. The writ of mandamus also argues that cannabis is not a dangerous drug, and that there is evidence of its therapeutic benefits. This would create a weak point in the defense for the schedule one classification of cannabis since by definition, a schedule one substance has no medicinal value. In fact, in regard to the 1972 NORML petition, in 1988 the DEA’s own Administrative Law Judge Francis Young stated that, “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” He recommended “the Administrator transfer marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II to make it available as a legal medicine.” Nevertheless, DEA Administrator John Lawn rejected Young’s recommendation. Since then, the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians have called upon the government to review the scheduling of marijuana.

The Coalition’s lawsuit is basically forcing the government’s hand, so to speak. A formal rejection of their petition would allow the group to go to court to challenge the DEA’s assertion that marijuana has no medical value.

My letter to the Drug Court Professionals: Pot smokers pad your stats

Tue, 24 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Dr. Marlowe, Mr. Huddleston;

As a writer for NORML (the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), I have been following the research by Drug Policy Alliance and Justice Policy Institute that criticizes the claimed successes of drug courts in America. Your response to their criticisms caught my attention today: http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/NADCP%20Response%20to%20DPA%20and%20JPI%20Media%20Attacks%20on%20Drug%20Courts.pdf

I just have to tell you that I really can’t take seriously studies on claiming success or failure of drug courts when so many people sentenced to rehab by these courts are simply marijuana users who got caught. Sure, you can claim great success in rehabilitating pot smokers when you force them to pee in a cup for a couple of years, because you’re curing people who are neither addicted nor criminal. Until you can provide some heroin-meth-cocaine-alcohol-only statistics, your numbers are all suspect; they’re padded with pot smokers.

According to the 2008 TEDS, 17.2% of treatment admission were for marijuana/hashish and 57% of them were forced into rehab by criminal justice simply because they were caught with marijuana/hashish. Over a third (37%) hadn’t used marijuana the month before admission and another 16% had used 1-3 times. Surely these people do not have addiction problems, they have police problems. If drug courts were forcing weekend beer drinkers into rehab solely for being caught with beer, you’d get great data on rehabbing all those “alcoholics”, too. When 88% of marijuana arrests are for possession alone of usually small user amounts, what we have is a system that criminalizes and stigmatizes mostly young and minority people to feed a growing drug court / rehab industrial complex (forgive me, Ike).

I’ll leave it to others to argue the merit of using the threat of cages and Scarlet Letters to force people into rehab who are truly physiologically addicted to hard drugs like alcohol, heroin, cocaine, and meth. I fundamentally believe that no man has the right to punish another man for what he does to himself; the results of his actions should be consequence enough. We punish the drunk driver, but the drunk is not a criminal. Likewise, punish the addicted who commit crime, but the addict himself is not a criminal. The data from Portugal you dismiss offhandedly as damning indication of DPA’s motivations are some very compelling arguments for treating addiction as a medical, not a criminal problem.

Advocates File Lawsuit Demanding Federal Government Assess Medical Value Of Cannabis

Mon, 23 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

A coalition of public interest advocacy groups filed suit today in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to compel the Obama administration to respond to a nine-year-old petition to reclassify marijuana under federal law.

The suit was filed by attorneys Joe Elford of Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and Michael Kennedy of the NORML Legal Committee on behalf of the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC). The Coalition, which includes NORML and California NORML, filed a comprehensive rescheduling petition with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on October 9, 2002 challenging marijuana’s Schedule I classification as a controlled substance with “no currently accepted medical use” and a “high potential for abuse.” The agency formally accepted the petition for filing on April 3, 2003, and per the provisions of the United States Controlled Substances Act (CSA) referred the petition to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in July 2004 for a full scientific and medical evaluation.

To date, the federal government has not publicly responded to the petition.

Today’s lawsuit petitions the Court for a writ of mandamus “directing the DEA and the Attorney General to issue a full and final determination on petitioners’ Petition to reschedule marijuana, or, alternatively, state whether it will initiate rulemaking proceedings, within 60 days.”

It states: “The DEA’s delay here of more than eight years since the rescheduling Petition was filed — and more than four years since it received HHS’ binding evaluation and recommendations — is inexcusable. … [T]his agency delay in acting on the rescheduling Petition is unreasonable, requiring this Court to intervene.”

Under the CSA, the Attorney General has the authority to reschedule a drug if he finds that it does not meet the criteria for the schedule to which it has been assigned. The Attorney General has delegated this authority to the Administrator of the DEA, presently Michelle Leonhart.

The 2002 CRC petition seeks to reschedule cannabis from its Schedule I designation to a less restrictive class under the CSA “on the grounds that: (1) marijuana does have accepted medical uses in the United States; (2) it is safe for use under medical supervision and has an abuse potential lower than Schedule I and II drugs; and (3) it has a dependence liability that is also lower than Schedule I or II drugs.”

NORML filed a similar rescheduling petition with the DEA in 1972, but was not granted a federal hearing on the issue until 1986. In 1988, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young ruled that marijuana did not meet the legal criteria of a Schedule I prohibited drug and should be reclassified. Then-DEA Administrator John Lawn rejected Young’s determination, a decision the D.C. Court of Appeals eventually affirmed in 1994.

A subsequent petition was filed by former NORML Director in 1995, but was rejected by the DEA in 2001.

Additional information on this suit will appear in this week’s NORML news update. To receive these e-mail updates free, please sign up here.

Joplin NORML’s Kelly Maddy loses Missouri home to tornado; please help!

Mon, 23 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Kelly's house was obliterated

Joplin NORML’s, Kelly Maddy, wife Adriel, brother Kyle, and soon-to-be sister-in-law Kelsi’s houses were both destroyed in a devastating tornado Sunday, May 22nd. Our thoughts and best wishes go out to all the people of the Midwest dealing with these terrible storms. Please donate to help our colleagues and friends get back on their feet and back to fighting the cause.

Joplin NORML is one of our most active Midwest chapters. Kelly and his crew have donated thousands of hours of their time successfully passing pro-marijuana initiatives in their city and educating Missourians on the need to end prohibition. Please give anything you can to help these tireless activists.

This is Kelly's neighborhood today

(Thanks to Tulsa NORML’s Garret Overstreet for organizing the help. We NORMLizers stick together!)

U.S. Supreme Court orders California to release over 30000 prisoners

Mon, 23 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Today, in a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision ordering California to reduce its state prison population by more than 30,000 prisoners. It found that as a result of overcrowding, the prisoners’ “medical and mental health care … has fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements … .” Even after the prison population is reduced, California’s prisons could still be over 37% above capacity.

The dissent painted a picture of a public safety disaster if the inmates were released. But, in reality, California prisons are far more dangerous to some of these inmates than those inmates have ever been to society. As the court noted, “needless suffering and death have been the well documented result” of current conditions.

Outrageously, many prisoners are there for nothing more than growing or delivering a plant that has never caused a fatal overdose — marijuana. In California, cultivation of marijuana (other than under the medical marijuana law) is a felony punishable by up to three years in state prison.

For participating in the production or sale of a substance safer than alcohol, these non-violent marijuana offenders face possible death in prison. The Supreme Court quoted a lower court ruling that prisoners were needlessly dying every five to six days as a result of the conditions. For example, “A prisoner with severe abdominal pain died after a five-week delay in referral to a specialist; a prisoner with ‘constant and extreme’ chest pain died after an eight-hour delay in evaluation by a doctor; and a prisoner died of testicular cancer after a ‘failure of MDs to work up for cancer in a young man with 17 months of testicular pain.’”

The state of California will decide who will be released. But this decision should result in the release of all non-violent marijuana offenders who are in state prison. Unlike violent and property criminals, their crimes had no victims. Then again, if decisions on who to imprison and who to let free were in keeping with reason and morality, we wouldn’t see non-violent marijuana offenders sentenced to life while convicted child sex offenders walk free on probation …

Stash for Mon May 23 2011

Mon, 23 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Download Link: Secret Stash - Register to access
Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2011-05-23.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

Brought to you by Cannabis Fantastic

Helena, Montana, site of latest DEA raid on Sleeping Giant Caregivers
President Obama pardons two marijuana convicts
Americans for Safe Access files lawsuit over rescheduling petition delay

Daily Toker Tunes

Brought to you by CannaBob and The Viper Hour on The NORML Network

Roots Monday: Human – “The Tree of Life”

NORML Newsmakers

Garret Overstreet from Tulsa NORML discusses fundraising for Kelly Maddy, Joplin NORML’s director whose house was destroyed in the Missouri tornado

Radical Rant

Wouldn’t it be nice if every activist group got behind one legalization effort?

Obama Pardons Include Two For Marijuana Crimes

Mon, 23 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The White House issued eight presidential pardons today, including two for cannabis crimes. This is the second set of pardons President Obama has granted. So far, he has granted 17 pardons in total. At this point in the previous administration, George W. Bush had only granted twelve. Both those numbers are low compared to the number of pardons granted by the previous 10 administrations. Mr. Obama has received 672 petitions for pardons and over 4,000 requests for commutation of sentence.

A presidential pardon not only forgives the crime for which an individual was convicted. It also removes the penalties for that crime. Today’s list of eight individuals, however, have served all their jail terms and the probation periods already. The oldest crime for which a pardon will be granted occurred in 1975, and the most recent was in 2001. Two of the crimes on the list were for marijuana.

On the top of the list was Randy Dyer, from Washington. His offense was conspiracy to import hashish and conspiracy to remove baggage from the custody and control of the US customs. Also on the list was Christine Rossiter, from Nebraska who was convicted of distributing less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. Her sentence from 1992 was three years probation and 500 hours of community service. There was another drug offender on the list, for manufacture of methamphetamine. There was a satellite cable thief, an illegal gun seller ( a tax issue), another tax reporting evader, and a man from South Carolina who was convicted for selling illegal American alligator hides.

Original post:

Obama Pardons Include Two For Marijuana Crimes

More from Willie Nelson on Gary Johnson

Sat, 21 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

By Steve Bloom

It’s been a crazy week at the Teapot Party. First, we endorsed Gary Johnson for the Republican presidential nomination. Then Willie Nelson appeared to rescind the endorsement.

In an email to me, Nelson stated: “If we back someone that’s us telling them how to vote. I’m not qualified. Let’s not back a political candidate. Let’s give our opinions and say what we know about everyone, but let’s let everyone decide for themselves.”

Of course, the media had a field day with the Teapot Party’s “flip-flop” on Gary Johnson. Here are a few of the links: Politico • Toke of the Town • Reason • Drug War Chronicle • Mediaite • Daily Caller.

But one media outlet, The Raw Story, really nailed it with an exclusive interview with the former two-term New Mexico governor/wannabe president. With great humility and a touch of humor, Johnson commented on Nelson’s change of tune:

“I didn’t expect anything going in there. I do think the world of Willie Nelson. I’m a really huge fan but I wasn’t expecting anything. The flip-flop, I assume, has to do with all sorts of reality factors. I’m just guessing here. Willie Nelson aside, I’ve always openly wondered why any celebrity would endorse any political candidate because there’s just no upside to it whatsoever. But in this case he does have the Teapot Party and the Teapot Party’s main issue is legalizing marijuana, so I thought I understood his reasons for endorsing, and welcomed it. I thought that was terrific. But it is what it is, and I think it has brought attention to the issue, and maybe I’ve gotten some attention out of it, so I’m certainly not negatively pulsed by this at all.”

I forwarded this comment to Nelson last night. Here’s his reply:

“This just proves what I thought all along. Gary Johnson is a great American. He will make a great president if elected. And I will support him all the way in the GOP primary. I also support Dennis Kucinich on the Dem side if he decides to run. They are great Americans and I’m proud to support both of them.”

Kucinich is the Ohio Congressman who ran for the Democratic nomination in 2008 with Nelson’s support. So it now appears that the Teapot Party will be supporting, if not fully endorsing, both Johnson and Kucinich’s 2012 presidential runs. It’s unclear right now if Kucinich will actually be a candidate this time around.

The media can continue to have fun with the Teapot Party and our changing stands, but the fact is what appeared to be an embarrassing situation earlier this week has repaired itself, thanks to Nelson’s wise considerations. And we’ll take all that publicity, good or bad, right to the voting booths this year and next.

Oregon HB 3664 medical marijuana hearing testimony and charts

Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Today law enforcement and cannabis community activists were invited to testify before a committee in the Oregon Legislature hearing bill HB 3664, an act thoroughly opposed by the community and lauded by law enforcement to curb “rampant abuse”.

Read the details on the odious provisions of HB 3664 here. Our own Stash contributor Jennifer Alexander was one of the five activists invited to testify and she presented a PowerPoint presentation including reports she’s compiled of law enforcement abuse of patient data, with data gathered by Christine McGarvin and visually analyzed by me (those charts are included below).

Here are the posts from my Twitter Feed as I live-blogged the hearings – they may help you fast-forward to the bits you most want to hear. You can’t miss the cop talking about how a poor grower can easily get 2lbs. off of a single plant and the audience bursts into raucous laughter (about 22-24 minutes in).

Law Enforcement opposition and Cannabis Community activist support

Closing: José Garza and Jennifer Alexander, with NORML data visualizations of research by Christine McGarvin and others

Jennifer Alexander’s PowerPoint presentation, with data from Christine McGarvin and visualizations by Russ Belville

Oregon LEDS Statistics PPT Presentation

URGENT: Write to the Oregon House Rules Committee sample text enclosed

Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The hearing for HB 3664, the omnibus bill that combines the various proposed medical marijuana bills presented to the 2011 Oregon Legislature into one bill, demonstrated the solidarity of the Oregon patient advocates. Only one hour was allocated to oral testimony on this very important issue, and many advocates were not able to testify (even though there were over three pages of people signed up, most in opposition). The hearing room and additional overflow spaces were packed with patients defending the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act from further restrictions.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Representative Andy Olson, the primary sponsor of the bill, stated that he would allow testimony through the end of the day on Friday (May 20, 2011).

Patient advocates are encouraged to send the following letter to the Committee on House Rules – just click the link and sign your name to the email:

Send your letter NOW by clicking here!

Read the original post:
URGENT: Write to the Oregon House Rules Committee, sample text enclosed

Oregon Supreme Court: Medical marijuana patients have gun rights too

Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

FINALLY! A Supreme Court decision this week I can wholeheartedly support! Huge congratulations goes to NORML Legal Committee attorney Leland Berger who argued the case with assistance from another NLC’er, John Lucy.

(Albany Times-Union) GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that retired bus driver Cynthia Willis can have her medical marijuana and her concealed handgun, too.

The court ruled Thursday that a federal law barring criminals and drug addicts from buying firearms does not excuse sheriffs from issuing concealed weapons permits to people who qualify, including those who hold medical marijuana cards.

Willis says she feels “like a big girl now” because the court found medical marijuana patients should be treated like everyone else.

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Ore-court-rules-medical-pot-users-can-have-guns-1386735.php#ixzz1MoyeHdwg

Oregon Supreme Court: Medical Cannabis Patients Have Second Amendment Rights Too

Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Great news today from Oregon’s Supreme Court (as compared to SCOTUS!) regarding personal responsibility and liberty in ruling for a medical cannabis patient who was denied their full Second Amendment rights simply because they use cannabis.

The case was largely championed by NORML Legal Committee member and Amicus chair Leland Berger of Portland and from legal counsel from the National Rifle Association.

Mr. Berger’s remarks are found below announcing the case today on NORML’s network. The decision can be read here.

“To conclude: the sheriffs in this case are not excused from their duty under ORS 166.291(1) to issue CHLs to qualified applicants, without regard to the applicant’s use of medical marijuana, on the ground that issuance of CHLs to medical marijuana users would violate a federal prohibition on making false statements about the lawfulness of transferring firearms to such persons. Neither are the sheriffs excused from that statutory duty on the ground that it is preempted by federal law. The sheriffs were without authority to deny petitioner’s CHL applications.”

Full text of unanimous opinion, authored by the chief, issued 77 days after oral argument online here:

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S058645.htm

Many thanks to John Lucy, who has forgotten more obscure gun law (and facts) than I ever knew, to OPDS Appellate Section for meeting with John and I pre-argument for a discussion of potential questions, to Adelia Hwang for researching federal legislative history of the federal guncontrol act and to Kristin Stankiewicz for her research assistance onother issues; to Alan Silber of Roseland NJ for developing a judicialestoppel argument and to Bill Panzer of Oakland, CA for explaining it to me.

But mostly I am grateful for the courage of medical cannabis patients Paul Sansone, Steven Schwerdt, Eli Wallick and Cynthia Willis for standing up to the lawless Sheriffs of Washington and Jackson Counties, here in Oregon.

Woo-hoo!

Lee Berger, Portland, OR

Associated Press coverage of the case is found here.

Indiana Supreme Court rules citizens cannot resist illegal police entry; sheriff eager to conduct “random door-to-door” searches

Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court ruled that all cops need to break down a citizen’s door is the smell of burning marijuana and the sound of somebody moving.

Following that ruling, news broke yesterday of the Indiana Supreme Court ruling 3-2 in Barnes v. Indiana that even if they don’t have that tenuous legal standing to break down your door, even if the police intrusion into your home is 100% illegal, citizens have no right to resist the intrusion.

(Front Page Mag) The case involved a domestic dispute and the Court ruled 3-2 that police can force their way into a person’s home without a warrant if they deem such entry is necessary. Writing for the majority, Justice Steven David said that “a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

While noting that the right to resist unlawful police action “existed for over three hundred years” and possibly as far back as the “Magna Carta in 1215,” the Court cited numerous precedents, one of which was the contention that, in the 1920s, “legal scholarship began criticizing the [Fourth Amendment] as valuing individual liberty over physical security of the officers,” noting that such resistance in earlier times “did not involve the serious dangers it presents today.” The Supreme Court contended that the Appeals Court was wrong when “it ultimately focused on the heightened expectation of privacy in one‘s home” instead of those dangers. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the defendant had other legal remedies to address the officer’s unlawfulness, including “bail.. prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause..the exclusionary rule…police department internal review and disciplinary procedure…and civil remedies.”

After the cops break down your door in the middle of the night on the hunch you might be a criminal, with no warrant, probable cause, or knocking, you can ask the police department to internally review the situation – certainly they will be fair and unbiased. After the cops illegally enter your home and shoot your dog as it instinctually defends its territory, the police’s internal review can issue disciplinary procedures against the dog killer, like administrative leave without pay. Once you’ve been rousted from your slumber and your family terrorized, your wife can try to arrange a 3am bail bond paid by the enormous bankroll you keep on hand as the 4am shift supervisor at an IHOP. After you’ve not been able to afford bail and lost your job waiting around in a cell all weekend for that prompt arraignment to determine probable cause, your public defender can use the exclusionary rule to squelch any evidence found in the illegal search, assuming they actually found something illegal. Finally, after you’ve been freed to your new life of unemployment and homelessness, you can pursue a civil remedy by suing the cops who violated your rights, because plenty of lawyers will work for you for free.

At least two justices dissented, recognizing that the 4th Amendment doesn’t have an “unless people might get hurt” clause:

Justices Brent Dickson and Robert Rucker dissented from the decision, with Dickson stating that “the wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad,” insisting that the Court could have taken “a more narrow approach, construing the right to resist unlawful police entry, which extends only to reasonable resistance, by deeming unreasonable a person’s resistance to police entry in the course of investigating reports of domestic violence.” Justice Rucker who called the decision a “breathtaking” erosion of the Fourth Amendment, contended there is is “simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home.”

Here’s what the majority in this case and the majority in the Kentucky v. King case fail to consider: many of us live in places where police may not be the only ones who want to break down our doors and terrorize us. Some of us live in neighborhoods where you don’t bother calling 911 after dark because they won’t come. It’s bad enough that I can’t seem to train my dog to bark aggressively at thugs breaking down the door but sit obediently for cops doing the same. Now we both have to sit obediently when anyone breaks down the door claiming to be police. How do I know in that split second waking up to a ruckus in my home at 3am that the black clad flashlight-pointing men are actual police breaking in legally, actual police breaking in illegally, or smart thugs who yell “police” when they are breaking in illegally so I won’t fight back?

While some police departments in Indiana have asserted this won’t at all change how they go about their investigations, there is one Indiana Sheriff Don Hartman Sr. who can’t wait to begin random door-to-door searches.

(Mike Church Show) CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12^th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department’s own accord.

Most people have only a hazy understanding of their civil rights and maybe only a few can even bullet-point them as “Free Speech!”, “Freedom of Religion!”, and “Right to Bear Arms!”. But one of those bullet points nearly every American will feel in his gut, even if it’s not an exact summary of the 4th Amendment, is “A Man’s Home is His Castle”. But now, this Indiana ruling disarms the parapets. The Supreme Court ruling lowers the drawbridge and invites in the king’s constables. Earlier rulings about drug-sniffing dogs and infra-red scanning technologies tear down the castle walls. Rulings on GPS tracking technology and drug testing place the king’s agents in supervisory positions over us 24 hours a day, surveilling and recording our every movement and consumption. A man’s home is no more than his fish bowl.

Oregon Supreme Court Affirms Gun Rights for Patients

Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Back in January, this blog mentioned a case in which an anti-marijuana sheriff in Jackson County, Oregon, was trying to deny the renewal of a concealed handgun permit for Cynthia Willis, a licensed medical marijuana patient. The sheriff was so adamant about the case that he took it all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court. His primary argument was that granting a concealed handgun license to a patient (or in his terms, drug user) would be a violation of the Federal Gun Control Act. This law makes it illegal for anyone using or possessing an illegal drug to own or use a firearm. And of course, the federal government still considers marijuana in any form to be illegal.

Today, the court ruled unanimously that being a medical marijuana patient does not strip a person of his or her constitutional rights, at least as far as state law is concerned. From the court’s opinion:

Congress did not directly require the states to use their gun licensing mechanisms for the purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of marijuana users, and we conclude that Congress did not intend to achieve that same result by making it illegal for medical marijuana users to possess guns. The state’s decision not to use its gun licensing mechanism as a means of enforcing federal law does not pose an obstacle to the enforcement of that law. Federal officials can effectively enforce the federal prohibition on gun possession by marijuana users by arresting and turning over for prosecution those who violate it.

Ultimately, then, we reject the sheriffs’ contention that, to the extent that ORS 166.291 requires county sheriffs to issue CHLs to qualified applicants without regard to their use of medical marijuana, the statute is preempted by the federal prohibition on gun possession by marijuana users at 18 USC section 922(g)(3). The sheriffs cannot justify their denial of the applications at issue on that ground.

Basically, this means that because the Oregon gun licensing law does not substantially interfere with the ability of federal officials to enforce their gun control law, Oregon’s law is not pre-empted and is valid. The sheriff, being a state law enforcement official, must abide by state law and issue canceled handgun licenses to anyone who qualifies under Oregon law, even if that individual wouldn’t qualify under the federal scheme. Because being a medical marijuana patient is not grounds for refusal of a permit in Oregon, the sheriff must grant Ms. Willis’s concealed handgun permit even though she would still be liable under federal law for having a gun while using “illicit narcotics.”

Sound familiar?

It should. Check out the case of Gonzalez v. Raich (2005), which established that the federal government is free to enforce their marijuana laws despite California’s right to exempt medical marijuana users and caregivers from state criminal liability.

NORMLtv: Marijuana Maverick Dr. Lester Grinspoon at NORMLCON

Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

NORMLtv is proud to present highlights of Dr. Lester Grinspoon’s question and answer session conducted at this year’s NORML Conference. Lester shared very intimate details about his life and efforts in drug law reform. In the segments provided you can hear Dr. Grinspoon discuss how marijuana proved an invaluable aid in helping his son face cancer treatments and about the time he spent with John Lennon and Yoko Ono.

We stand on the precipice of change. Cannabis legalization is becoming an inevitable reality and every one of us has Lester Grinspoon to thank for his hard work in laying the foundation for our movement, and for being an outspoken supporter of drug law reform and NORML for many decades. His insight was greatly appreciated and provided some of the most memorable aspects of this year’s conference.

Easing His Son’s Pain from Cancer Treatments with Marijuana

On Hanging Out with John Lennon and His First High

Previous NORMLCON 2011 Coverage:
Mayoral Debate Feat. Montel Williams – Ziggy Marley: ‘Three Little Birds’
High Times Activist Awards – Day 1 Floor Report – Day 2 Recap – Day 3 Recap

Stay tuned in to NORMLtv by subscribing to our channel or following us on Twitter.

Willie Nelson leans a little to the left pulls Johnson endorsement in case Kucinich runs

Thu, 19 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Earlier this week we reported on the Teapot Party and Willie Nelson’s endorsement of former Republican New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson for president of the United States. The motto of the Teapot Party is “We lean a little to the left,” and it seems somebody clued-in Willie to the fact that Johnson is, on many issues, leaning heavily to the right.

That and the country crooner’s friendship and 2008 support for Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who leans very heavily on the left, put Willie in an uncomfortable political position, as explained by our colleague, CelebStoner blogmaster and Teapot Party organizer Steve Bloom:

Yesterday, both the Teapot Party and Gary Johnson 2012 sent out press releases announcing the endorsement. The media immediately jumped on it, with Politico, Fox and Raw Story leading the coverage. We were on a roll.

But not so fast. I sent the press release and coverage links to Nelson. His response took me by surprise: “My position is it too early for me to endorse anyone. And I think every one should vote their own conscience.”

I wrote back reminding him that he had approved the endorsement.

“I know I said that,” Nelson replied. “But I think I will wait and see where he stands on other things. My bad. Sorry. I still think he is a good guy but so Is Dennis and if he decided to run I would personally vote for him. If it came down to either him or Gary I’m already committed to Dennis. They both have said they support legal pot.”

So the cat was out of the bag, so to speak. Willie Nelson has changed his tune. “Where do we go from here?” I asked him.

“I still say that the people have the power to change things and they will if they vote,” Nelson replied. “The Teapot Party started as a joke but it could still be a way for people to speak out about important things. I am not a criminal. The millions of pot smokers in this country are not criminals. We don’t like being treated as such and I for one will stand up for what I believe in and will vote for anyone I choose. You should do the same. We are not ever going to agree on everything and everybody. The best advice I ever got was from my ex father-in-law. He said take my advice and do what you want to. End of story.”

And one more email from Nelson, sort of a postscript: “This will blow over and the world moves on. No harm done. We sound like a bunch of pot smokers, that’s all… The more I get into politics the more I realize that I am a guitar player.”

(Read more at the Teapot Party Blog)

Willie Nelson Changes His Tune

Wed, 18 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The Teapot Party began two days after Willie Nelson was arrested for marijuana possession in Texas on Nov. 28. He sent me an email suggesting the need for an alternative to the Tea Party – the “Teapot” Party. I started the Facebook page and and within 48 hours our nascent movement had 30,000 supporters.

Nelson christened the party with the motto: “We lean a little to the left – tax, it, regulate it, legalize it,” of course referring to marijuana. Several months went by and our numbers grow to 50,000. State and local chapters sprung up like weeds across the nation. A group calling themselves the Teapot Party State Administrators wanted more concrete action and soon divorced themselves from the main Teapot Party.

At this point I asked Nelson for more direction. He wrote back: “The purpose of the Teapot Party is to vote in people who believe the way we do, and vote out the ones who don’t.” With that in mind, we embarked on a campaign to find candidates to support in upcoming elections. Three of our candidates – Doug Linkhart (Denver mayor), Kris Bailey (Austin City Council) and Dana Larson (BC New Democratic Party – have lost their races. We recently endorsed Washington State Rep. Roger Goodman for Congress. We’ve also endorsed Nelson’s longtime friend Gatewood Galbraith (Kentucky governor) and Bill Levin (Indianapolis City Council).

Yesterday, the Teapot Party announced our biggest endorsement yet – former new Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson for the Republican presidential nomination. This was done with great thought. Johnson has been courting the marijuana-reform establishment ever since he was governor from 1995 to 2002. With his position in favor of legalizing marijuana as an acting governor, Johnson was clearly blazing a new path. Since he left office, and especially during the last year, Johnson has attended and spoken at numerous marijuana events, including the NORML Conference, MPP Gala, Cypress Hill Smokeout, High Times Medical Cannabis Awards, Portland Hempstalk and Austin Marijuana March and Rally.

Ten days ago, Johnson was in Texas for the Austin Rally. That night, he attended Neslon’s show in New Braunfels, near San Antonio. I set up a meeting between Johnson and Nelson before the show. I wanted them to get to know each other. If Willie approved of Johnson, we would move ahead and endorse him.

Two days later, I received the following email from Nelson about Johnson: “I think we should endorse him.” I informed Johnson’s campaign and they happily provided an “acceptance” quote from the Governor: “I am truly gratified to have the endorsement of such an iconic entertainer, philanthropist, innovator and champion for individual rights as Willie Nelson. Not only is he a superstar talent, he is a bold advocate for social change. Americans are demanding the freedom and opportunity to pursue their dreams without interference from a heavy-handed government, and Willie Nelson lends a tremendous voice to those demands.”

Yesterday, both the Teapot Party and Gary Johnson 2012 sent out press releases announcing the endorsement. The media immediately jumped on it, with Politico and Fox leading the coverage. We were on a roll.

But not so fast. I sent the press release and coverage links to Nelson. His response took me by surprise: “My position is it too early for me to endorse anyone. And I think every one should vote their own conscience.”

I wrote back reminding him that he had approved the endorsement.

“I know I said that,” Nelson replied. “But I think I will wait and see where he stands on other things. My bad. Sorry. I still think he is a good guy but so Is Dennis and if he decided to run I would personally vote for him. If it came down to either him or Gary I’m already commited to Dennis. They both have said they support legal pot.”

Willie was referring to Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who he supported in 2008 for the Democratic nomination. I defended our choice of Johnson and reminded him that we are only endorsing him for the Republican nomination.

Willie then wrote back: “The Teapot Party is millions of people. It’s not me. I jokingly said after I got out of jail in Texas that there is a Tea Party and there should be a Teapot Party. The difference between us is we follow our own drummer. No one can tell us how to think. If we back someone that’s us telling them how to vote. I’m not qualified. You can say or do anything you like and I will do the same but let’s don’t back a political candidate. Let’s give our opinions and say twhat we know about everyone but let’s let everyone decide for themselves.”

He sent this quote to Linda Banks at stillisstillmoving.com and she posted it today.

So the cat’s out of the bag, so to speak. Willie Nelson has changed his tune. Where do we go from here?

“I still say that the people have the power to change things and they will if they vote,” Nelson replied. “The Teapot Party started as a joke but it could still be a way for people to speak out about important things. I am not a criminal. The millions of pot smokers in this country are not criminals. We don’t like being treated as such and I for one will stand up for what I believe in and will vote for anyone I choose. You should do the same. We are not ever going to agree on everything and everybody. The best advice I ever got was from my ex father-in-law. He said take my advice and do what you want to. End of story.”

And one more email from Nelson, sort of a postscript: “This will blow over and the world moves on. No harm done. We sound like a bunch of pot smokers, that’s all… The more I get into politics the more I realize that I am a guitar player.”

Over the next few days, Teapot Party coordinators around the country will reassess the party’s direction. Where should we go from here? Let us know.

Miami Beach Mayoral Candidate Sings “I’ll Legalize Medical Weed For You”

Wed, 18 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The voters of Miami Beach will soon go to the polls to elect a new mayor and they can choose our old friend and comedian Steve Berke (who did a popular video in support of Prop. 19 last year), who, once again, is communicating to the masses through his talent and creativity.

Watch the Video - http://www.youtube.com/embed/CGrOtksc-Z0?rel=0

Steve, if I lived in Miami Beach, you’d have my vote!

Stash for Wed May 18 2011

Wed, 18 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Download Link: Secret Stash - Register to access
Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2011-05-18.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

Brought to you by Cannabis Fantastic

MillerCoors employee, medical marijuana patient, denied unemployment benefits because of positive drug test for marijuana

Paul Stanford, owner of the THCF Medical Clinics, accepts plea deal on personal income tax evasion, 18 months probation

Alert on new bill in New York to stem police abuses of “public view” arrests for marijuana possession

Daily Toker Tunes

Brought to you by Grateful Dread Public Radio at http://gdreadradio.net, a 24-hour community service Internet radio station proud to carry NORML SHOW LIVE

Irie Wednesday: Yuya – “Ganja Wise”

Cannabis Science with Dr. Mitch Earleywine

Radical Rant

4th Amendment R.I.P. – Recent SCOTUS Decisions

Supreme Court eviscerates 4th Amendment over marijuana smell

Wed, 18 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Tango Two Charlie, smells like we got us some overtime hours in this apartment complex!

In a case decided yesterday, Kentucky v. King, the US Supreme Court has ruled that cops who smell marijuana coming from your home can break down your door and arrest you, just as long as they knock first and claim to have heard you destroying evidence.

They don’t need a warrant or probable cause, either. Today in America, police can now randomly patrol neighborhoods and apartment complexes sniffing around for pot. When they smell it, they can knock on your door and then break it down, claiming they heard noises from within.

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution plainly states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Writing for the Supreme Court in a 1980 case called Payton v. New York, Justice Stevens reiterated:

In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.

The smell of a burning flower and the sound of “scurrying” are now the “exigent circumstances” needed to “reasonably” cross that “firm line” without a warrant.

(Los Angeles Times) Ruling in a Kentucky case Monday, the justices said that officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.

Residents who “attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame” when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for an 8-1 majority.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling gave police an easy way to ignore 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. She said the amendment’s “core requirement” is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house.

“How ’secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and …forcibly enter?” Ginsburg asked.

The Supreme Court ruled in Kentucky vs. King that the officers’ conduct “was entirely lawful,” and they were justified in breaking in to prevent the destruction of the evidence.

Note to self and advice to others: When you’re smoking pot in your home and the cops come a-knockin’, be very, very quiet. I’m only half-kidding, for as Justice Alito writes:

When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen might do. And whether the person who knocks on the door and requests the opportunity to speak is a police officer or a private citizen, the occupant has no obligation to open the door or to speak. Cf. Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 497-498 (1983). (“[H]e may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way”). When the police knock on a door but the occupants choose not to respond or to speak, “the investigation will have reached a conspicuously low point,” and the occupants “will have the kind of warning that even the most elaborate security system cannot provide.”

If you make noise when the cops knock, police can interpret that as you attempting to hide or destroy evidence (drugs), which creates the “exigent circumstance” needed to break down your door. Which leads me to ask, what does hiding or destroying cannabis sound like? I suppose the sounds of garbage disposals, trash compactors, and flushing toilets would be obvious answers. In King’s case, “scurrying” was enough; I guess cops could argue that he was running to the window throw out a baggie. Of course this all depends on taking the police at their word when they testify that they heard the “scurrying”.

In the King case, the cops weren’t even looking for King. They were conducting a sting operation on a street-level crack dealer. When he ran upstairs to his apartment on the right, the police followed, but they lost him. As they reached the apartment on the right, they smelled marijuana from King’s apartment on the left. The police knocked loudly on the apartment on the left. They then heard “scurrying”, so they broke down the door and caught King with marijuana and cocaine.

The smell of marijuana burning does give police indication there is a crime taking place behind that door – the possession of at least a joint or a bowl of marijuana. In Kentucky, such a first offense would be a crime worthy of a misdemeanor with a max of one year in jail and a $500 fine. It would take more than eight ounces on a first offense for felony charges. The police, not knowing King or having any probable cause to go after King, essential beat down his door on the “exigent circumstance” he may be destroying evidence of a misdemeanor. Is it “reasonable” to violate a man’s 4th Amendment rights over a potential misdemeanor?

At NORML, we often get demands from legalization supporters to “sue the government” to end the improper and unconstitutional prohibition of cannabis. It has been tried and tried again, including our own NORML v. DEA suit, and certainly there are many more suits to be tried. But given this 8-1 decision and the current makeup of the Supreme Court that promises a solid 5-4 majority of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy against any meaningful reforms, it seems clear to me that the path to legalization does not lead through the judiciary. This is a federal court system that has twisted precedent and the intent of the Constitution in the name of eradicating marijuana by recently deciding:

that intrastate personal non-commercial medical use of marijuana is controlled by interstate commerce (Raich v. Gonzales);
that police can sneak up onto your driveway on your private property and secretly place a GPS tracking device on your car to follow you to grow shops (USA v. Juan Pineda-Moreno);
that merely being in possession of a firearm while growing marijuana is a crime (USA v. Somkhit Thongsy);
that an 18-year-old student standing on a public sidewalk can be expelled by his high school for holding a sign with the word “bong” on it (Frederick v. Morse);
that religions using Schedule I ayahuasca or Schedule I peyote as a holy sacrament should have a First Amendment exception to drug law prosecution (Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal), but religions that use Schedule I cannabis made the mistake of choosing too popular an illegal holy sacrament (USA v. Quaintence);
and that police who’ve stopped your vehicle may run a drug-sniffing dog around your car even without any probable cause to believe the driver is involved with drugs in any way (Illinois v. Caballes).

So long as the law says marijuana is contraband and its possession and cultivation a crime, the federal courts will always find a way to rule to maintain marijuana prohibition. The solution lies in Congress (depressing as that may be) and changing the law.

Willie Nelson’s Teapot Party Endorses Gary Johnson for President

Tue, 17 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Willie Nelson’s Teapot Party Endorses Gary Johnson for President

May 17, 2011 – American music legend Willie Nelson recently met with former New Mexico Governor and current Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson after a concert in Texas. The result of that historic meeting is today’s endorsement of Johnson by Willie Nelson’s Teapot Party.

“I am truly gratified to have the endorsement of such an iconic entertainer, philanthropist, innovator and champion for individual rights as Willie Nelson,” Johnson says, accepting the endorsement. “Not only is he a superstar talent, he is a bold advocate for social change. Americans are demanding the freedom and opportunity to pursue their dreams without interference from a heavy-handed government, and Willie Nelson lends a tremendous voice to those demands.”

Johnson served two terms as governor of New Mexico (1995-2002) and has now launched a bid for the Republican nomination in the 2012 presidential election. As Governor, he called for legalizing marijuana. Ending cannabis prohibition has been one of his core issues ever since.

During the Republican candidates’ debate on May 5, Johnson stated firmly in response to a question, “I advocate legalizing marijuana – control it, regulate, tax it.”

Johnson officially launched his presidential run in New Hampshire this April.

Prior to that, Johnson traveled for over a year speaking out about the issues of the day as the Honorary Chairman of the Our America Initiative, a non-profit political advocacy committee. Johnson regularly speaks at NORML Conferences and marijuana-reform events around the country.

This is the first presidential endorsement for The Teapot Party, which was founded last November after Nelson was arrested for marijuana possession in Texas. “The purpose of the Teapot Party,” Nelson explains, “is to vote in people who believe the way we do and vote out the ones who don’t.”

The Teapot Party recently endorsed Washington State Rep. Roger Goodman, who is running for Congress in 2012. http://teapotpartyblog.com/?p=50

Marijuana legalization is the central belief of The Teapot Party. The political effort is fast growing, with a Facebook page boasting more than 66, 000 active members.

As Willie Nelson said, “”Tax it, regulate it, legalize it. And stop the border wars over drugs.”

Gary Johnson 2012: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

Roger Goodman for Congress: http://www.goodmanforcongress.com

Teapot Party Website: http://www.teapotparty.org/

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TeapotParty

Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheTeapotParty

Meetup.com: http://www.meetup.com/TeapotParty/

For more information about the Teapot Party, please contact: Chris Goldstein, teapotmedia@celebstoner.com

Hawaii lifts ban on medical marijuana house calls

Mon, 16 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The ACLU is fast becoming a powerful friend of the marijuana legalization movement.

hawaiinewsnow The American Civil Liberties Union says Hawaii’s government has answered its demand to change “heavy-handed” medical marijuana policies.

The ACLU of Hawaii announced Tuesday that the Department of Public Safety will no longer prohibit physicians who prescribe marijuana from performing house calls.

The group also said the state is ending its practice of requiring physicians to register locations where they see patients and discuss marijuana.

ACLU senior staff attorney Daniel Gluck said in a statement that marijuana should be treated the same as other prescription drugs.

He said physicians who recommend medical marijuana may do so at any location, even if it isn’t registered with the Department of Public Safety.

Alternet: ‘The Five Worst States to Get Busted With Pot’

Mon, 16 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Police prosecute over 850,000 Americans annually for violating state marijuana laws. The penalties for those busted and convicted vary greatly, ranging from the imposition of small fines to license revocation to potential incarceration. But for the citizens arrested in these five states, the ramifications of even a minor pot bust are likely to be exceptionally severe.

Alternet.org’s editors recently asked me to compile a list of ‘the worst of the worst’ states to be busted for personal pot possession. Without further ado, here they are:

The 5 Worst States to Get Busted With Pot
via Alternet.org

[excerpt]

1. Oklahoma — Lawmakers in the Sooner State made headlines this spring when legislators voted 119 to 20 in favor of House Bill 1798, which enhances the state sentencing guidelines for hash manufacturing to a minimum of two years in jail and a maximum penalty of life in prison. (Mary Fallin, the state’s first-ever female governor, signed the measure into law in April; it takes effect on November 1, 2011.) But longtime Oklahoma observers were hardly surprised at lawmakers’ latest “life for pot” plan. After all, state law already allows judges to hand out life sentences for those convicted of cannabis cultivation or for the sale of a single dime-bag.

2. Texas — On an annual basis, no state arrests and criminally prosecutes more of its citizens for pot than does Texas. Marijuana arrests comprise over half of all annual arrests in the Lone Star State. It is easy to see why. In 2009, more than 97 percent of all Texas marijuana arrests — over 77,000 people — were for possession only. Those convicted face up to 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine, even upon a first conviction.

3. Florida — According to a 2009 state-by-state analysis by researcher and former NORML Director Jon Gettman, no other state routinely punishes minor marijuana more severely than does the Sunshine State. Under Florida law, marijuana possession of 20 grams or less (about two-thirds of an ounce) is a criminal misdemeanor punishable by up to one-year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Marijuana possession over 20 grams, as well as the cultivation of even a single pot plant, are defined by law as felony offenses – punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. In recent years, state lawmakers have revisited the state’s marijuana penalties – in each case electing to enhance Florida’s already toughest-in-the-nation criminal punishments.

4. Louisiana — In Louisiana, multi-decade (or even life) sentences for repeat pot offenders are hardly a rare occurrence. Under Louisiana law, a second pot possession conviction is classified as a felony offense, punishable by up to five years in prison. Three-time offenders face up to 20 years in prison. According to a 2008 expose published in New Orleans City Business online, district attorneys are not hesitant to “target small-time marijuana users, sometimes caught with less than a gram of pot, and threaten them with lengthy prison sentences.”

5. Arizona — Forty years ago virtually every state in the nation defined marijuana possession as a felony offense. Today, only one state, Arizona, treats first-time pot possession in such an archaic and punitive manner. Under Arizona law, even minor marijuana possession offenses may be prosecuted as felony crimes, punishable by up to 18 months in jail and a $150,000 fine. According to Jon Gettman’s 2009 analysis only Florida consistently treats minor marijuana possession cases more severely.

For a comprehensive breakdown of state-by-state marijuana penalties, visit NORML’s online map here. To get active in changing the laws of your state, visit NORML’s ‘Take Action Center’ here, sign up for free NORML news and legislative alerts, get involved with your local NORML chapter (or start your own chapter here), and join national NORML.

Get active; get NORML!

ACLU to Confront Obama on Medical Marijuana

Mon, 16 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The Obama administration has appeared to have flip flopped on it’s position on Medical Marijuana. Let’s see if he responds.

mlive.com The American Civil Liberties Union is asking the Obama administration to clarify its policy on medical marijuana following apparent inconsistencies in recent months. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the ACLU sought assurance the government would keep its promise not to arrest and prosecute workers who are complying with the law in states where medical marijuana is legal.

Any use of marijuana is prohibited under federal law. In 2008, Michigan voted to legalize medical marijuana, joining more than a dozen other states. In 2009, the Obama administration said it would not seek to arrest and prosecute users and suppliers who were operating within state law.

However, the administration appears to have changed its position. Recent warning letters from U.S. attorneys are prompting some states to reconsider medical marijuana policies. An Associated Press report quotes one such letter (emphasis added):

We maintain the authority to enforce (federal law) vigorously against individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity involving marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law.

Maine Lawmakers Reject Bill to Tax and Regulate Marijuana

Mon, 16 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

On Tuesday, May 10, members of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee voted 8 to 3 against the passage of LD 1453, which sought to regulate the commercial production and distribution of marijuana for adults over 21 years of age.

NORML would like to thank those of you who took the time to contact your state elected officials in support of LD 1453, and we fully expect to see a similar version of this legislation reintroduced next year. NORML would also like to thank the primary sponsor of LD 1453, Rep. Diane Russell (D-Portland). You may also contact Rep. Russell and thank her for political leadership on the marijuana law reform issue.

Thank you for your support of sensible marijuana law reform in Maine.

Here is the original post:
Maine Lawmakers Reject Bill to Tax and Regulate Marijuana

Sweet Sixteen: Delaware Governor Signs Medical Marijuana Bill Into Law

Fri, 13 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Earlier this morning Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed legislation to make the “First State” the sixteenth to approve the physician supervised use of medical marijuana. This measure will allow qualifying patients to possess up to 6 ounces of usable marijuana acquired from any of three state-supervised distribution centers. Qualifying conditions for the program include cancer, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Alzheimer’s disease and post-traumatic stress disorder. Full text of the bill can be read here.

NORML would like to thank all of the activists who contacted their State Senators and Representatives in support of this important legislation. The law must now undergo a one year regulatory and licensing process before the state’s three dispensaries begin operation. We will be sure to keep you posted on Delaware’s medical marijuana program as it develops.

Delaware Passes Medical Marijuana Law!

Fri, 13 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Today, Gov. Jack Markell signed SB 17 into law, making it legal for Delaware residents with certain serious medical conditions to use medical marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation. The bill had bipartisan sponsors and support in the legislature. This makes Delaware the 16^th state, along with the District of Columbia, to pass an effective medical marijuana law.

The law goes into effect on July 1 and will permit people diagnosed with cancer, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, decompensated cirrhosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), agitation of Alzheimer’s disease, PTSD, intractable nausea, severe seizures, severe and persistent muscle spasms, wasting syndrome, and severe debilitating pain that has not responded to other treatments or for which other treatments produced serious side effects to possess up to six ounces of marijuana without fear of arrest. Qualified patients will not be able to cultivate their own medicine, but they will be able to obtain medical marijuana from state-licensed compassion centers regulated by the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services, which will also issue medical marijuana ID cards to patients who receive a recommendation from their doctor. Public use of marijuana and driving under the influence are prohibited.

“There are so many people in Delaware who are suffering unimaginable pain that this will help, and we want to be able to do what we can to provide much-needed relief for those citizens,” said Senate Majority Whip Margaret Rose Henry, D-Wilmington East, who sponsored the legislation. “I am very grateful that so many of my colleagues were able to look past the myths surrounding marijuana and into the eyes and hearts of those who were crying out for our help. Needless to say, I am profoundly grateful to Gov. Markell for his support of this important legislation.”

“Today is an amazing victory for seriously ill Delaware patients, who have been waiting a very long time for the chance to use the medicine they need without fear,” said Noah Mamber, legislative analyst for the Marijuana Policy Project, who lobbied and mobilized patients, professionals, and grassroots activists in support of the bill. “SB17 is the most comprehensive, tightly-written medical marijuana bill in the country, and with this vote, the Delaware Legislature proved that compassion is not a red or a blue issue. It’s a human issue.”

Chris McNeely, a Dagsboro National Guard veteran and chronic pain patient with severe wasting syndrome, said, “Until this law was passed, I was afraid to use medical marijuana, even though it helped me in the past, because if I was arrested and put in jail, they could not properly care for me, and I could actually die. I am so happy I will be able to get legal relief soon.”

With this victory, we are well on our way to accomplishing MPP’s goal of 27 medical marijuana states by 2014. Keep up the good work, everybody!

Delaware becomes the 16th state to legalize medical use of marijuana

Fri, 13 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

(Washington Post) DOVER, Del. — Gov. Jack Markell has signed legislation making Delaware the 16th state to allow the use of medical marijuana.

The new law allows people 18 and older with certain serious or debilitating conditions that could be alleviated by marijuana to possess up to six ounces of the drug. Qualifying patients would be referred to state-licensed and regulated “compassion centers,” which would be located in each of Delaware’s three counties. The centers would grow, cultivate and dispense the marijuana.

Some highlights of the Delaware law:

Patients may possess up to six ounces of usable cannabis
Patients may purchase cannabis from three state-licensed dispensaries
Patients may not grow their own cannabis
Dispensary workers must be 21 years old and five or more years since a drug misdemeanor. Drug felons are excluded.
Patients may get cards for cancer, HIV/AIDS, cirrhosis, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s), Alzheimer’s agitation, and PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder)
Patients may get cards to deal with cachexia or wasting syndrome; intractable nausea; seizures; or severe and persistent muscle spasms
Pain patients can only get a card if their pain has not responded to previously prescribed medication or surgical measures for more than three months or for which other treatment options produced serious side effects
Patients may designate caregivers and caregivers may only assist up to five patients.
Only the weight of usable medicine is considered against a patients limits, not the weight of preparations (e.g. the three grams of medicine in the ten ounces of brownies counts only as three grams, not ten ounces)
Patients shall not be considered DUID solely for the presence of marijuana metabolites in their urine
Schools may not discriminate against patients in enrollment*
Landlords may not discriminate against patients in housing*
Medical care, including organ transplants, shall not be denied to patients
Employers may not discriminate against patients in hiring, promotions, and firing. Positive urine screens for marijuana cannot be used against patients*
Patients may not be discriminated against in cases of parental rights and child custody.

*unless failing to do so would cause the school or landlord or employer to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under federal law or regulations.

Maryland Governor Signs Medical Marijuana Defense Bill!

Thu, 12 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Great news! Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has signed SB 308! As of June 1, patients in Maryland charged with possession of up to one ounce of marijuana who can show they’ve been diagnosed with a debilitating condition that is resistant to other treatments will be found “not guilty” if they demonstrate they’re likely to benefit from medical marijuana.

Congratulations to everyone who helped make this day possible. Del. Dan Morhaim, Sen. Jamie Raskin, and Sen. David Brinkley worked tirelessly to secure their colleagues’ support. Allied drug policy organizations were also instrumental in helping achieve this victory. Finally, and most importantly, brave patients and their loved ones came from all over the state to courageously share their stories with legislators and members of the media. We simply would not be here without their efforts.

This is a proud day for MPP. We’ve been leading the lobbying effort in Maryland for a decade, securing passage of the original Darrell Putman Compassionate Use Act, and now today’s improvement legislation. And we’ll be back next year to help pass a comprehensive law that includes legal access for patients and protection from arrest.

Thank you for all your support!

Dan Riffle, Former Del. Don Murphy, and Karen O'Keefe

Delaware a governor’s signature from becoming 16th medical marijuana state

Wed, 11 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

(Delaware Online) DOVER – The Delaware Senate sent Gov. Jack Markell legislation late this afternoon that would make Delaware the 16th state to legalize marijuana use for medical purposes.

Under Senate Bill 17, physicians could recommend marijuana for patients suffering from cancer, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Alzheimer’s disease and post-traumatic stress disorder.

People with other chronic disease or debilitating medical conditions could qualify if other medicines or surgical procedures have failed to relieve their pain or caused seizures, severe or persistent muscle spasms and intractable nausea. Physicians and patients would have to have a “bona fide physician-patient relationship” and other medical treatments would have to be exhausted before marijuana is recommended, according to the legislation.

While I am thrilled that PTSD will be covered, making Delaware the third state (California and New Mexico are the others) to cover that mental illness, I am less than enthused about the “medicine of last resort” aspect to protecting those with pain, seizures, spasticity, or nausea. The state could argue that the pharmaceutical opioids, even though they cause you all sorts of awful side effects, do actually help your pain, so you don’t get to use safer non-toxic non-addictive cannabis.

The “bona-fide” relationship means few patients will actually get their cards, as so many of their “bona-fide” physicians can’t or won’t sign for medical marijuana.

Also, patients cannot grow their own but may possess up to 6 ounces of medicine purchased from three state-licensed dispensaries… and we’ve seen how much the current administration is threatening the other state-licensed dispensaries in Rhode Island, Colorado, and Arizona.

It is progress… but as the map gets filled with more “green” medical marijuana states we should be coloring them with increasingly lighter shades of green.

NORML Truth Squad Car On Patrol In Dallas

Wed, 11 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

From NORML Daily Stash’s Russ Belville:

I’m always thrilled when I get word from one of our local NORML chapters about their new creative projects to capture the public imagination. This latest treat from Dallas/Fort Worth NORML, however, is one of my favorites.

It’s the “Truth Enforcement Vehicle”, a former police car bought at auction. DFW NORML replaced the red’n’blue lights with green LEDs and christened it vehicle #420 (of course).

David Sloane, Esq., public information officer for DFW NORML, tells us about the reaction from the public and from the police.

Cop photographing the Dallas/Ft. Worth NORML Truth Squad Car...

David’s been forwarding us progress reports on the Truth Enforcement Vehicle and in response, NORML Founder Keith Stroup warned that such a brazen appropriation of police imagery might bring with it some extra attention from cops, so be very careful to obey the law and not allow contraband in the car. Sure enough, Papa NORML knows best, judging by today’s report from David:

Well, Keith Stroup’s crystal ball seems to be in fine working order. I just got stopped in 420 TRUTH CAR on Loop 820. I was driving under the speed limit and a FTW PD traffic unit working stationary radar on the shoulder started kicking up dirt and gravel coming onto the freeway before I even past him. (Indicating to me they’ve been watching for that car.)

Then he noticed an old City of FTW vehicle inventory sticker on the dash. “371… was that a traffic unit?” I said no it was a Low-Jack car… but I re-numbered it to 420. He kinda chuckled again and said he noticed and something to the effect of everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. Then he asked if he could get some pictures! I told him sure and turned the light bar back on for him. He pulled out his phone and began snapping away. (I got a shot of him… gettin a shot of me… attached!)

We exchanged cordial adieus and I was on my way. He wasn’t menacing or harassing at all. I think they are just curious. I’m sure those pics got the FTW-PD most-forwarded award for the afternoon shift! Now just three more shifts to go! LOL!

NORML Update: Houston 4/20 Rally and March on the Capitol

Tue, 10 May 2011 01:49:32 GMT

NORMLtv is now streaming a new installment of NORML Update. This episode features the excellent efforts being put forth by our allies in the Lone Star State. NORML affiliates in Texas held a pro-marijuana rally on April 20th and several weeks later marched in protest to the capitol building, where Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson addressed the crowd.

Many States Moving Forward With Medical Marijuana Plans — Despite Recent Federal Warnings

Tue, 10 May 2011 01:49:32 GMT

Much has been made in the mainstream media in recent weeks regarding the federal government’s attempts to intimidate states into dropping their medical marijuana programs. But much less media attention has been paid to the reality that in several states, lawmakers are continuing to move forward with medical cannabis legalization efforts despite the Justice Department’s recent rhetorical smack-down.

Here’s a run down of the latest statewide developments and what you can do to help.

Connecticut: Members of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Health on Tuesday decided in favor of Governor’s Bill 1015, which amends state law to “authorize an individual to use marijuana for medical purposes as directed by a physician.” Members of the Judiciary had previously endorsed the bill, which is backed by Gov. Dan Malloy, in April. “States have a right to decide this for themselves,” Michael P. Lawlor, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s senior criminal justice adviser told The Connecticut Mirror this week. If enacted, Connecticut will become the sixteenth state since 1996 to authorize the state-sanctioned use of cannabis when recommended by a physician. You can support this effort via NORML’s ‘Take Action Center’ here.

Delaware: Lawmakers are in the final stages of making Delaware the sixteenth state to allow for the physician-authorized use of marijuana. On Thursday, May 5, House lawmakers approved an amended version of Senate Bill 17, The Delaware Medical Marijuana Act. Senate Bill 17 amends state law so that physician-supervised patients with an authorized “debilitating medical condition” can possess and use marijuana for medical purposes. The measure would also provide for the establishment of non-profit “compassion centers” that would be licensed by the state to produce and dispense medical cannabis. Because House lawmakers made amendments to the Senate version of the bill, the measure must return to the Senate for an additional vote. In March, members of the Delaware Senate voted 18 to 3 in favor of the measure. You can learn more about this measure and how to support it via NORML’s ‘Take Action Center’ here.

Ohio: Legislation that seeks to legalize the physician-supervised use of medical marijuana was reintroduced this week in the Ohio Legislature. House Bill 214, the Ohio Medical Compassion Act, amends state law so that physician-supervised patients with an authorized “debilitating medical condition” can possess and grow marijuana for medical purposes. Full text of the measure can be read here. HB 214 would allow qualifying patients to possess up to two hundred grams of usable marijuana and twelve mature cannabis plants. Qualifying patients from other medical marijuana states would be provided legal protection under this measure. HB 214 has been referred to the House Committee on Health and Aging, but has yet to be scheduled for a hearing. You can contact your state lawmakers in support of this measure here.

Vermont: Vermont lawmakers have cleared the way for the enactment of the state-licensed distribution of medical marijuana. On Thursday, May 5, House lawmakers voted 99-44 in favor of Senate Bill 17, which allows for the state-sanctioned sale of marijuana to qualified patients. Under the bill, four dispensaries may be established to serve up to 1,000 patients. House lawmakers overwhelmingly decided to pass the measure despite warnings from the US Department of Justice claiming that the operation of such facilities could place citizens and state officials in conflict with federal law. Senators previously passed a version of SB 17 in April and are expected to concur with the minor changes made by the House. State Gov. Peter Shumlin supports the measure. Vermont lawmakers legalized the use of marijuana as a medicine in 2004, but the law presently provides no legal source for cannabis aside from home cultivation.

Currently, both Colorado and New Mexico authorize the state-sanctioned distribution of cannabis.

Oklahoma life-for-hash bill signed also includes life-for-brownies or grinders

Tue, 10 May 2011 00:00:00 GMT

The governor of Oklahoma has signed into the law that offers a potential life-in-prison sentence for the manufacture of hash from cannabis. But it is even worse than that. Here are the scary parts of the new law:

SECTION 1. AMENDATORY <63> O.S. 2001, Section <2-509>, is amended to read as follows: …

D. Knowingly violating the provisions of subsection B or subsection H of this section is hereby declared, as to the owner, or person in possession of such lands, to be a felony and punishable as such by a fine not to exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) and imprisonment in the State Penitentiary custody of the Department of Corrections for not less than two (2) years nor more than life. The fine provided for in this subsection shall be in addition to other punishments provided by law and shall not be in lieu of other punishment. Any person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of subsection B or subsection H of this section is punishable by a term of imprisonment twice that otherwise authorized and by twice the fine otherwise authorized. Any sentence shall not be subject to statutory provisions for suspended sentences, deferred sentences, or probation, except when the conviction is for a first offense. …

H. Except as authorized by the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture or attempt to manufacture any controlled dangerous substance by cooking, burning, or extracting and converting or attempting to extract and convert marihuana or marihuana oil into hashish, hashish oil or hashish powder.

SECTION 2. This act shall become effective .

While this has been publicized as “life for hash”, take a moment and read the words of that subsection H. Sometimes it helps to clear away some of the extraneous clauses.

Unlawful… to… attempt to manufacture any controlled substance by cooking, burning OR… converting to hash.

Pot brownies are a controlled substance that is cooked. Two years to life and up to a $50,000 fine for Alice B. Toklas brownies. If they catch you a second time, four years to double life and up to a $100,000 fine.

Unlawful… to… attempt to… extract… marihuana… into… hashish powder.

That’s kief, folks. If you have one of those grinders with a kief screen, you are extracting hashish powder. Two years to life for a grinder.

If you think this is insane, contact Tulsa NORML and Oklahoma NORML to get involved in making positive change in Oklahoma.

Life in prison for 35-year-old 4th-strike marijuana dealer

Mon, 09 May 2011 01:49:34 GMT

(NOLA.com) State Judge Raymond S. Childress punished [Cornel] Hood [II] under Louisiana’s repeat-offender law in his courtroom in Covington on Thursday. A jury on Feb. 15 found the defendant guilty of attempting to possess and distribute marijuana at his Slidell home, court records show.

Hood moved from eastern New Orleans to the Slidell area after he admitted to separate charges of distribution of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana on Dec. 18, 2009, in Orleans Parish Criminal District Court. He received a suspended five-year prison sentence and five years’ of probation for each — which was precisely the same penalty he got in that court after pleading guilty to possessing and intending to distribute marijuana on Feb. 22, 2005.

[Hood's probation officer] found nearly two pounds of pot throughout the house, according to court records. He alerted Sheriff’s Office deputies. They arrested Hood, who apparently shared the King’s Point house with his mother and young son.

At Hood’s one-day trial, the evidence presented by the prosecution included a digital scale and about a dozen bags that had contained marijuana before being seized from the house, testimony showed. Deputies also found $1,600 in cash and a student-loan application with Hood’s name on it inside of a night stand.

The judge in this case cited the fact that Hood had been busted three times before and was apparently an unrepentant marijuana dealer who would never change. The judge said that everybody is bound by the law and Hood clearly didn’t respect the law.

So judge, did you ever stop to think that the law isn’t deserving of respect? He was packaging and distributing a non-toxic flower that willing customers chose to purchase and consume. Could that entrepreneurship have been put to good use in a legal framework? Instead of a prisoner at age 35 who is going to cost Louisiana taxpayers $13,000 / year, you could have had “Cornel’s Hood o’ Hemp”, a legit business contributing jobs and taxes and economic revitalization.

If Cornel lives to age 74, Louisiana will spend over a half-million dollars keeping him in prison. Meanwhile, distribution of marijuana in Louisiana will continue unabated. Sadly, it looks like Cornell was trying to get a student loan; who knows, maybe he was trying to start his life over, get an education, and start a new career. For half a million bucks, we could give 21 students four years of education at Louisiana State University.

NORML’s Weekly Legislative Round Up

Mon, 09 May 2011 01:49:32 GMT

For a listing of all of the pending marijuana law reform proposals that NORML is tracking, please visit NORML’s ‘Take Action Center’ here. (For a map of pending legislation, please visit here.)

Hawaii: House and Senate lawmakers could not come to agreement on Senate Bill 1458 before Friday’s legislative deadline, killing the measure for this year. As amended, the measure sought to restrict patients’ access to medical marijuana and would have imposed an exorbitant tax on the sale of medical cannabis via a single, state-licensed dispensary. As a result, NORML and our local allies The Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii had withdrawn its support for the measure. NORML and DPFHI will continue to partner in our efforts to work with legislators to enact sensible marijuana law reform in 2012.

Maine: Members of the Joint Standing Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety will hear public testimony on Tuesday, May 10, in support of LD 1453, which seeks to regulate the commercial production and distribution of marijuana for adults over 21 years of age. You can support this effort via NORML’s ‘Take Action Center’ here, and you can watch a recent press conference in support of the measure here.

Montana: On Friday, April 29, Gov. Brian Schwietzer announced that he intends to allow SB 423 to become law absent his signature. Senate Bill 423 repeals the state’s six-year-old medical marijuana law on July 1, 2011 and replaces it with entirely new provisions created by the legislature. The stated intent of this measure is to reduce the number of state-licensed medical cannabis patients from an estimated 28,000 today to less than 2,000.

Among the most serious changes in law:

* Chronic pain patients will face more stringent requirements to qualify under the law, and in some cases may require a recommendation from two separate physicians;

* Patients found guilty of marijuana DUI will have their medical marijuana privileges revoked; Advising physicians will be reported to the Board of Medical Examiners if they recommend for more than 25 patients per year.

* Physician will be responsible for the costs of this investigation;

*Caregivers may accept no monetary compensation for providing cannabis to qualified patients.

A full summary of SB 423’s provisions is available here.

Montana NORML is still encouraging advocates to pressure the Governor to change his mind and veto SB 423. You can contact the Governor’s office and leave a message at: 406-444-3111. Montana NORML is also contemplating the possibility of taking legal action and/or initiating a citizens’ referendum to delay or block the implementation of this law. For more information on these efforts, please contact Montana NORML here (or on Facebook here or contact Patients and Families United here.

Washington: Democrat Gov. Chris Gregoire on Friday vetoed sections of Senate Bill 5073, which sought to license and regulate the dispensing of medical cannabis to qualified persons, and would have enacted additional legal protections for patients who voluntarily participated in a statewide registry. In her veto statement, Gov. Gregoire alleged that the licensing and registry provisions “would open public employees to federal prosecution.”

Governor Gregoire did sign into law provisions in the measure reaffirming that qualified patients and their caregivers possess an ‘affirmative defense’ against state prosecution (Section 402 and 406). She also codified provisions of the measure that extend legal protections to patients or caregivers who participate in a ‘collective garden.’ A summary of the sections of SB 5073 that were approved, as well as a summary of sections that were vetoed, is available here and here. Additional information is available from the Washington state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) here or via Washington NORML here.

Victory Within Grasp in Delaware!

Fri, 06 May 2011 01:49:33 GMT

Thrilling news! Yesterday, the Delaware House passed SB 17, in a 27-14 vote. The bill now goes back to the Senate for concurrence on House amendments before heading to the desk of Governor Jack Markell.

MPP’s Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies, and Noah Mamber, legislative analyst for Delaware, were in Dover to assist with the floor debate. Several patients joined them.

SB 17, sponsored by Sen. Margaret Rose Henry (D-Wilmington), would allow the compassionate use of medical marijuana for chronically ill Delaware patients with their doctors’ recommendations. It would include tightly regulated, extremely limited distribution of medical marijuana by licensing three not-for-profit compassion centers, one in each of the Delaware counties.

This is a significant triumph for seriously ill patients in Delaware, and we couldn’t have done it without your support. Thanks so much to all of the committed Delaware patients, health care professionals, and activists who took the time to call and write their legislators in support of the bill. With any luck, we’ll be posting again soon to announce that Delaware has officially become the 16th medical marijuana state!

Medical marijuana could become legal in Illinois

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:00:00 GMT

A stricter set of rules and a surprise political alliance are helping build momentum for a long-thwarted effort to legalize marijuana for medical purposes in Illinois.

Some lawmakers are looking to make cannabis available for people seeking relief from symptoms of maladies that include multiple sclerosis, cancer and HIV/AIDS.

To pick up support, they must allay fears by opponents concerned that the measure is the first step toward decriminalizing marijuana and worried that Illinois will end up like California, where pot is easily available to anyone with a doctor’s note and complaints about headaches or anxiety. In Illinois, doses would be dispensed from a limited number of highly regulated not-for-profits, rather than drugstores. Penalties including potential prison time would discourage attempts to turn a medical prescription into dime bags on the street. In January, the issue fell four votes shy during a lame-duck session where lawmakers approved such controversial measures as a major income-tax increase, civil unions for same-sex couples and a death penalty abolition.

This time, House Republican Leader Tom Cross has dropped his opposition. He came on board after being approached by several constituents who pressed him to allow marijuana use for “the worst-of-the-worst medical conditions,” a spokeswoman said.

Sponsoring Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie, who has championed the issue for three years, said he thinks he can finally pass a medical marijuana bill out of the House. The Senate approved a less restrictive version last year. Whatever the final form, an Illinois law can’t come too soon for residents who now use medical marijuana illegally. Julie Falco said she’s been using cannabis since 2004 to manage symptoms of multiple sclerosis.

Falco said she felt she had no other choice because prescription drugs left her feeling lethargic and depressed and came with side effects such as hearing loss. “I was contemplating taking my own life,” said Falco, who lives on the Far North Side. “I didn’t have any hope.” Scientists and physicians say medical research has shown scant evidence that marijuana is a safe and effective treatment for many of the afflictions the Illinois bill would cover.

A handful of uses in the bill — like pain suffered by people with AIDS and cancer — are supported by some solid scientific evidence. But none meets the standards, such as large, well-designed clinical trials, required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in approving new drugs.

Fifteen states, including Michigan, have legalized medical marijuana. The sponsors of Illinois’ bill are trying to make it the most restrictive in the nation. Those with a prescription would not be allowed to grow their own marijuana but would have to buy it from a state-licensed dispensary. The bill would limit the number of outlets to 59 — one per Senate district. The latest version would legalize medical marijuana for three years, then lawmakers would review how it went. Democratic Sen. Bill Haine, a former state’s attorney in Madison County, said the new safeguards should help the legislation gain support. “Many people just flat don’t accept that marijuana can do any good, but it’s a natural substance that can be good, just as many prescription drugs are good for some uses and not for others,” Haine said.

For Cross, the House GOP leader from Oswego, supporting the measure represents a change from January, when he voted against the idea.

Cross, who has a child with diabetes, sponsored a law that ensures researchers could work with embryonic stem cells in Illinois.

“I’ve seen him evolve on this thing,” said Rep. Angelo “Skip” Saviano, R-Elmwood Park. “It fits his philosophy on not limiting tools to the medical community to treat these diseases.”

Saviano has long supported legalizing marijuana for medical use. He watched his father die of cancer in 2001 after suffering side effects of chemotherapy. Saviano said he believed that marijuana could have helped reduce his father’s nausea and increase his appetite at a time when he lost a lot of weight.

Supporters can’t exhale yet. The lame-duck lawmakers are no longer in office and the measure needs to pass the House, Senate and be signed by Gov. Pat Quinn if it’s to become law. Rep. Jim Durkin, R-Western Springs, said this is not an issue Cross or Republican leadership will “twist arms” on to get support. Durkin, a former prosecutor, voted “no” in January but said he is keeping an open mind on the new version.

A law has been on the books since the late 1970s allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana in pill or plant form to treat glaucoma, the side effects of chemotherapy or radiation therapy for cancer patients or other procedures deemed medical necessities. But the physician must get authorization from the Department of Human Services and written approval from the state police. A state human services spokeswoman and a state medical society representative say they’re not aware that any doctor has ever asked permission to prescribe marijuana in Illinois. Lang, the House sponsor, said he’s aware of the existing law but argues his proposal is a tighter and more workable measure. “What we have done is take the best ideas on the topic from America and in Illinois during debate to gauge the tolerance of colleagues and make the best and tightest bill in the country,” Lang said.

Would You Invest Your Money in Medical Marijuana? - Health Blog - WSJ

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:00:00 GMT

By Katherine Hobson

Would you invest in a medical-marijuana company if you thought its profits would grow like, um, a weed?

As the WSJ reports, the industry is expanding as more states decriminalize the use of pot to treat pain, MS-related muscle spasms and other conditions. And that’s attracting private investors and raising the possibility of public offerings.

Most of this action is happening in Colorado and California, the states with the biggest medical-marijuana markets. Among the deals in the hopper, according to the paper: a seed supplier has raised $500,000 in a private financing round and hydroponic-equipment supplier GrowOp Technology and medical-marijuana vending-machine company Medicine Dispensing Systems are each planning IPOs this year. (General Cannabis, with subsidiaries including a marijuana-dispensary website and a dispensary-management business, is already public.)

Meantime, there are plans to launch a hedge fund, called Kaneabis, to invest in the medical-cannabis industry, the WSJ reports.

That said, there are obstacles to attracting investment — namely the fact that the drug is illegal under federal law. And, of course, there will have to be the potential for profits to attract investors.

Would you park part of your 401(k) in pot?

Enforcing pot ban

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:00:00 GMT

Ffffffffffp!

That’s the sound Scott Bledsoe makes when he takes his medicine.

Bledsoe, 39, helps run a medical marijuana buying club out of his Crestline home. The members - there are about 10 - pay dues, buy medical marijuana in bulk and meet once a week to share what their money has bought.

Members must have medical marijuana recommendations from their doctors to enter Bledsoe’s home during meetings. The group does not provide - or offer - marijuana to people without the recommendation.

Bledsoe, a Florida transplant, said he uses marijuana to treat depression and anxiety. He is also an activist who wants to see marijuana legalized in San Bernardino County for medicinal uses.

But in recent

Arlo Hartin, 24, smokes medical marijuana to treat bipolar disorder and psychotic tendencies. Jeremy Weissmiller, 33, at left, uses it to treat pain he suffers from a shattered back he suffered while serving in Afghanistan. (Jesse B. Gill/Staff)

weeks, the county has made it tougher - though not impossible - for patients to get their hands on medical marijuana through land-use restrictions already seen elsewhere in the state.

Such restrictions ban dispensaries and collectives in places where cities haven’t already.

The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a land-use ordinance March 22 that bans medical marijuana dispensaries and collectives in unincorporated areas.

Those areas include communities such as Mentone and Bloomington.

Supervisors also restricted the cultivation of the drug by legitimate patients to indoors only.

“Effectively, it shuts down access to collectives, it shuts down outdoor growing, and we suffer,” Bledsoe said, adding that the county has ignored the needs and concerns of medical marijuana patients in crafting the land-use code.

“We want sensible regulations, not outright bans or regulations so restrictive that we can’t obtain medical marijuana,” he said.

That argument does not appease county officials.

Land-use codes are not established to provide patients access to any drug, county spokesman David Wert said.

“It’s not the county’s job to make sure that people have access to medical marijuana,” he said. “Our job is to adopt a responsible land-use code, which is appropriate in regards to the needs and concerns of the neighbors.”

Wert noted that the county’s ban on medical marijuana dispensaries and collectives doesn’t make it impossible for patients to obtain medical marijuana. Patients can obtain it at “certain medical facilities” and are able to grow marijuana plants inside their homes, he said.

Bledsoe and two members of his buying club were forthcoming about the health benefits they say marijuana offers them.

Jeremy Weissmiller, 33, of Crestline said he was medically retired from the Marine Corps after a 500-pound pallet of ammunition fell on him and shattered his back when he was serving in Afghanistan in 2001.

“I was diagnosed as an incomplete paraplegic,” he said. “I had lost almost all use of my legs.”

He said he has two 6-inch metal rods holding his spine together.

Weissmiller, 33, wears his military background like a badge of honor. His appearance - a large build with a cleanly shaven head - has gotten him turned away from medical marijuana dispensaries and collectives.

“They say I look too much like a cop,” he said.

Two years ago, Weissmiller said, he looked like an out-of- shape man who couldn’t get out of his wheelchair. That’s because that’s exactly what he was.

Given a litany of heavy medication - including Fentanyl, Percocet and Valium - Weissmiller said his liver swelled so much that doctors told him he needed to stop drinking.

“But I don’t drink,” he said. “It was because of the medication.”

Weissmiller turned to alternative forms of treatment.

“I learned that these medications were keeping me from rehabilitating,” he said. “I was dizzy all the time and it was messing up my liver and it was also messing up my legs some.”

He said he tried acupuncture and massage therapy to ease the pain caused by his accident.

And then he tried the thing he had only tried one other time - marijuana.

The effects were dramatic. He said the swelling in his liver subsided as he weaned himself off his medications. The marijuana eased his pain enough to where he began spending more and more time out of his wheelchair, he said.

Now, Weissmiller said, he doesn’t spend any time in his wheelchair. And he’s lost 80 pounds.

“I’m active and doing things again now,” he said. “And I’m out of the (wheelchair).”

There have been no medical case studies that prove that marijuana works better than other traditional, readily available medications, said former Rancho Cucamonga Mayor Don Kurth, a physician who is president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

“That’s not to say that one individual might have an experience where marijuana has treated their physical maladies,” he said. “Marijuana can give the user a sense of well- being and a sense of novelty and a sense of wonder. But that doesn’t mean it’s curing anything.”

Arlo Hartin, 24, of Crestline said he suffers from bipolar disorder and has “psychotic tendencies.” He said he spent 47 days in a Texas mental hospital a few years ago.

“I hear voices and see stuff that’s not there and I have massive mood swings,” he said.

Doctors treated his symptoms with drugs such as Lithium, trazodone and Xanax but the drugs did not ease all of his symptoms, Hartin said.

“I always had problems,” he said.

He still takes some medications, but Hartin said he has cut back on much of the heavy medication he’s been prescribed and has switched to marijuana to help control his moods.

When he speaks about what medical marijuana has done for him, he smiles through bleary, red eyes.

“I’ve not gotten in a fight, I’ve not had any trouble, not had any violent issues,” he said, “and I (attribute) it all to smoking.”

Weissmiller says marijuana isn’t the perfect cure-all. It has its drawbacks, as do other forms of medications, he said. But it has worked for him, and he’s no longer on any heavy medication except for the marijuana.

“I don’t advocate cannabis for everybody,” Weissmiller said. “But I think it’s a safe medication. And under the right circumstances, it could take over for many pharmaceuticals.

“It did for me.”

President Obama’s 4/20 Facebook Forum avoiding marijuana legalization question

Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:31:03 GMT

Here's what happened last time Mr. Obama took votes from the public on policy questions...

Once more President Obama wades into the online breach with yet another Facebook Town Hall to solicit questions on policy from the public. The event takes place on April 20th, a.k.a. 4/20, the unofficial national cannabis holiday, without any sense of irony that these forums have been dominated by marijuana legalization questions every time the public votes on these questions.

(President Obama’s Facebook) WHAT’S HAPPENING
President Barack Obama will hold a special “Facebook Live” townhall to connect with Americans across the country.

WHERE & WHEN IT’S HAPPENING
Where? Well, everywhere! The event at Facebook’s headquarters, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg & COO Sheryl Sandberg, will be live streamed for anyone to watch. Just come back here at the right time: Wednesday, April 20 @ 1:45pm PDT / 4:45pm EDT. Unless invited to attend in person, please do not show up at Facebook HQ. You can watch and participate via the event’s live stream.

WHAT IT’S ABOUT
President Obama will connect with Americans across the country to discuss the tough choices we must all make in order to put our economy on a more responsible fiscal path, while still investing in areas like innovation that will help our economy grow and make America more competitive.

HOW YOU CAN PARTICIPATE
Facebook will be selecting questions for President Obama to answer during the event. Submit questions now by posting them right here, on this event’s wall. As an alternative, you may submit a question via WhiteHouse.gov/facebooktownhall.

So how in the world can the president avoid what will surely be voted the number one question once again by the online democracy of Facebook? Simple… don’t let the public vote. Scott Morgan from DrugWarChronicle has the scoop:

It had become clear that as long as Obama’s forums allowed the public to vote on topics for the president to address, the top-ranked questions would be about legalizing marijuana or even ending the War on Drugs altogether. Reluctant to confront the issue further, the White House recently changed its approach and announced an April 20, 2011 event on Facebook in which participants will not be allowed to vote at all. Questions can be sent in by email or posted on the Facebook page, but Obama’s staff will make selections without any public input.

The inherently democratic, vote-powered economy of ideas on the Internet has proven to be a remarkably powerful tool for discovering content of social value. The ability to click on what you like is the currency of social media and it offers insights into public opinion that may be worth more than meets the eye. The participatory nature of a vote-driven web forum makes people care about the outcome. Advocates for a wide variety of causes are inspired to spread the word and work to make sure their issue gets votes. The Obama Administration has abandoned the process simply to silence one particular idea, but the effect will be to make the forum less interesting for everyone.

Moreover, the rise of marijuana policy into the realm of mainstream public discussion should fascinate, rather than frustrate, our political leadership. It’s a phenomenon that should at least interest our elected officials, even if they don’t yet fully understand or care that marijuana prohibition funds murder in Mexico, that innocent family pets are slaughtered in botched pot raids, that precious wilderness is being devastated by black-market marijuana manufacturing, that racism defines our marijuana arrest rates, that public servants are being corrupted before our eyes, and that we blow billions each year just to keep the situation as bad as it’s been for so long.

Proposed New Limits on Medical Marijuana Challenged

Sat, 16 Apr 2011 15:48:03 GMT

Community leaders and concerned citizens gathered Monday night to organize opposition to an ordinance they say could result in a "defacto ban" on medical marijuana dispensaries in San Diego. The ordinance is scheduled to come before the City Council on March 28.

Panelist Stephen Whitburn, who served on the city's Medical Marijuana Task Force in the fall of 2009, explained that this diverse task force of 11 members, made specific recommendations to the City Council regarding the regulation of dispensaries, also known as co-ops.

"Unfortunately in going through the committee process [within City Council], these regulations have become much more strict," Whitburn said. "A lot of us feel it will make it quite inconvenient, unrealistic and unfair for sick people who really need and are entitled to obtain this medicine, the same way anybody else who goes to a pharmacy. Even those who are in favor of medicinal marijuana want regulations, but this goes too far."

Panelists at Monday night's meeting expressed concerned over the "sensitivity issues" the council may approve on March 28. Attorney Rachel Scoma, a Stop the Ban Campaign organizer, explained that entwined in the ordinance's legal wording is a strict 1,000-feet rule that will be imposed on all dispensaries.

"No existing or new co-op will be able to open its doors within 1,000 feet from other collectives, libraries, places of worship, schools, parks and bus stops," Scoma said. "No one gets grandfathered in. Everyone gets shut down. The new application process will requires an approval vote from a committee, and that can take up to one year. In a nutshell, this will act as a defacto ban for at least a year. As collectives, we should be treated like pharmacies and not strip clubs."

Rev. Mary Moreno Richardson of St. Paul's Episcopal Church made it clear she was there to speak not on behalf of the church, but as a priest who has spent over 25 years working with patients suffering from illnesses such as AIDS and has seen the positive effects of medicinal marijuana firsthand.

"This is issue is really about compassion," Richardson said. "There are all of these other drugs that they will put you on but with bud everyone goes crazy. This is a bad message for our children because when you really think about it they are really the only ones who can get drugs on the street. I can't go out on the street and buy marijuana, but give a 15-year-old 20 minutes and they'll come back with a joint. This 'reefer madness' is hysteria. We shouldn't be tough on drugs, we should be smart on drugs."

Ben Cisneros, Activist San Diego president and Stop the Ban Campaign organizer, discussed what actions can be taken.

"This issue is political," Cisneros said. "It’s not that as individuals the City Council members feel strongly that patients should be alienated, but politically they feel the wind is blowing towards prohibitionist. Our community is by far in favor of medicinal marijuana. But we see perception and disconnect between San Diegans and the City Council. They do not see as an organized constituency, and they feel that people who oppose is it is where the political capital is, so they’re tough on the collectives."

Cisneros explained that in conjunction with Americans for Safe Access, Stop the Ban launched the largest letter-writing campaign on a specific ordinance prior to a vote. To date, close to 3,000 letters have been mailed to City Council members. The final round of letters gathered from patients and co-ops throughout San Diego will be mailed out on March 23.

"We are asking for three specific amendments to the ordinance," Cisneros said. "Co-ops must be allowed in commercial zones, the permit process should be brought in line with what pharmacies comply with, and the sensitivity issues must be dropped and amended in accordance with state law, which is only 600 feet from schools. This is what we feel is safe access."

According to the city, the proposed ordinance "makes amendments to the city of San Diego Land Development Code that will allow medical marijuana consumer cooperatives, as defined, to operate in some Commercial and Industrial Zones with a Conditional Use Permit granted by the Planning Commission. The medical marijuana consumer cooperatives must be 1,000 feet from each other, and from schools, playgrounds, libraries, child care facilities, youth facilities (including youth hostels, youth camps, youth clubs), parks, and churches. Medical marijuana consumer cooperatives must comply with requirements regarding lighting, security, signage, and operating hours."

A rally and protest will take place between noon and 1:30 p.m. prior to the City Council vote at 2 p.m. The rally will begin at the Federal Courthouse, 940 Front St., and end at San Diego City Hall, 202 C St. Participants plan to address the council regarding their amendment.

La Jolla currently has two co-ops that may soon be shut down: San Diego Holistic Healing, located at 5544 La Jolla Blvd., and the La Jolla Medicinal Co-op, located at 737 Pearl St. Both co-ops were unavailable for commentary prior to publication.

FBI dedicates $1 billion to massive biometrics identification program

Fri, 15 Apr 2011 22:16:51 GMT

The Federal Bureau of Investigations announced recently that it is dedicating up to $1 billion for a Lockheed Martin-developed system that will enable on-the-fly analysis of detailed identification information that can be instantaneously shared with law enforcement all around the world

Pot Ban Request Spurs Talk

Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:00:21 GMT

House Affirms Affirmative Defense for Marijuana

Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:00:21 GMT

Raid No Way To Settle Marijuana Dispensary Question

Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:12:20 GMT

Arizona Republic stokes fear of pot zombies

Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:12:17 GMT

When you follow the reporting on marijuana reform issues every day for three years, you get a feel for the way reporters and editors can slant a story. Today the Arizona Medical Marijuana Program went online… literally, as in, the only way you can apply for the program is online, they do not accept paper applications, phone calls, or walk-ins. This is quite a significant development as it is the only medical marijuana state of fifteen that has a mandatory online registration.

The Associated Press and reporter Amanda Lee Meyers reported that as their lede (the opening paragraph in a news report that gives you the who, what, where, when, and how) and follow-up paragraphs:

Arizonans to begin applying for medical marijuana today

(Arizona Capitol-Times / AP) Arizona’s medical marijuana program is hitting a milestone Thursday as patients start turning in applications for the drug to help treat cancer and other diseases in what officials believe is the only completely electronic application system in the country.

Since the application for a medical marijuana card is electronic, anyone hoping to apply in person or by phone with the Arizona Department of Health Services will be turned away. And if there are any kinks in the online system, they also will need to report the problem online.

Think of what you take away from those – treating cancer and diseases, only online system.

The shorter version of the AP story is showing up in other news outlets:

Arizonans to begin applying for medical marijuana

(San Jose Mercury News) PHOENIX—Medical marijuana is online in Arizona.

Beginning Thursday morning, patients can begin applying to get the drug to help treat cancer and other diseases.

Same basic info – treat cancer and diseases, online system.

For the Arizona Republic, however, the lede of the story isn’t about the opening of the country’s first e-medical marijuana state program. It’s a piece by Mary K. Reinhart warning of the impending hordes of pot zombies roaming the streets of Phoenix in search of sttrraaiinns… sttrraaiinns!!!

Arizona’s medical-marijuana law takes effect

Health officials are concerned about certification mills

(Arizona Republic) Arizona’s medical-marijuana law takes effect today, but patients already have been lining up to pay hundreds of dollars in some cases for pot recommendations from clinics that opened in recent weeks for just that purpose.

Health officials are concerned that so-called certification mills could quickly turn a medical program into a recreational one, but they have limited recourse.

The “pot zombies” is a shorthand reference for the frame employed by prohibitionists to portray medical marijuana as rife with abuse. You hear it in their “only 3% of medical pot users have cancer and AIDS” rhetoric and when they complain about “all those young healthy men” who are seen frequenting dispensaries. You also hear it when they use the word “pot”. Check those first two excerpts above and you’ll find “marijuana” and “drug”, but not “pot”. (To be fair, the Capitol-Times and the Republic stories both use the word “pot” four times in the entirety of the articles, but three of those in the Capitol-Times story are references to “pot shops”.)

Consider for a moment that we aren’t talking about cannabis. Suppose Astra-Zeneca comes out with a brand new pill, let’s call it Curezitol. Curezitol can treat symptoms of nausea, pain, spasticity, seizures, glaucoma, wasting, anxiety, depression, loss of libido, inflammation, digestion, lesions, cancers, infections, and more. Curezitol’s common side effects are red eyes, dry mouth, and euphoria and its rare worst side effects are anxiety or panic, paranoia, and racing heart. Curezitol is non-habit-forming with low risk of dependence and absolutely non-toxic. Best of all, Astra-Zeneca sells Curezitol in pill form for a very reasonable price or they’ll sell you a Home Curezitol Kit and you can manufacture your own Curezitol for pennies on the dollar.

Would Curezitol not quickly become the most popular and best-selling prescription on the market? Would doctors not get flooded with requests from patients for a prescription for Curezitol? So why is it so shocking when a medical marijuana state provides a legal way for people to use cannabis and that state’s registry grows into the tens of thousands?

The “pot zombies” frame depends on the demonization of the non-medical cannabis user. It maintains the idea of cannabis as “medicine of last resort”, a drug so dangerous and unpredictable that we must try all manner of addictive and toxic pharmaceuticals first… and then only if none of them have the desired effect do we dare allow people to try this inconsistent, impure, smoked herb… and then only for those suffering the most wretched agony and soon to meet the Grim Reaper!

The way we flip the frame is portraying cannabis as “medicine of first resort”. If I suffer from pain, why wouldn’t I take safer non-toxic cannabis instead of addictive toxic opiates? If I suffer from insomnia, why wouldn’t I wind down with some relaxing cannabis instead of an Ambien that could lead to sleep-driving? If I’m puking from nausea, why wouldn’t I inhale cannabis smoke or vapor instead of trying to swallow and keep down a pill and wait 45 minutes for it to take effect? With so few and such mild side effects, low risk of dependence, and non-toxicity, why wouldn’t cannabis be the first thing we try for a whole host of ailments?

Reinhart’s story in the Arizona Republic makes only a passing reference to “The online-only application” and the rest of the entire story is scare quotes from the DHS Director Will Humble warning about “a handful of physicians writing casual recommendations [exploding] the program.” The director of the Arizona Medical Board says doctors are “arriving at the answer before they’ve even met the patient.” An owner of a chain of brick-and-mortar clinics complains carpetbagging clinics are “putting doctors in a hotel room and not even giving you a physical.”

The other re-framing is to pivot on the idea of the “abuse” itself as “compliance”. Large numbers of patients on a registry are a sign of a program successfully serving people who are eager to be compliant with the law. Many of these patients are people who have been illegally using cannabis medically for years and now they are coming above ground. Former clandestine cannabis users are now registering with the state and complying with the law. Money they used to spend in untaxed and unregulated markets are now providing revenue and new jobs through specialty clinics and a dispensary industry.

Might someone who is purely a “recreational” cannabis user end up with a medical marijuana card? Certainly, as there is no bureaucratic system that cannot be gamed. But Arizona’s law is not California’s law and has within it strict regulations regarding qualifying conditions that must be documented in medical records. The rare exception who games the system will still be a current cannabis consumer who has visited a doctor, registered with the state, paid fees, and taken his underground purchases to a taxed and regulated market. He will have agreed to a 2.5 ounce possession limit that would only have been a likely misdemeanor with probation and a drug treatment sentence anyway, so now our law enforcement and judicial system would be burdened with him.

Marijuana Patients Can Grow Their Own for Now

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 10:34:51 GMT

New Medical Marijuana Amendments Emerge

Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:33:21 GMT

Coalition Works On Cannabis Law Reforms

Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:33:21 GMT

A bipartisan group in the House has proposed some major changes that seek to restore Montana’s medical marijuana law to what people thought they were voting on in 2004. Rep. Cary Smith, R-Billings, said the amendments will be offered today at a 3 p.m. hearing before the House Human Services Committee on Senate Bill 423, by [...]