2009 National News
Share
According to new poll, majority of Americans support marijuana legalization
December 10th, 2009 By: Russ Belville, NORML Outreach Coordinator
53% support for marijuana legalization! This is a nationwide sampling with a margin of error of ±3.1%, which means that unless the sample was wildly inaccurate, we can safely say a majority of Americans now support marijuana legalization.
The question asked was "Do you support or oppose the legalization of each of the following drugs?" with no further explanation. With no prompting about the possible economic benefits of taxing cannabis or points about reforming criminal justice, with just the blanket term "legalization" which could lead to a range of solutions from strict marijuana pharmacies to open farmers' markets, in other words, a question most likely to get the lowest favorable response, we just got 53%. 61% of Democrats and 55% of Independents support legalization, while only 43% of Republicans agree.
In another question the poll asked "The term "War on Drugs" has been used to describe the efforts of the U.S. government to reduce the illegal drug trade. From what you have seen, read or heard, would you describe the "War on Drugs" as a success or a failure?" 68% of Americans called it a failure, with two-thirds of Democrats and Republicans agreeing it's a failure and over three-fourths of Independents. About 70% of respondents across all political and geographic demographics agreed that "America has a serious drug abuse problem and it affects the whole country."
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in the United States are willing to legalize marijuana, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 53 per cent of respondents support this notion, while 43 per cent are opposed.
Less than 10 per cent of respondents support the legalization of other drugs, such as ecstasy, powder cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine or "crystal meth" and crack cocaine.
The use of marijuana is illegal in the U.S. except in some regulated cases of medical use. The amount allowed for such purposes varies depending on the state. Some states have passed laws to reduce law enforcement for possession of small amounts of the substance.
In May, Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ruled out a push to legalize marijuana, adding, "I've never advocated legalization and certainly the president has made it clear that's his position."
BREAKING NEWS: California Lawmakers To Debate Marijuana Legalization Tomorrow!
October 27th, 2009: By Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
California state lawmakers arescheduled to hear testimony tomorrow in support of taxing and regulating the commercial production and distribution of marijuana for adults age 21 and older.
Members of the California Assembly Committee on Public Safety have called for the hearing, entitled "Examining the Fiscal and Legal Implication of the Legalization and Regulation of Marijuana." The hearing will be chaired by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), sponsor of Assembly Bill 390, the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act. It will take place at 10am in room 126 of the State Capitol.
A press conference will take place prior to the hearing at 9 am in Capitol Room 317.
California NORML Coordinator Dale Gieringer is scheduled to testifybefore the Committee at noon. [Editor's note: Read Dale's written testimony here.] NORML has also submitted prepared testimony to the Committee, which is available online here.
Several representatives from law enforcement, including the California Police Chiefs Association and the Office of the Attorney General's Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, are scheduled to testify in opposition to the bill.
"The criminal prohibition of marijuana provides law enforcement and state regulators with no legitimate market controls," states NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano in prepared testimony. "This absence of state and local government controls jeopardizes rather than promotes public safety. I urge this Committee to move forward with the enactment of sensible regulations for legalizing marijuana."
Tomorrow's hearing marks one of the first times since 1913 that the California legislature has debated ending criminal prohibition.
If you live in California you can contact your member of the Assembly in advance of tomorrow's historic hearing here.
Four Prohibition Pragmatists And A Drug War Whore
October 25th, 2009: By Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
A quick review from this week's avalanche of cannabis-related news, comes a stark contrast that reveals: Four Prohibition Pragmatists And A Drug War Whore
Prohibition Pragmaticism
Wisconsin - When asked by the media about a recently introduced medical cannabis bill in his state, as well as to comment on the Obama administration's new policies on medical cannabis, Governor Jim Doyle said he has no problem with the use of cannabis to treat severe pain and other medical conditions by way of a physician's recommendation, and that restricting the use of medical cannabis makes no sense when doctors can already prescribe more dangerous drugs like morphine.
British Columbia - Stephen Gamble, president of the Fire Chiefs' Association of B.C., recently came out in favor of fire department inspections of the home gardens of federal medical cannabis patients and caregivers in BC, to make sure the cannabis grow operations are safe, and not creating fire hazards. However, numerous medical cannabis patients and advocates in B.C. have spoken out against the proposal citing special federal privacy protections for medical patients.
Washington, D.C. - The Transportation and Security Administration (TSA), in numerous media reports, acknowledged another major departure from prior administrations regarding federal medical cannabis policies: State-compliant medical cannabis patients may not be harassed or arrested for their medical cannabis whilst traveling in federally-controlled airports.
Oakland NLC member Robert Raich, for years, has been pursuing the TSA to allow medical cannabis patients flying out of Oakland International Airport to lawfully possess their medicine in compliance with TSA rules, which are to concentrate on terrorism and public safety concerns, (i.e., weapons, explosives, knives, etc...), and that pilots and the airline crew are not liable for the presence of lawfully possessed medical cannabis.
New Hampshire - New Hampshire's new US attorney, John Kacavas, told themedia that he will not prosecute medical cannabis patients. [The new policy from Obama]..."is saying in a smarter battle against drugs, people who use it to improve their appetite, people who use it to alleviate their pain probably ought not to be prosecuted federally."
Then...The Drug War Whoring
Washington, D.C. - In one of the grossest, most gratuitous, desperate attempts to get media attention I've ever seen (which says a lot...), former public relations flack for the infamous House Select Narcotics Committee (sui generis of many bad, failed and constitutional-warping anti-drug legislation of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Thankfully this congressional committee no longer exists, and these days the once leaders of the group, like powerful New York democrat Charlie Rangel, now support decriminalizing cannabis) and former drug czar Barry McCaffrey's in-house anti-pot propagandist Bob Weiner employs PRNewswire to hump his absurd press release attacking President Obama's and Attorney General Eric Holder's clarification of their 'hands off' policies regarding the use of federal law enforcement in states with medical cannabis laws (and presumably in states without state protections for medical cannabis patients).
In a country where approximately 75% of the population support medical access to cannabis, one has to wonder what is wrong with people like Bob Weiner. What does he not get? Or, is the only source for his revenue and self-being these days-almost eight years after taxpayers stopped funding his anti-cannabis propaganda when Weiner, a Democratic political appointee, lost his job when the Bushies took over in 2000-is to whore himself out to the media and anti-drug groups as some kind of anti-cannabis zealot, one that mocks science with his ignorance and drips contempt for the compassion that others seem to possess.
Weiner, a self-proclaimed expert on cannabis, does not seem to understand that 1) cannabis is not prescribed anywhere in the US, 2) the DOJ memo only impacts federal, not state attorneys, 3) Weiner claims, relying on unnamed law enforcement agents, that 9 out of 10 medical cannabis patients are frauds, citizens 'faking' a medical need 'just to get high', 4)Weiner oddly compares a non-toxic and therapeutic substance like cannabis to laetrile, therein invoking the late Senator Kennedy to supposedly prove the "false hope" of medical cannabis, when, in fact, Senator Kennedy supported both patient access to medical cannabis and active cannabis medical research at the University of Massachusetts @ Amherst, and 5)Weiner whines that politics, not science is the controlling factor; feigns there is a dearth of science regarding cannabis (when there are over 17,500 studies relating to cannabis and/or cannabinoids).
Watch Weiner and the so-called war on drugs get rightly ridiculed by Penn and Teller...or the entire episode here.
Feast your eyes on Weiner's Wednesday PRNewswire release to see what a real drug war whore looks like seeking the media and public spotlight:
Medical Marijuana: 'Be Careful,' 'Ex-White House Drug Spokesman Bob Weiner Tells DOJ About 'New Lax Enforcement' Policy; 'Use May Explode in Healthy People'
WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ - "Be careful about the new lax enforcement policy for medical marijuana," former White House Drug Policy Spokesman Bob Weiner is telling the Department of Justice and the Obama Administration.
"You may get way more than you bargained for", Weiner cautions of the new policy barring states attorneys from busting and prosecuting users and caregivers of so-called "medical" marijuana who act "in accordance with state law."
"Prescription marijuana use may explode for healthy people."
Unfortunately, as many as 90% of purchases at clinical distribution centers are "false defenses", some law enforcement agents report - "which means individuals are not really sick but simply want the pot," Weiner asserts.
"Medical marijuana is not as effective as other healing mechanisms for many illnesses such as glaucoma, pain, or nausea that users try it for because of false hype leading to false hope. Just as laetrile was legalized in the 1970's in 27 states to cure cancer but was found to be useless apricot pits, leading Senator Kennedy in a Senate hearing to decry the 'false hope' delaying true treatment, 'medical' marijuana today could be a placebo delaying far better treatments," according to Weiner.
"Many medical marijuana advocates press its use for pain killing and appetite enhancement," Weiner asserted, "but you might feel just as good after a shot of gin. Science, not politics, must drive what is determined to be safe and effective medicine in America. The medical marijuana advocates never mention the potentially better applications of THC in marijuana from suppositories, jells, aerosols, or the already approved pill Marinol - they just want the high from the smoked version.
"There is a real danger that if marijuana is made essentially a prescription drug, its abuse and usage explosion could parallel other prescription drugs over the last decade, such as OxyContin, which have tripled nationally and quintupled in many locations because of the ease of availability."
"No one wants to deny a dying cancer patient a hit of grass, if that's what he or she wants. But to announce and implement a policy of broad-brush non-enforcement when there is so much loose about usage of medical marijuana and its distribution is a dangerous policy."
"The new policy, a three-page DOJ memo anyone can download, does not only say leave the users alone. It also says leave the 'caregivers' alone if they comply with state law. The distribution centers, which are suppliers, and the staff could well be considered 'caregivers'. DOJ would have serious problems discerning between illicit dealers and distributors."
Weiner served as White House Drug Policy Office spokesman for 6-1/2 years and communications director of the House Select Narcotics Committee for five years.
Contact: Bob Weiner/Rebecca Vander Linde 301-283-0821/202-306-1200
SOURCE Robert Weiner Associates Issues Strategies
Court slams LAPD for illegally seizing medical marijuana profits
October 23rd, 2009: By R. Scott Moxley, OC Weekly
In a remarkable opinion issued today with potential Orange County implications, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blasted the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) for committing "highly objectionable," "tainted," "reckless," "misleading" and "illegal" conduct in a 2005 attempt to seize more than $186,400 from a legally compliant Southern California medical marijuana distributorship.
The justices showed no patience for LAPD's efforts to keep the cash for itself and then later--after it was clear they couldn't take possession legally--transferred it to Thomas P. O'Brien's LA-based U.S. Attorney's office, which planned to kickback as much as 80 percent of the money to the local cops.
"We are particularly concerned by the possibility that the LAPD might stand to profit from [its own] unlawful activity," wrote circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton, who went on to describe the money grab as "disturbing" and a "distinct" violation of the U.S. Constitution's limitations of police state activities such as tainted searches and seizures of private property.
The opinion reverses a federal District Court's ruling that blocked a summary judgment motion by United Medical Caregivers Clinic, Inc., which was trying to regain its plundered cash from federal agents. Though California law allows for medical marijuana distributorships, the feds eventually grabbed the clinic's cash under the theory that all marijuana sales are illegal under federal law. LAPD's misconduct should not preclude federal agents (who weren't involved in the case) from taking control of the money, federal prosecutors said.
(Interestingly, in a specious, last-ditch effort to prevent the clinic from recovering its funds, LAPD also argued that they'd conducted the search to protect federal law.)
But arguments by O'Brien's office failed in large part, according to the justices, because LAPD officers lied to gain the initial state judge-approved search warrant by failing to note that the clinic was operating lawfully under state law. In other words, the cops had no probable cause for their search that produced the cash, 209 pounds of marijuana, 21 pounds of hashish and 12 pounds of marijuana oil.
Noting the "strong" self-interest cops have in seizing drug assets for themselves, the justices said, "The integrity of this court is served by our refusal to allow the government to profit from illegal activity by law enforcement when such activity produces incriminating evidence."
In recent months and after this case was filed, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that federal agents will not prosecute medical marijuana providers in states where the activity is legal.
--R. Scott Moxley / OC Weekly
Source: http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/breaking-news/lapd-california-medical-mariju/
NORML SHOW LIVE Saturday – SPECIAL TIME 4:00pm Pacific – with Cheech & Chong at Cypress Hill Smokeout
October 23rd, 2009: By "Radical" Russ Belville, NORML Outreach Coordinator
Saturday Night's episode of NORML SHOW LIVE will be at a special time - 4:00pm Pacific / 7:00pm Eastern - to take advantage of the lineup here at the Cypress Hill Smokeout in San Bernardino, California. Cheech & Chong are playing a "4:20″ set, so I will be there live, bringing you the comedy from NORML's favorite comedy team.
Following Cheech & Chong in the lineup are the newly re-formed band Sublime, which many will remember for the tune "Smoke 2 Joints" among many others. We'll bring you some of their set as well.
Interspersed with the live audio will be my interviews with many of the artists, celebrities, and just normal folks attending this two day outdoor festival. Join us live at http://live.norml.org, where you can also participate in our online chat and speak live to the host and guests - dial in to 347-994-1810 to participate.
Barney Frank Expects Nationwide Medical Marijuana Law To Pass Within the Next Few Years
October 23rd, 2009: By Ben Morris, MPP
Congressman Barney Frank, author of two important marijuana policy reform bills (H.R. 2835 and H.R. 2943), responded to a question about the direction of marijuana policy reform today on the Web site reddit.com. See the video below for his take on where the movement is headed.
Is Justice paving the way for legalized pot?
October 23rd, 2009: By Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis (Scripps Howard News Service)
Marijuana smokers might be breathing a little easier thanks to a policy switch by the U.S. Justice Department. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that federal prosecutors would not spend limited time and resources on people who use or sell medical marijuana "in strict compliance with state law." Thirteen states have medical marijuana laws, which are controversial because federal narcotics laws trump state statutes.
Of course, the new federal policy doesn't prevent local prosecutors from cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries. Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley has vowed to shutter the city's dispensaries, which he says cater to people who do not have legitimate medical reasons for using marijuana.
Is the Justice Department paving the way for legalizing marijuana? Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuk, the RedBlueAmerica columnists, attempt to cut through the haze.
Ben Boychuk
All things being equal, the states are probably better arbiters than federal officials of whether marijuana should be illegal. The fact that the Obama Justice Department believes federal resources are better spent elsewhere speaks volumes. But marijuana remains outlawed under the federal Narcotics Act, .
But whether marijuana should be legalized raises a whole host of questions. Here's one: Should medical marijuana use be protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act? The ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities, including ailments such as alcoholism and drug addiction. (See the U.S. government's frequently asked questions about the ADA here: http://www.ada.gov/employmt.htm)
The ADA has been a boon for trial lawyers and irresponsible users and abusers. A former sheriff's deputy in Sarasota, Fla., last month sued his employer for discrimination under the ADA because he was let go for excessive alcohol use. Earlier this year, former NBA player Ray Tarpley settled an ADA lawsuit against the pro basketball league and the Dallas Mavericks that stemmed from his cocaine addiction. Two alcoholic NFL players filed similar lawsuits in 2007.
Without question, marijuana helps thousands of people suffering chronic illnesses. The rub is that many critics of medical marijuana, including most district attorneys, say the laws are widely abused; that it's too easy for stoners to get a doctor's note for pot; and that many of the "illnesses" that marijuana treats are bogus. It isn't hard to imagine a raft of lawsuits against employers by potheads claiming phony disabilities.
If Americans want to ease the prohibitions on marijuana, Congress will need to act and legislators will need to debate what's right for their states. But if the trend is toward decriminalization, it should come with a hefty dose of personal responsibility and protections for employers from unscrupulous users.
Joel Mathis
Actually, Americans do want ease prohibitions on medical marijuana. They've wanted it for a long time.
The Web site of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws has a page featuring a slew of polls - going back to 1995 - showing that clear majorities of Americans believe it should be legal for doctors to prescribe and patients to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. NORML admittedly has a bias, but the polls come from a variety of outlets: Gallup, AARP, CBS, ABC, Time magazine and more.
Yet Congress has refused to act; despite those clear majorities, politicians at the federal level are too fearful about their re-election prospects to ever support legislation that might later be used to portray them as "soft on crime" or "soft on drugs."
So activists took their case to the state level - and that's entirely appropriate. The states have long been considered "laboratories of democracy" where different approaches to similar issues could be tried. And that's exactly what happened: Thirteen states now permit medical marijuana. That means, of course, that 37 states do not. Nothing in the Obama administration's new approach will force those more restrictive states to take the relaxed approach.
You can argue the Obama administration should continue to rigorously enforce federal drug laws. But given that citizens in those 13 states have made their preferences clear, the administration is probably wise to give them deference.
"What about the ADA?" my conservative friend asks. Well, what about it? The Americans with Disabilities Act is a federal law; as long as actual legalization of medical marijuana is done at the state level, federal lawsuits by a few stoned chuckleheads seeking to enrich themselves through the legal system are unlikely to be successful. When weighing the balance between real freedom and a hypothetical fear of lawsuits, freedom should win.
Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis blog at www.infinitemonkeysblog.com and politics.pwblogs.com.
Clear the air on marijuana rules
October 23rd, 2009: By The Denver Post
Colorado needs to get a better handle on medical marijuana.
The burgeoning industry - created to help those with debilitating illnesses and pain - is mostly unregulated and that's becoming problematic.
The number of permits for medical marijuana use is spiraling far higher than many anticipated when voters passed a law allowing its use in 2000. The state health department told The Post's Lynn Bartels an average of 600 people apply for a permit every day.
Clearly, we're skeptical that all of the new permits are going to truly sick and deserving patients. (There seem to be a lot of 20-somethings with chronic back pain.)
However, the state lacks regulatory authority to deal with fraud - or much of anything else - under the current law.
To meet the demand of new users, businesses that sell medical pot are popping up like mushrooms. Yet the state's registry for the dispensaries, which was required under the 2000 law, doesn't license them, track them or regulate them. It even lacks a mechanism for dealing with complaints brought against a dispensary.
And if someone wants to start a dispensary? The registry has no information on how to establish or operate the facility.
Meanwhile, the rapid growth of medical pot users and businesses is clashing with local law enforcement. Though President Barack Obama this week instructed federal drug agents to respect state laws that govern medical marijuana, some Colorado sheriffs contend that illegal drug cartels are helping meet the increased demand for pot.
The result is that some cities are starting to pass laws to regulate use, and state Sen. Chris Romer says he will take up the issue with legislation during the next session of the General Assembly.
We note that a simple solution exists: Legalize marijuana for anyone 18 and older. Treat the drug like alcohol and regulate and tax its use.
But we realize the chances of passing such a law are weak. So what to do?
Some cities, such as Durango, already are taking action. In Denver, City Councilman Charlie Brown is visiting dispensaries and says he plans to propose medical marijuana laws, including requiring operators of medical marijuana dispensaries, including managers and caregivers, to undergo criminal background checks.
Another idea worthy of debate is treating dispensaries like liquor stores, which are licensed by the state and must follow certain rules, such as limitations on how close they can be to schools.
We think doctors also are playing a role in the sudden rise of medical marijuana permits. Some grant so many approvals that critics question whether those physicians are just trying to legalize marijuana through a medical loophole.
But those doctors are violating the will of the people. When the amendment that legalizes medical marijuana was put to voters, the language stated it would be for those suffering from a "debilitating medical condition."
Any debate on potential regulation needs to include greater scrutiny or guidance on how permits are issued.
Coloradans voted to help those who are truly suffering, not to legalize marijuana through a back-door channel. Lawmakers should find a suitable way to honor that intent.
Source: http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_13621648
New federal marijuana policy a welcome change
October 23rd, 2009: By Bob Barr, AJC
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court struck a blow against the medicinal use of marijuana and against the notion that states can enact and enforce their own laws without being trumped by the federal government. In the Gonzalez v. Raich decision, the High Court used the Constitution's much-abused "interstate commerce" clause as a basis on which to uphold a federal prosecution of two women who grew and used small amounts of marijuana under a doctor's care, in compliance with California's law permitting medicinal use of marijuana.
The Raich opinion personified the perspective of the administration of George W. Bush toward medicinal marijuana useage as well as state's powers. On October 19th, in a partial but welcome reversal of that Bush-era policy, the Department of Justice issued new guidelines for United States Attorneys in those states (California and 14 others) that have medicinal marijuana laws on the books. Henceforth, so long as individuals in those states are using marijuana for medical purposes and are in full compliance with the laws of their state, federal prosecutors are not to pursue prosecution of those people. The Justice Department memo did provide that if any number of other factors were present (such as violence, sales to minors, ties to other criminal actions, and so forth), prosecution by the feds might be warranted.
The October 19th memo does not signal a wholesale reversal of the federal anti-controlled substances effort; but it does illustrate that the Obama Administration, and Attorney General Eric Holder, are bringing a fresh and more common sense-based approach to at least this aspect of federal drug policy.
Don’t prosecute medical-marijuana use, Obama administration says
October 23rd, 2009: By Daniel B. Wood, Christian Science Monitor
LOS ANGELES
Monday's news that the Obama administration will not go after medical-marijuana users and suppliers who conform to state laws is being met with relief from pro-legalization activists, consternation from anti-activists - and renewed energy on both sides to clarify state and federal laws about cannabis use.
In a reversal of Bush administration policy, the Justice Department Monday issued a memo to federal prosecutors in the states that have legalized medical marijuana, telling them to ease off on medical-marijuana users in these states.
Illegal drug trafficking is a priority but prosecutors should not waste federal resources "on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana," says the memo, which has also been sent to FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
States that have legalized medical marijuana include California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
Nationally, the announcement raises two questions, says Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). One: What does the administration plan to do with the federal cases pending by the Bush administration? And two: Is the new head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske, communicating with the rest of the Obama administration?
Just Friday, the drug czar said that he does not feel that marijuana holds any medicinal properties, notes Mr. Armentano. In the past, Mr. Kerlikowsle has spoken against legalization.
"Did he not get the memo?" asks Armentano, who adds he is "pleased" about the move. "But keep in mind that this is simply a policy and not law."
In California, several coalitions have already got 200,000 signatures for a 2010 initiative that would give cities and counties more options on how to tax and regulate cannabis. Also on Monday, a Superior Court judge in California granted a preliminary injunction against a Los Angeles moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries, saying the ban was invalid.
Some activists question how far the policy will actually get implemented.
"The proof will be in the pudding. There are loopholes in this policy a mile wide," says Dale Gieringer, California state coordinator for NORML. He notes that just one-and-a-half weeks ago, federal prosecutors raided a very small dispensary in San Diego - which he said was doing "nothing unusual under state law" - and federal charges were filed.
The policy "still leaves wide discretion to the US attorneys in deciding what is legal in the first place," says Mr. Gieringer.
On the question of what happens to those already arrested, legal analysts say there are many unknowns.
"Just because the Obama administration will not be pursuing new arrests for the use of marijuana in violation of federal law does not mean that those arrested under the Bush administration will automatically be released, or that their cases will be dismissed," says Jessica Levinson, adjunct professor of law at Loyola University in Los Angeles.
Southwestern University School of Law's Robert Pugsley says he feels that those currently being held will be released but those who have already seen convictions will not find them reversed.
Nonetheless, the new guidelines will be helpful in court cases, says NORML's Gieringer.
"Having a written policy by the current Presidential administration to not prosecute can only be helpful when brought up before a judge," he says.
Feds' pot memo falls way short
October 23rd, 2009: By Daily Democrat
The Obama Administration's new policy on medical marijuana essentially boils down to "we're going to look the other way -- unless that doesn't serve our purposes."
While a step in the right direction, the policy doesn't provide the assurances that legitimate providers of medical marijuana need to conduct an above-board operation without fear of prosecution.
The new guidelines for federal prosecutors handed down this week with the blessing of Attorney General Eric Holder are an attempt to thread a political needle rather than a recognition of the value of the drug and a deferral to the desire of voters in 14 states.
That's not good enough. In California, this battle has been going on for 13 years, since voters passed Proposition 215, which made it legal to sell marijuana to people who have a doctor's prescription. Hundreds of dispensaries regulated under state law by local governments have struggled to stay open.
We're heartened by this recognition, which marks a major turning point in the federal government's outlook. The memo is silent on the administration's plans for past and current prosecutions of medical marijuana providers. "... Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests."
That's hardly the assurance that legitimate business people are going to need before they set up shop. While the threat of a federal crackdown might not be as great, the threat remains, nonetheless.
Rather than this squishy policy, the administration should affirmatively end prosecution of legitimate medical marijuana providers and embrace research into therapeutic uses for the drug. The drug is a low-cost treatment alternative that shouldn't be dismissed because of prejudices about cannabis.
It's time for the federal government to either get on board or get out of the way.
Source: http://www.dailydemocrat.com/editorial/ci_13625478
Another wrong-headed medical marijuana proposal in Los Angeles
October 22nd, 2009: By F. Aaron Smith, MPP
Just as federal medical marijuana policy appears to be moving toward sanity, some local officials in the nation's second largest city seem to be losing it altogether.
Earlier this month, I reported on Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley's decision to use resources prosecuting each of the area's medical marijuana collectives as common drug dealers - even those operating within city or county guidelines. Now, Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich joins Cooley in his fight against the popular and long-standing medical marijuana laws.
Trutanich is pressing the L.A. City Council to quickly adopt an ordinanceeffectively banning the sale of medical marijuana through storefront collectives. This uniquely draconian proposal is based on the false premise that California law doesn't allow collectives to accept money from members as reimbursement for their medical marijuana.
Just last year, the state's attorney general issued guidelines declaring that, while medical marijuana could not be sold for profit, it is perfectly legal to exchange money to cover the costs of its production and distribution. The guidelines clearly state, "Members also may reimburse the collective or cooperative for marijuana that has been allocated to them." Further, California law exempts certain medical marijuana-related activities from prosecution under laws that otherwise prohibit the sales of marijuana.
Bizarrely, the ordinance also doesn't allow any medical marijuana facility to operate within 1,000 feet of a "hospital or medical facility." Hmm... I thought that patient collectives were medical facilities.
Clearly medical marijuana collectives in Los Angeles are in need of some more controls (local patients and collective operators have been calling for regulations for years), and some of the facilities in the area are probably not operating in good faith compliance with the law. But the answer to this problem is not in a broad prohibitionist policy that's out of step with state law and a boon to underground drug dealers who would undoubtably fill the vacuum left once all the collectives are closed. The answer, as always, is in sound regulations which facilitate open and safe access to patients while addressing community concerns.
Stay tuned for more developments from the City of Angels. I'll be posting them here as they unfold.
Marijuana has higher approval ratings than Congress, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
October 22nd, 2009: By Mike Meno, Marijuana Policy Project
Monday's Gallup poll showing that a record 44% of Americans favor making marijuana legal has brought increased attention to the need for an open, national debate on marijuana policy.
The fact that 44% percent of people favor taxing and regulating marijuana is even more impressive because-in stark contrast to many other public policy issues-for once, a substantial number of Americans actually view an issue favorably.
After all, Americans are a finicky bunch. We don't like much these days, and in 2009 it's impressive for anything to get 44% approval ratings. In fact, according to the latest numbers from a variety of polling sources, the idea of taxing and regulating marijuana enjoys higher support among the American public than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the top Democrat and top Republican in the House of Representatives, and-perhaps not surprisingly-Congress itself.
Take a look at these figures:
|
Issue |
Approve |
Oppose |
Source |
|
President Obama's job performance |
50% |
42% |
|
|
Legalization of marijuana |
44% |
54% |
|
|
The war in Afghanistan |
39% |
58% |
|
|
The war in Iraq |
33% |
64% |
|
|
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) |
32% |
48% |
|
|
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) |
25% |
23% |
|
|
Congress's job performance |
21% |
72% |
Based on these numbers, as well as the growing mainstream media coverage of marijuana issues, there is no longer any doubt that Americans see marijuana policy reform as a legitimate mainstream issue worthy of national debate. Let's keep talking!
The Column the Washington Post Refused to Run
October 22nd, 2009: By Bruce Mirken, Marijuana Policy Project
On Oct. 20, the Washington Post published an inaccurate and arguably libelous anti-medical marijuana diatribe by Charles Lane on its Web site. After a deluge of complaints, the version now posted is cleaned up slightly: shorn of an offensive reference to Supreme Court medical marijuana plaintiff Angel Raich as a hypochondriac and with a feeble "clarification" appended. But it's still a cascade of distortions and inaccuracies. Since the Post declined to print MPP's reply, we thought we'd share it with you:
Setting the Record Straight on Medical Marijuana
by
Bruce Mirken and Mike MenoCharles Lane's column, "Medical marijuana is an insult to our intelligence," (Oct. 20) was riddled with inaccuracies. Had Mr. Lane bothered to review the medical literature, he would have found not "hokum" and "snake oil," as he calls it, but a small mountain of published, peer-reviewed research documenting that medical marijuana is a safe, effective, and sometimes even life-saving medication for many seriously ill Americans.
That's not our opinion, it's the opinion of a huge array of respected medical and public health organizations, including the American College of Physicians, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, American Academy of HIV Medicine, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and many others. In 1999, for instance, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine reported that "nausea, appetite loss, pain, and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana."
In a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Lymphoma Foundation of America, HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and other top experts stated, "For certain persons the medical use of marijuana can literally mean the difference between life and death. At a minimum, marijuana provides some seriously ill patients the gift of relative health and the ability to function as productive members of society."
And last year, the American College of Physicians - 124,000 doctors of internal medicine - stated, "Evidence not only supports the use of medical marijuana in certain conditions
but also suggests numerous indications for cannabinoids," marijuana's unique, active components.A series of recent clinical trials has documented marijuana's ability to relieve what is known as neuropathic pain - pain stemming from damage to the nerves. This type of pain plagues millions of Americans suffering from HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, diabetes and other ailments, and is notoriously resistant to conventional pain drugs. Marijuana has been unequivocally shown to safely relieve this type of pain, even in many cases where conventional painkillers have failed.
While it is true that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved marijuana as a prescription medicine, the reason for that is political, not scientific. The federal government has maintained a stranglehold on medical marijuana research, preventing the types of studies that would be needed for FDA approval. Researchers at the University of Massachusetts are still fighting the federal government for the right to set up a research facility designed to move medical marijuana through the FDA approval process.
Finally, a word must be said about Mr. Lane's reprehensible attack on Supreme Court plaintiff Angel Raich, who, he says, "might consider a consultation for hypochondria, or perhaps marijuana dependency" - apparently because anyone with multiple medical problems must surely be making them up. Actually, the Court's majority opinion noted that Raich and fellow plaintiff Diane Monson had made "strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable harm, because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes." Raich is having highly risky surgery October 28 - surgery that her doctors had originally ruled out because it is too dangerous - because her brain tumor has now become life-threatening.
There is indeed much hokum in the medical marijuana debate, but it is coming from the opponents of medical marijuana, not the supporters.
Source: http://blog.mpp.org/medical-marijuana/the-column-the-washington-post-refused-to-run/10222009/
DOJ To Federal Prosecutors: Do Not Focus Resources On Medical Marijuana
October 22nd, 2009: By Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
Washington, DC: United States Deputy Attorney General David Ogden issued a memorandum to federal prosecutors on Monday directing them to not "focus federal resources ... on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana." The directive upholds a campaign promise by President Obama, who had previously pledged that he was "not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue." Commenting on the directive, NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said: "We applaud the administration for discouraging the use of federal resources to improperly target and prosecute state-authorized medical marijuana patients and their providers. However, this directive ushers a change in policy rather than a change in law. A better solution would be for Congress to move expeditiously to pass House Bill 2835, The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act of 2009, which would ensure - once and for all - that medical cannabis patients in states that have approved its use will no longer have to fear arrest or prosecution from federal law enforcement agencies." Introduced in June, HB 2835 has 29 co-sponsors. The measure awaits action from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Source: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7998
On the heels of victory...
October 22nd, 2009: By David Guard, In the Trenches (StoptheDrugWar.org)
Dear friends:
Following the enormous victory for medical marijuana patients and their caregivers on Monday, a strong MPP champion on Capitol Hill, Congressman Sam Farr (D-Calif.), plans to introduce an important bill in Congress next week.
While the new Department of Justice policy creates a de facto protection for patients and caregivers who are "in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana," the Farr bill - which MPP staff helped write years ago - will codify this protection in law.
It will also address another injustice: Currently, medical marijuana patients in the 13 states where medical marijuana is legal are barred from telling federal jurors that their use of marijuana was for medical purposes, even when state laws explicitly permit medical use. Congressman Farr's Truth in Trials Act would guarantee defendants in federal medical marijuana cases the right to explain that their marijuana was for medical use. And more importantly, defendants could be found not guilty if the jury finds that they followed state medical marijuana laws.
Will you please urge your member of Congress to co-sponsor this legislation? MPP's online action system makes it easy: Just enter your contact information and we'll do the rest.
This is such an exciting time for our issue. Thank you for standing with us in the fight.
Sincerely,
Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.
P.S. As I've mentioned in previous alerts, a major philanthropist has committed to match the first $2.35 million that MPP can raise from the rest of the planet in 2009. This means that your donation today will be doubled.
Source: http://stopthedrugwar.org/in_the_trenches/2009/oct/22/on_the_heels_of_victory
NORML Women Make Waves
October 22nd, 2009: By Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
We've published several blog posts over the past weeks emphasizing the role of women in marijuana law reform.
Why? Well, for starters, women are now voicing their support for sensible marijuana law reform in record numbers.
According to this week's Gallup poll, support for marijuana legalization has jumped 12 percent among women since 2005. By comparison, support among men rose just four percent over this same time.
In short, if we are to succeed to pushing public support for marijuana regulation to majority levels in this country then we - unquestionably - need the greater support of women.
Fortunately, NORML has its own core group of female activists who are unabashedly speaking out publicly in favor of cannabis law reform. Their efforts are changing public opinion and garnering mainstream media attention.
Here are just a few recent examples.
Kathleen Parker: Legalizing Pot May Be Women's Work
[Note: Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist. Her most recent commentary, spotlighting NORML-ally Jessica Corry, ran in newspapers across the country under various headlines.]
Today's activist, more likely, doesn't have facial hair, but she does have kids.
Lately to the smallish conservative crowd, notably once led by anti-prohibitionist William F. Buckley, is Jessica Corry of Colorado, a married, pro-life Republican mom, soon to be "freedom fighter of the month" in High Times magazine.
Recent partakers undoubtedly will have to rub their eyes for a double take when they spot Corry, who spoke last month at a NORML conference (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) in San Francisco, wearing an American flag lapel pin, a triple strand of pearls and a gold marijuana leaf pin.
Another day, another stereotype in the dust bin.
... Corry is hardly alone and, in fact, may be part of a "toking point." (Is there a drug yet for "Tipping Point Fatigue"?) In its October issue, Marie Claire magazine featured "Stiletto Stoners" about accomplished career women who prefer to relax with pot. A September Fortune cover story, "Is Pot Already Legal?" examined the issue. In April, former (2006) Miss New Jersey, Georgine DiMaria, [Editor's Note: Georgine is an active member of NJ NORML.] outed herself as a stealth marijuana user to treat her asthma.
Next we have Salon.com:
Salon.com: Meet the marijuana moms
The real crux of Parker's article, another idea she picks up from Corry, is the prediction that it will be women who lead the charge for legalization. It was the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform, both point out, who in 1929 spearheaded the movement to get rid of the ban on alcohol. (Thanks, ladies!) Parker also cites a Marie Claire article on "Stiletto Stoners," high-achieving women who smoke weed, and the recent revelation that Miss New Jersey 2006 uses medical marijuana to calm her asthma. I would add the example of Marie Myung-Ok Lee, a mother who wrote in Double X about feeding her autistic nine-year-old son pot (in cookie form).
And finally there's this excellent commentary in the L.A. Daily News penned by NORML Legal Committee member Allison Margolin, who rightfully criticizes Los Angeles District Attorney for threatening to prosecute "100 percent" of the city's medical marijuana dispensaries.
Pot crackdown flies in the face of law and sense
[excerpt] Whatever the perverse reasons motivating the district attorney's position, the issue is not why but how to stop this alarming waste of resources. The media has focused on the fact that the amount of dispensaries in L.A. has mushroomed over the past year and on the ease with which marijuana users are obtaining recommendations. No one has focused on the fact that the war against dispensaries is another chapter in the escalation of the drug war, another excuse to send people to state prison, another mechanism to disenfranchise people whose medicine is not respected by law enforcement as legitimate.
This has to stop. In the wake of prison overcrowding and budget crisis, sending more people away and depriving the state of taxes they are currently reaping from dispensaries is not the answer.
This week, the LAPD is expected to crack down on medical marijuana dispensaries across Los Angeles. The time for action is now - before more people are caught up in the system, before more resources are wasted and before more lives are ruined.
Normal women, NORML women - fighting to end prohibition.
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/10/22/norml-women-make-waves/
California: Arrests in Marijuana Ring
October 22nd, 2009: By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Federal authorities in California announced charges against 18 people they said operated a lucrative marijuana-growing operation by converting Central Valley homes into high-tech marijuana nurseries. They estimated the value of the marijuana crop at nearly $100 million a year. All suspects are from the San Francisco Bay area. Nine were arrested on drug and real estate fraud charges, while the others remain fugitives, said a Drug Enforcement Administration agent, Casey McEnry. The actions bring to 34 the number of people who have been charged in an investigation dating to 2006 and 2007. At that time, law enforcement agents discovered 24,500 marijuana plants growing inside 50 converted homes in Sacramento, Elk Grove, Lathrop, Modesto, Stockton and Tracy. Prosecutors said the growers bought homes for between $400,000 and $600,000, most in subdivisions that were new or a few years old. They then punched out interior walls, installed expensive ventilation and hydration equipment, and tapped power lines to grow thousands of plants.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/23brfs-ARRESTSINMAR_BRF.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Pot Arrests Responsible For Majority Of Marijuana Treatment Referrals
October 22nd, 2009: By Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
Arlington, VA: Nearly six out of ten individuals enrolled in drug treatment for marijuana were referred there by the criminal justice system, according to a new report issued by the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). "In 2007, the criminal justice system was the largest single source of referrals to the substance abuse treatment system," states the report, entitled "Substance Abuse Treatment Admissions Referred by the Criminal Justice System." "[T]he majority of these referrals were from parole and probation offices." Fifty-six percent of individuals in drug treatment for marijuana were referred there by the criminal justice system, up from 48 percent in 1992. Overall, 37 percent of all drug treatment admissions were based upon criminal justice referrals. Commenting on the statistics, NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said: "These figures make it clear that it is not marijuana use per sethat is driving these treatment admission rates; it is marijuanaprohibition that is primarily responsible. These people for the most part are not 'addicts' in any true sense of the word. Rather, they are ordinary Americans who have experienced the misfortune of being busted for marijuana who are forced to choose between rehab or jail." Treatment statistics published by the federal government this past spring reported that over 37 percent of the estimated 288,000 thousand people who entered drug treatment for pot in 2007 had notreported using it in the 30 days previous to their admission. Another 16 percent of those admitted said that they'd used marijuana three times or fewer in the month prior to their admission. For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org.
Source: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7997
Press Release: U.S. Attorney’s Announcement Brings New Hope for Medical Marijuana Bill in New Hampshire
October 22nd, 2009: By David Guard, In the Trenches (StoptheDrugWar.org)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 22, 2009
U.S. Attorney's Announcement Brings New Hope for Medical Marijuana Bill in New Hampshire
Medical marijuana vote Oct. 28; poll shows 71% support
CONTACT: Matt Simon, NH Coalition for Common Sense Marijuana Policy.....................(603) 391-7450
CONCORD - Patients and their advocates received new hope Tuesday in their effort to pass a medical marijuana bill in New Hampshire. The U.S. attorney for New Hampshire, John Kacavas, announced that his department will not prosecute seriously ill patients who use marijuana to relieve their suffering.
The statement from Kacavas came one day after the Obama administration issued guidelines to federal prosecutors and the DEA directing them not to expend limited resources prosecuting medical marijuana patients in states where doctors may legally recommend the drug. Kacavas went a step further, telling reporters his office would not prosecute patients for possessing marijuana regardless of whether HB 648 passes or fails.
When the bill was debated earlier this year, many legislators expressed concern that a New Hampshire law could not protect patients from federal prosecutions. In light of Kacavas' announcement, advocates say it is now clear that patients have nothing to fear from federal agents in New Hampshire.
"It's great to hear that I'm safe from the federal authorities," said 24-year old Clayton Holton, a Somersworth resident who suffers from muscular dystrophy and lost his ability to walk at age 10. "Unfortunately, if HB 648 doesn't pass, I'll still have to live in fear of New Hampshire state and local police."
A 2008 Mason-Dixon poll showed that 71% of New Hampshire voters support allowing seriously and terminally ill patients access to medical marijuana for personal use if their doctors recommend it.
Matt Simon, executive director for the NH Coalition for Common Sense Marijuana Policy, praised the announcement from Kacavas but pointed out that of the more than 800,000 marijuana arrests that take place each year in the US, 99% are made by state and local law enforcement officers. "If legislators want to see some of New Hampshire's most vulnerable citizens receive protection from arrest, there is no good reason left for them to vote against HB 648," he said.
Cancer survivor Dennis Acton, a Fremont resident, also cheered the new development. "It's great to see the federal government finally acknowledging that states should be free to determine their own policies," he said. "Now it's clear that the responsibility of changing this law rests with our own state legislature, and nobody else."
The bill is scheduled for a final vote in the House and Senate Oct. 28. Two-thirds majorities will be necessary to override Gov. John Lynch's veto and pass the bill into law. When the bill passed June 24, the House vote was 232-108 (68%) and the Senate vote was 14-10, only two votes short of the override threshold.
Source: http://stopthedrugwar.org/in_the_trenches/2009/oct/22/on_the_heels_of_victory
Gallup: Majority Of West Coast Voters Back Marijuana Legalization
October 22nd, 2009: By Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
Princeton, NJ: A majority of west coast voters, and 44 percent of the nation, are "in favor of making marijuana legal," according to national poll of 1,013 likely voters published this week by Gallup.
Fifty-three percent of west coast voters said that they supported regulating marijuana, while 46 percent said they opposed the idea. Regional support for legalization was second highest on the east coast, where 44 percent of respondents backed legalizing pot.
Among self-described "liberals," 78 percent endorsed legalization, as did a majority of "Democrats" and half of "Independents." By contrast, only 28 percent of self-identified "Republicans" supported amending marijuana laws.
According to polling service, which has been posing the marijuana legalization question to likely voters since 1970, national support for the issue has never been higher. In 2005, the last time Gallup posed the question, only 36 percent of Americans said they backed legalization.
Among women voters, support for legalization has risen 12 percent since 2005.
The Gallup poll results echo those of separate national polls conducted this year by Zogby, ABC News, CBS News, Rasmussen Reports, and theCalifornia Field Poll - all of which reported greater public support for marijuana legalization than ever before.
Responding to the Gallup poll results, NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said, "Public support for replacing the illicit marijuana market with a legally regulated, controlled market similar to alcohol, complete with age restrictions and quality controls, continues to grow nationally, and has already achieved majority support on the west coast - where many voters are already familiar with the state-licensed use and, in some cases, sale of medical cannabis."
He added, "As voters and legislators continue to look for alternative ways to raise revenue for public services and reduce law enforcement costs in this troubled economy, we expect Americans' support for regulating cannabis to only grow stronger in the years to come."
For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500.
Source: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7996
Massachusetts Medical Marijuana, Man Credits Cannabis with Helping Him Walk Again
October 22nd, 2009: By Mike Cann, Boston NORML Examiner
In this video, Congressman Mike Capuano answers question on medical marijuana.
Medical user in Rhode Island, Dave walks again after his doctors said it would never happen. He credits medical cannabis with getting him out of the wheelchair. Watch Dave stand up! Dave asks that medical users and advocates join him for the MassCann/NORML medical marijuana lobby day at the State House. on Monday, November 16, 2009.
Minnesota Supreme Court rules bong water is a drug
October 22nd, 2009: By "Radical" Russ Belville, NORML Daily Audio Stash
(Minneapolis Star-Tribune) Bong water can count as a controlled substance, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a decision that raises the threat of longer sentences for drug smokers who fail to dump the water out of their pipes.
In a 4-3 decision Thursday, the state's highest court said a person can be prosecuted for a first-degree drug crime for 25 grams or more of bong water that tests positive for a controlled substance.
The statute defines a drug "mixture" as "a preparation, compound, mixture, or substance containing a controlled substance, regardless of purity." When the language of a statute is unambiguous, the high court said, precedents prohibit courts from disregarding the letter of the law under the pretext of pursuing the letter of the law.
"Regardless of purity" means that even a fleck of an ash that registers a molecule of THC floating in your bong water makes all that water weight a controlled substance. 25 grams of water equals 25 milliliters, which equals a little over five teaspoons of water. Five teaspoons of water in your bong makes you a first degree criminal. An ounce and a half of bong water makes you a felon.
Source: http://stash.norml.org/minnesota-supreme-court-rules-bong-water-is-a-drug
Pot Accounts For 75% of Police Seizures
October 22nd, 2009: By Jeremiah Vandermeer, Cannabis Culuture
Many Canadians think police don't pay much attention to marijuana, and instead focus on busting people for "hard drugs". Think again.
From the Edmonton Sun:
The street value of drugs seized by Canadian cops last year topped $2.4 billion, according to the RCMP.
RCMP Supt. Pierre Perron, director general of criminal intelligence, said ecstacy, crystal meth, cocaine and marijuana remain the drugs of choice for dealers increasingly linked to organized crime.
While the number of clandestine drug labs remained stable, facilities diversified the illicit powders and tablets they produce and pushed output to "new heights," he said. Pot is still the top domestically produced drug -- accounting for 75% of seizures.
Yes, that's seventy-five percent!
Think of all the police resources wasted. Think of all the lives ruined. Think of all the taxpayer dollars flushed down the toilet. All this to combat a plant that has virtually no harmful effects, and helps so many people.
But that is not enough for these cops and politicians: Bill C-15, which brings mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana "crimes" to Canada, will waste millions of dollars more on imprisoning non-violent herb smokers.
Bill C-15 needs only the support of Canadian Senators to become law, so please PHONE JAM as many of them as you can.
Tell the Senate to say NO to Bill C-15, or let the flushing continue!
Source: http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/20301
MPP Medical Marijuana on MSNBC and CNN
October 22nd, 2009: By Mike Cann
Source: http://www.mikecann.net/
From Obama, sanity on marijuana policy
October 22nd, 2009: By Steve Chapman (Chicago Tribune)
In 1973, Robert Randall was going blind from glaucoma when he discovered that smoking marijuana seemed to help his condition. That didn't matter to police when they found the Washington, D.C., resident growing cannabis and arrested him. Preferring to keep his sight, Randall sued the federal government, arguing that he was entitled to smoke pot as a "medical necessity."
It was a far-fetched argument -- but it worked. In 1976, a court ruled in Randall's favor. Before long, the federal government found itself in the strange position of supplying marijuana to him and a handful of other patients under a "compassionate use" program.
The compassion didn't go very far. President George H.W. Bushstopped the acceptance of new patients into the program in 1992 rather than admit all those annoying AIDS victims, insisting that it sent a dangerous message to young people.
The real danger, of course, was the message that government policy on cannabis was ignorant and irrational. But since then, one president and one drug czar after another has furiously resisted efforts to allow therapeutic use of the drug no matter how helpful it may be to the sick and dying.
Until now. This week, the Justice Department kept a promise made by candidate Barack Obama when it announced that henceforth, "it will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana."
The change is not only historic but humane and intelligent, two adjectives rarely applied to federal drug policy. Science has established that cannabis has useful properties for the treatment of various diseases, countless physicians have endorsed it, and 14 states have allowed sick people access to marijuana. But for three decades, the people in charge of drug policy in the federal government didn't give a rat's bottom.
In 1996, after California voters approved a medical marijuana law,President Bill Clinton's administration fought it every step of the way -- filing lawsuits to close cannabis buyers clubs, threatening to strip the licenses of doctors who recommended marijuana to patients and denouncing the entire program as "a Cheech and Chong show."
President George W. Bush's administration stuck to the same course. It raided California dispensaries and went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in a successful effort to crush the notion -- the conservative notion, come to think of it -- that states should have the power to set their own policy on pot.
But before long, the idea had caught on not just in hippy-dippy California but in less fashionable places likeAlaska, Maine, Michigan and Montana. Some 75 percent of Americans think doctors should be permitted to prescribe cannabis. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws reports that in 33 state referendums since 1992, voters have embraced liberalization 30 times.
Most of the time, the two major parties are about as different as Coke and Pepsi. But last year, they presented a stark contrast on this issue. Republicans denounced the use of marijuana as medicine, while Democrats lined up to criticize the prevailing federal policy. Obama took a clear position, declaring it "entirely appropriate" for physicians to prescribe cannabis and pledging, "What I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue."
But as opponents of the Iraq war, "don't ask don't tell" and Guantanamo know, a promise made by Obama is not exactly money in the bank. This time, though, he deserves full credit for doing what he said he would do, repudiating a bipartisan legacy of pigheaded stupidity.
What's more, Obama may not stop there. Some reformers expect the administration to agree to let a scientist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst grow cannabis for research on its medical potential -- something the Bush administration opposed, lest the research contradict its ideology.
During the campaign, Obama also indicated he favors scrapping a 21-year-old policy that forbids cities from using federal money to finance needle-exchange programs to block the spread of AIDS, and the House voted last summer to lift the ban. The White House drug czar has even solicited advice from critics of the drug war, whom previous drug czars saw as deranged.
Robert Randall, who died in 2001, might have been surprised to hear the federal government admit the possibility that it was wrong about marijuana. He probably wouldn't have been surprised that it took 33 years.
Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman
schapman@tribune.com
Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1022chapmanoct22,0,2653951.column
Dillon close to approving medical marijuana regulations
October 22nd, 2009: By Caitlin Row (Summit Daily News)
DILLON - Dillon is likely one month away from approving its own set of medical marijuana dispensary regulations, on the heels of its neighbors - Frisco and Breckenridge. Silverthorne is still in the process of approving its own regulations.
"I'd like to move forward on it," said Mayor Barbara Davis, who agreed with town manager Devin Granbery at Tuesday's work session that it's time to get in front of the issue and put rules in place before a dispensary comes to town.
Other town council members agreed, but there was also concern about the vague nature of medical marijuana regulations in general - "There's just so much unknown," said councilwoman Mary Forsythe.
A first official approval of the ordinance will likely occur on Nov. 3. A final approval and a public hearing for Dillon's medical marijuana dispensary regulations could then happen on Nov. 17. Since the moratorium on dispensaries expires on Nov. 18, the town will need to extend the moratorium to avoid any loopholes.
Dillon's proposed ordinance will include limits on location (not near residential areas), operation standards (constraints on when it can be open) and signs (no marijuana plant symbols will be allowed). Council members also agreed dispensaries shouldn't be allowed to open with in 500 feet of an existing dispensary. On-site consumption of marijuana products won't be permitted, and the businesses in questions won't be able to open in the town core. Criminal background checks will be required of potential owners and store managers, not every single employee.
Other concerns included product quality and possession regulations, as well as an overall confusion about how and the state will eventually monitor and control the situation.
Source: http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20091022/NEWS/910219993&parentprofile=search
Feds' leniency on medical pot should win fans left and right
October 21st, 2009: By Chicago Sun Times
If ever there were a drug policy on which conservatives, libertarians, liberals and Cheech & Chong should be able to agree, it's the U.S. Justice Department's decision to ease up on prosecutions for the medical use of marijuana.
Conservatives should be pleased, given that the Justice Department's new policy, which is to defer to state laws on the matter of medical marijuana, represents a victory for state's rights.
Libertarians should be pleased, given their conviction that most laws against drug use by adults are intrusive and unenforceable, creating a bloody black market.
Liberals should be happy, given their belief that most drug users are addicts in need of rehab, not criminals in need of prison.
And Cheech & Chong should be happy because, man, hey, they're Cheech & Chong.
We're happy, too. This page has long supported the medical use of marijuana and the decriminalization of pot more generally, and we expect that one or more states eventually will create a particularly workable medical marijuana law that becomes a national model.
Our only regret is that Illinois has yet to join 14 other states that have legalized medical pot. Until that day, if you smoke pot in Illinois to ease the pain of a medical condition, such as cancer, you are a criminal.
Our hope is that the Justice Department's decision, which effectively bolsters the legitimacy of medical marijuana, will strengthen support for such a law in Illinois. The state Senate passed a medical marijuana bill in May, but the House is unlikely to vote on the measure any time soon. Too many legislators, with an eye on the February primary elections, fear that even a compassionate vote for medical marijuana could be portrayed as an unreasonable "vote for drugs."
And far be it from us to ask anybody to show a little political courage.
Source: http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1836095,CST-EDT-edit21b.article
U.S. Support for Legalizing Marijuana Reaches New High
October 19th, 2009: By Lydia Saad, Gallup
PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's October Crime poll finds 44% of Americans in favor of making marijuana legal and 54% opposed. U.S. public support for legalizing marijuana was fixed in the 25% range from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, but acceptance jumped to 31% in 2000 and has continued to grow throughout this decade.
"The highest level of support for decriminalizing the use of marijuana today is seen with self-described liberals, among whom 78% are in favor."
Public opinion is virtually the same on a question that relates to a public policy debate brewing in California -- whether marijuana should be legalized and taxed as a way of raising revenue for state governments. Just over 4 in 10 Americans (42%) say they would favor this in their own state; 56% are opposed. Support is markedly higher among residents of the West -- where an outright majority favor the proposal -- than in the South and Midwest. The views of Eastern residents fall about in the middle.
The new findings come as the U.S. Justice Department has reportedly decided to loosen its enforcement of federal anti-marijuana laws by not pursuing individuals who buy or sell small amounts of the drug in conformity with their own states' medical marijuana laws. This seems likely to meet with U.S. public approval, as previous Gallup polling has found Americans generally sympathetic to legalizing marijuana for medical purposes. In 2003, 75% of Americans favored allowing doctors to legally prescribe marijuana to patients in order to reduce pain and suffering.
Basic Support for Legalization Highest Among Liberals
The highest level of support for decriminalizing the use of marijuana today is seen with self-described liberals, among whom 78% are in favor. In contrast, 72% of conservatives are opposed. Moderates are about evenly divided on whether the use of marijuana should be legal, although they tilt against it (51% vs. 46%).
Somewhat milder differences are seen according to political party, mainly because of the tempered support of Democrats relative to that of liberals. However, a solid 70% of Republicans -- similar to the rate seen among conservatives -- are opposed.
Gallup also finds a generational rift on the issue, as 50% of those under 50 and 45% of those 50 to 64 say it should be legal, compared with 28% of seniors.
Basic Support Swells Among Certain Groups
Most of the expansion in support for legalizing marijuana since Gallup last measured this in 2005 is seen among women, younger Americans, Democrats, moderates, and liberals. By comparison, there has been little change in the views of men, seniors, Republicans, independents, and conservatives. Regionally, support has grown the most in the West and Midwest.
Bottom Line
Public mores on legalization of marijuana have been changing this decade, and are now at their most tolerant in at least 40 years. If public support were to continue growing at a rate of 1% to 2% per year, as it has since 2000, the majority of Americans could favor legalization of the drug in as little as four years.
Americans are no more -- and no less -- in favor of legalizing marijuana when the issue is framed as a revenue-enhancement tool for state governments. Regardless of how the question is asked, 53% of Americans living in the West -- encompassing California, where the issue could be on the ballot in 2010 -- support legalization.
Sign up for Gallup e-mail alerts or RSS feeds
Get Gallup news on Facebook and Twitter
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,013 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 1-4, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/123728/U.S.-Support-Legalizing-Marijuana-Reaches-New-High.aspx#1
Justice Department Issues Medical Marijuana Policy Memo; Says No Prosecutions If In Compliance With State Law
October 19th, 2009: By Phillip Smith, Chronicle Blog
Posted in Chronicle Blog by Phillip Smith on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 2:43pm
Editor's Note: We wanted to get this important story posted today, but we will develop it further for the Drug War Chronicle on Friday.
In a new federal medical marijuana policy memo issued this morning to the DEA, FBI, and US Attorneys around the country, the Justice Department told prosecutors that medical marijuana patients and providers in states where it is legal should not be targeted for federal prosecution. The memo formalizes statements made by Attorney General Eric Holder in February and March that going after pot-smoking patients and their suppliers would not be a high Justice Department priority.
The memo marks a sharp break with federal policy under the Clinton and Bush administrations, both of which aggressively targeted medical marijuana operations, especially in California, the state that has the broadest law and the highest number of medical marijuana patients.
The announcement of the policy shift won kudos from the marijuana and broader drug reform movement. But some reformers questioned what the shift would actually mean on the ground, pointing to DEA raids and federal prosecutions that have occurred since Holder's signal this spring that the feds were to back off, as well as continuing controversies, especially in California, over what exactly is legal under state law. Others noted that for real protection to be in place, federal law-not just prosecutorial policy-needs to change.
In the memo, federal prosecutors were told that going after people who use or provide medical marijuana in accordance with state law was not the best use of their time or resources. According to the memo, while the Justice Department continues to make enforcing federal drug laws a key mission:
"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."
But the memo also said that federal prosecutors should continue to target marijuana production or sales operations that are illicit but hiding behind state medical marijuana laws. It explicitly singled out cases involving which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or involvement in other crimes.
"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal," said Attorney General Holder.
"This is a huge victory for medical marijuana patients," said Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access, the nationwide medical marijuana advocacy organization, which had been in negotiations with the Justice Department to get written guidelines issued. "This indicates that President Obama intends to keep his promise not to undermine state medical marijuana laws and represents a significant departure from the policies of the Bush Administration," continued Sherer. "We will continue to work with President Obama, the Justice Department, and the US Congress to establish a comprehensive national policy, but it's good to know that in the meantime states can implement medical marijuana laws without interference from the federal government."
"This is the most significant, positive policy development on the federal level for medical marijuana since 1978," said the Marijuana Policy Project in a message to its list members today.
"It's great to see the Obama administration making good on the promises that candidate Obama made last year. These new guidelines effectively open the door to sensible collaboration between state governments and medical marijuana providers in ensuring that patients have safe and reliable access to their medicine," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "What remains unclear is how the Justice Department will respond to rogue state attorneys, such as San Diego's Bonnie Dumanis, who persist in undermining state medical marijuana laws in their local jurisdictions. Now is the right time for the Obama administration to move forward with federal legislation to end the irrational prohibition of medical marijuana under federal law."
While the policy memo was "encouraging," the "proof will be in the pudding," said California NORML head Dale Gieringer, who also cited the recent raids in San Diego, as well as the August federal indictment of two Lake County medical marijuana providers. "Note that the new Obama policy has a glaring loophole, emphasizing that 'prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and ... it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law,'" Gieringer said. "The salient question is, who decides what is 'without a doubt' in compliance with state law? As shown by the recent statements of LA's DA and City Attorney, there exist significant doubts about the legality of most dispensaries in California. It remains to be seen how far the administration's new policy guidelines will go to prevent further abuses, when what is really needed is fundamental reform of federal laws and regulations."
And so opens the next chapter in America's long, twisted path to the acceptance of medical marijuana.
Obama administration says it won't target medical marijuana users in states where legal
October 19th, 2009: By the Devilin Barrett, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.
Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.
The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.
Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
California is unique among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries - businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.
Attorney General Eric Holder said in March that he wanted federal law enforcement officials to pursue those who violate both federal and state law, but it has not been clear how that goal would be put into practice.
A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the legal guidance before it is issued.
"This is a major step forward," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "This change in policy moves the federal government dramatically toward respecting scientific and practical reality."
At the same time, the officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity. The memo particularly warns that some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business.
In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or other crimes.
And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.
The memo, officials said, is designed to give a sense of prosecutorial priorities to U.S. Attorneys in the states that allow medical marijuana. It notes that pot sales in the United States are the largest source of money for violent Mexican drug cartels, but adds that federal law enforcement agencies have limited resources.
Medical marijuana advocates have been anxious to see exactly how the administration would implement candidate Barack Obama's repeated promises to change the policy in situations in which state laws allow the use of medical marijuana.
Shortly after Obama took office, DEA agents raided four dispensaries in Los Angeles, prompting confusion about the government's plans.
Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MEDICAL_MARIJUANA?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
New Medical Marijuana Policy: Obama Administration Will Not Seek Arrests For People Following State Laws
October 18th, 2009: By Devlin Bartlett, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.
Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.
The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.
Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
California is unique among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries - businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.
Attorney General Eric Holder said in March that he wanted federal law enforcement officials to pursue those who violate both federal and state law, but it has not been clear how that goal would be put into practice.
A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the legal guidance before it is issued.
"This is a major step forward," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "This change in policy moves the federal government dramatically toward respecting scientific and practical reality."
At the same time, the officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity. The memo particularly warns that some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business.
In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or other crimes.
And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.
The memo, officials said, is designed to give a sense of prosecutorial priorities to U.S. Attorneys in the states that allow medical marijuana. It notes that pot sales in the United States are the largest source of money for violent Mexican drug cartels, but adds that federal law enforcement agencies have limited resources.
Medical marijuana advocates have been anxious to see exactly how the administration would implement candidate Barack Obama's repeated promises to change the policy in situations in which state laws allow the use of medical marijuana.
Shortly after Obama took office, DEA agents raided four dispensaries in Los Angeles, prompting confusion about the government's plans.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/new-medical-marijuana-pol_n_325426.html
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/new-medical-marijuana-pol_n_325426.html
Marijuana proven effective in treating different types of cancers
October 18th, 2009: Dave Stancliff/For the Times-Standard
Marijuana opponents in the federal government are up against the wall and the wall is crumbling. The feds have fought marijuana use for decades, disregarding its medicinal applications, in a senseless war against the herb.
The demonized killer weed is turning out to be anything but that. As myths about this ancient herb are dispelled, scientists are using it to treat everything from chemotherapy-induced nausea to different cancers.
In August, The British Journal of Cancer published the results of a study that found THC (the main active component in marijuana) is effective in fighting prostate cancer. Reportedly, pot attacks prostate cancer cell types that do not respond to the usual hormone treatments.
A recent study by a team of Spanish researchers discovered THC kills various brain cancer cells by a process known as autophagy. Michigan's new law regarding marijuana use went into effect in April. Patients, with doctor's prescriptions, get a state-issued ID Card (a lot like California's) which allows them to grow and use marijuana to treat pain and other symptoms of cancer and multiple sclerosis.
In October 2003, the University of California, San Francisco, released the results of a study that said pot was effective when used in combination with opiate pain medications. Dr. Donald Abrams, MD, UCSF professor of Clinical Medicine and chief of the Hematology-Oncology Division at SF General Hospital Medical Center, told the press, "Marijuana uses a different mechanism than opiates and could augment the pain relief of opiate analgesics."
The Marijuana Policy Project recently reported on a study that suggests moderate amounts of marijuana use reduces risk of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). This study suggests cannabinoids have potential anti-tumor properties.
A study released in July, "White matter in adolescents with history of marijuana use and binge drinking," says marijuana use actually protects brain cells. The study involved adolescents with alcohol use disorders.
One group had just alcohol-drinking teens. The other group drank alcohol and used marijuana. The report said that binge drinkers who used marijuana retained more white matter than the other group. In other words, alcohol destroyed more brain cells when a person didn't use marijuana.
How many times have you heard someone say, "Pot destroys your brain cells"? If that's true, what about this study? Why do doctors use marijuana to fight brain cancer if it destroys brain cells? Remember the Spanish study?
In April of 2007, Harvard University researchers released the results of a study that concluded THC cuts tumor growth in common lung cancers and reduces the ability of the cancer to spread.
A study conducted by UCLA's medical school in June 2005 concluded smoking marijuana did not cause lung cancer. That impressive piece of news, along with the Harvard study, seems to have been ignored by most mass media outlets.
Fred Gardner, editor of the medical marijuana research journal, O'Shaughnessy's, recently wrote an article, "Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Cancer," about this groundbreaking UCLA study that barely made headlines.
Gardner reported that an investigative team was contracted with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in 2002 "to conduct a large, population-based, case-controlled study that would prove definitively that heavy, long-term marijuana use increases the risk of lung and upper-airway cancers."
Guess what? This study backfired! It turned out that increased marijuana use did not result in higher rates of lung and pharyngeal cancer. The study also concluded that tobacco smokers who also puffed on pot were at a slightly lower risk of getting lung cancer than those who didn't!
Perhaps the icing on the cake is the fact that UCLA Medical professor Donald Tashkin led the investigation. Tashkin has led government studies on marijuana since the 1970s and is well known for his belief that heavy marijuana use causes lung and upper-airway cancers. To his credit as a professional, he ended up disproving his own original hypothesis.
Despite the government's efforts to keep it illegal, it's apparent that marijuana does offer help in the battle to treat cancer. The facts about marijuana's medical potentials are finally causing cracks in the government's wall of lies built up over the years.
As It Stands, it's time to bring down that wall.
Dave Stancliff is a columnist for The Times-Standard. He is a former newspaper editor and publisher. Comments can be sent to richstan1@suddenlink.net or www.davesblogcentral.com.
Source: http://www.times-standard.com/ci_13588713
Pot busts big business across the county
October 16th, 2009: By Posted By Raymond Bowe , Innisfil Examiner (CN ON)
Marijuana harvest season is in full swing, which means drug cops are also out in force hoping to stem the tidal wave of weed hitting the streets this fall.
The Central North Drug Unit -- which covers a massive area in the heart of Ontario -- has eradicated 34 plots in Simcoe County, including almost 21,000 plants, since June. That's in addition to the 5,100 plants in Muskoka District, 1,500 in Dufferin County and 200 in Peel Region.
The estimated street value so far this growing season is more than $27.6 million.
That's one of the best years on record, said unit commander Staff Sgt. Clint Hunter.
"This year's increase was over 200%," said Hunter, who took over the unit in May. "Every year, (our) guys get a little more experience and they get a little better at it."
Police have arrested and charged 20 people this year in relation to four of the 50 marijuana plots, and eradication efforts will continue this month.
In 2008, Central North Drug Unit officers descended upon 17 marijuana plots and seized 3,000 plants, but no one was arrested or charged.
"The problem hasn't gotten any smaller," said Hunter, who has been a police officer for 24 years. "It's a significant issue and it's not going away. We devote a lot of resources -- time and money -- to the issue."
But it also begs the question: what happens to the plants? For security reasons, Hunter said he is unable to provide a location or speak specifically about disposal techniques, because criminals could also benefit from that information.
The drug unit's eradication program typically begins in June, with the search for seedlings and young plants -- which can be more difficult to find due to their diminutive size -- to the harvest season in early fall when the plants are fully grown and easier to spot.
Due to Simcoe County's large rural area, it's "rife" with marijuana plantations, Hunter said, although he added that city landscapes are just as likely to have marijuana plants growing somewhere outdoors.
"This is not about a person smoking a doobie in their backyard," Hunter said. "It's about big business.
"The province of Ontario is a rich playground for the bad guys," he said, adding dope plants have been found everywhere, from apple orchards and cornfields to just off the beaten track near heavily padded hiking trails. "There's a lot of money to be made and it's shipped across the world."
The Central North Drug Unit's geographic coverage area includes Simcoe and Dufferin counties, Muskoka District and parts of Peel Region. Essentially, it stretches from Huntsville down to the Peel Region-Toronto border in the Caledon area. From west to east, it also goes from this side of Lake Simcoe over to the Meaford area where a different unit then takes over responsibility.
"This drug unit looks after most of Ontario," Hunter said. "It's a big area."
The unit -- which includes assigned enforcement officers in addition to officers based at specific detachments -- is deployed out of Orillia. It also includes officers from Rama police and the City of Kawartha Lakes.
Specialized officers are also brought in from the tactical support, emergency response and canine units to help with some of the grow-ops, many of which can be booby-trapped or patrolled by armed guards, Hunter said.
Helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft are also used to locate marijuana plots, but it's strictly eyes in the air, Hunter said. Infrared imaging isn't being used yet.
The staff sergeant said he was not at liberty to discuss investigative techniques, or whether the unit could get infrared imaging.
"My officers are well trained using the necessary tools available," he said.
Not only are police out looking for plants, but the unit also acts on tips that come in through Crime Stoppers (1-800-222- TIPS) and from members of the general public who may have stumbled across a plantation or who have information about one's location.
- - -
Drug busts so far this season
Between June and September, police officers with the Central North Drug Unit have been out searching for marijuana plants. So far, 50 plots have been eradicated in Simcoe and Dufferin counties, Muskoka District and Peel Region. The breakdown is as follows: Simcoe County -34 plots -20,790 plants Muskoka District -six plots -5,102 plants Dufferin County -three plots -1,516 plants Peel Region -seven plots -216 plants Total -50 plots -27,624 plants Estimated street value: $27,624,000
The Central East Drug Unit also released statistics this week for the number of marijuana plots its officers had eradicated in September. Haliburton Highlands -12 plots -5,650 plants City of Kawartha Lakes -11 plots -3,642 plants Northumberland County -20 plots -3,101 plants Peterborough County -six plots -2,541 plants Total -49 plots -14,934 plants
Officers executed seven drug search warrants and charged 22 people. Police also seized 14 guns and assorted growing equipment. They also encountered 16 nail-board devices, or booby-traps.
Source: OPP Drug Enforcement Section
Source: http://www.innisfilexaminer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2134229
NORML Founder And High Times Publisher Tell MA Court: Make Private Cannabis Use Legal For Adults
October 14th, 2009 By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
Harvard Law School Professor Charles Nesson will be arguing the appeal of my marijuana conviction for sharing a joint at the 2007 Boston Freedom Rallyon the historic Boston Common with High Times associate publisher Rick Cusick. We both took the stand at our trial and testified under oath that we were certainly sharing a joint, and were protesting the constitutionality of the very marijuana laws under which we were arrested.
The state law under which Rick and I were prosecuted has since been modified by a voter initiative last fall removing all criminal penalties, and setting a $100 civil fine, for the possession of up to one ounce of pot in Massachusetts. Nonetheless, it would be great if we could convince the court of appeals that the private use of marijuana in Massachusetts, as it is in Alaska, is constitutionally protected conduct.
Keith Stroup, Esq.
NORML Legal Counsel
Medical Marijuana: Why I Give My 9-Year Old Pot
October 12th, 2009 By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
In the recent wake of Stiletto Stoners, comes part two of Marie Myung-Ok Lee's brave and revealing account of how medical cannabis helps her autistic 9-year old son. Read part one here.
Marie and her son J. live in Rhode Island, a state where the legislators have both the chutzpah and foresight to have overridden two vetoes from the Governor (and pressure from the federal government anti-drug officials and law enforcement) in the last 24 moths to create thelegal and public health framework necessary for Ms. Young and her physician to be able to effectively and safely treat J. with cannabis-oil cookies.
This essay, and others by women for whom cannabis plays an important role in their lives, are becoming more and more common in the mainstream media to the point where a forum or advisory body about 'women and cannabis' is certainly warranted.
NORML wants to convene such a confab in 2010 and seeks input from cannabis consumers and the general public about what kind of topics should be discussed and who should the speakers be. Please send your suggestions and feedback to:conference@norml.org
This essay was originally published at Doublex.com.
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/10/12/medical-marijuana-why-i-give-my-9-year-old-pot/
Because Women Are NORML Too!
October 4th, 2009 By: Sabrina Fendrick, Executive Assistant NORML/NORML Foundation
I have never been more proud to be a part of the marijuana movement as I was after reading an article in the October issue of Marie Claire titled "Stiletto Stoners". The feedback and comments in relation to this have been fast and overwhelming.
The woman cited in the article is quoted as saying, "'I hate the termpothead-it connotes that I'm high 24/7, which I'm not,' Jennifer Pelham says, wincing. 'I don't need it to get through my day. I just enjoy it when my day is over.' Her nightly ritual costs only $50 a month. It never induces a post-happy-hour hangover and, unlike the Xanax a doctor once prescribed for her anxiety, never leaves her groggy or numb... 'It's really not a big deal'."
The normalizing of recreational cannabis consumption is not just happening with men, which is what most people think of when they think of pot smokers. Women, who are not necessarily left out of the movement, are rarely recognized as a major demographic that is essential for the reform effort to push forward in a truly legitimate fashion.
This underreported phenomenon is now spreading across the mainstream media. From Matt Lauer and the Today show,
To the Los Angeles Times...
This story is spreading like wildfire across the Internet and I am willing to bet, it will only get bigger.
To be honest, I didn't even realize the extent of this closet practice among my female cohorts. Perhaps it's just that they're not as outspoken as the men? Or maybe it's because they have more at risk? Whatever it is, the fact that more and more women are admitting to smoking cannabis (or marijuana or pot) is truly inspiring.
As a side note, I posted this article to the NORML Facebook page and within an hour there were already more comments on this post than almost any other on NORML's facebook page! Here are just a few from some NORML women:
-" Finally, Female stoners who aren't classified with dreads and no make up. It's definitely been around for a while but now there is recognition! Successful Stoner Ladies Unite!"
-"Hell yeah! Finally some coverage of us smart, sexy pot smokers."
-"That'd be me!"
-"I am a successful Optician by day, and a happy pothead by night!"
-"And some of us run three business's and support a household too!"
-"Exactly!"
-"Wooo! Thanks for the shout out guys!!"
-"This is so great...I actually read this in a salon the other day..."
-"I know a dentist, a lawyer, a paralegal and a few managers who all smoke and they are brilliant women who just like to relax after making all that $$...lol"
-"I'm a stay at home mother during the day and at night i have a job and go to school, and i rather smoke a joint once I'm home from work and the kids are passed out then have a glass of wine."
-"Agreed everybody!! Don't know what I would do without this option!"
This is a major response that reinforces my belief that women need to get on the bandwagon and start to fight for an end to these archaic marijuana laws. When was the last time you saw this many comments, from women about women and their marijuana use? What does that say?? Let's go ladies! It's time to get vocal and become an active participant in your own liberation.
Like one person commented on my wall earlier, "Blaze on Stiletto stoners. I am proud to be one of you!"
By Sabrina Fendrick , Executive Assistant, NORML/NORML Foundation
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/10/04/because-women-are-norml-too/
Andrew Tosh Busted in Jamaica
September 29th, 2009 By CelebStoner
The son of CelebStoner Legend Peter Tosh has been found guilty of possessing ganja in Kingston. Andrew Tosh was arrested with a small amount and sentenced to 200 hours of community service on Sept. 29.
When Jamaican police arrested Peter Tosh on drug charges in 1978, he was jailed and beaten. Tosh famously sang "Legalize it," which Andrew also performs (watch the clip below).
Source: http://www.celebstoner.com/200909303014/news/drug-bust-news/andrew-tosh-busted-in-jamaica.html
Widowed Cancer Survivor Could Lose Home to Marijuana Charges
September 29th, 2009 By Mike Meno, MPP
The federal law barring medical use of marijuana has already cost Mara Lynn Williams her husband, and may now cost her her home as well.
Williams, 56, said she had no idea her husband, Royce, was growing marijuana on their 40-acre property in Chilton County, Alabama until federal authorities raided their land and found 408 plants growing several hundred yards from their house.
Then in May, Royce Williams committed suicide, rather than serve a potentially lengthy prison sentence for the federal drug charges he was facing. His wife, who works as a nurse at a Montgomery hospital, said Royce smoked marijuana because it was the only medication that helped ease the chronic pain he suffered as a result of several surgeries.
Now the Montgomery Advertiser is reporting that the U.S. attorney's office plans to seize the Williams' property - including the house still occupied by Mara Lynn, who in 2003 was diagnosed with breast cancer that spread to her liver, lungs and bone, but is now in remission.
"It is not morally right," the Advertiser quoted Mara Lynn Williams as saying. "My husband paid with his life. What else do they want?"
According to a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, "[Royce Williams'] death, which ended the criminal case, had no effect on the ongoing civil case ... The bottom line is, we don't want people to benefit from criminal activity."
Benefit? I suppose seeing her husband suffer a bit less because of the relief he got from medical marijuana might count as a benefit, but doesn't driving him to suicide make up for that? Must she be made homeless, too - on top of losing more than $18,000 cash, vehicles, computers and other belongings the Advertiser says were seized by the Feds?
To help us change these cruel laws, go to MPP's Federal Action Center.
U.S. DEA Finally Gets Its Man
September 29th, 2009 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
Just over four years ago, former U.S. DEA administrator Karen Tandy announced to the world that her agency had struck "a significant blow ... to the marijuana legalization movement" by indicting Canada's so-called 'Prince of Pot,' Marc Emery.
For nearly two decades Emery operated a successful marijuana seed bank operation in Vancouver, British Columbia - a venture which he used to directly fund cannabis law reform efforts around the globe, including the magazine Cannabis Culture, the internet site Pot TV, and the founding of the British Columbia Marijuana Party.
Emery's seed business was hardly a secret. For many years, Emery mailed copies of his seed catalogue to Canadian politicians. A Canadian court convicted him in 1998 and sentenced him to a $2,000 fine. Undeterred, Emery continued to sell seeds - and pay federal taxes on his profits - up until his arrest. Canadian authorities were happy to accept his tax money, and officials at Health Canada, which oversees Canada's legal medical marijuana program, often recommended that patients contact Emery for grow advice. Nevertheless, when the Feds came calling, the Canadian authorities were swift to throw Marc Emery to the wolves.
Even though Emery's alleged crimes would have warranted, at most, a month in jail in his home country, Canadian authorities yesterday placed Marc into custody so that he can be extradited to the United States. Once here, he faces up to five years in prison for pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to manufacture marijuana (more than 100 plants) in violation of 21 USC 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B).
But lets not kid ourselves. Marc Emery was hardly a high level target because he sold marijuana seeds to the U.S. - a simple google search will yield dozens of listings of competitors that presently engage in similar activities. No, it wasn't so much what Marc did ("There isn't a single victim in my case, no one who can stand up and say, 'I was hurt by Marc Emery.' No one," he told the Vancouver Sun) as it was what he did with his moneythat aroused the ire of U.S. anti-drug officials.
And we have Karen Tandy's own words to prove it.
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/09/29/u-s-dea-finally-gets-its-man/
The Mainstream Media's 5 Favorite Marijuana Myths
September 27th, 2009 By NORML
Writing in the journal Science nearly four decades ago, New York State University sociologist Erich Goode documented the media's complicity in maintaining cannabis prohibition.
He observed: "[T]ests and experiments purporting to demonstrate the ravages of marijuana consumption receive enormous attention from the media, and their findings become accepted as fact by the public. But when careful refutations of such research are published, or when later findings contradict the original pathological findings, they tend to be ignored or dismissed."
A glimpse of today's mainstream media landscape indicates that little has changed -- with news outlets continuing to, at best, underreport the publication of scientific studies that undermine the federal government's longstanding pot propaganda and, at worst, ignore them all together.
Here are five recent stories the mainstream media doesn't want you to know about pot:
1. Marijuana Use Is Not Associated With a Rise in Incidences of Schizophrenia
Over the past few years, the worldwide media, as well as federal officials in the United Kingdom, Canada and the U.S. have earnestly promoted the notion that smoking pot induces mental illness.
Perhaps most notably, in 2007 the MSM reported that cannabis "could boost the risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life by about 40 percent" -- a talking point that was also actively promoted by U.S. anti-drug officials. So, is there any truth to the claim that pot smoking is sparking a dramatic rise in mental illness? Not at all, according to the findings of a study published in July in the journal Schizophrenia Research.
Investigators at the Keele University Medical School in Britain compared trends in marijuana use and incidences of schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005. Researchers reported that the "incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining" during this period, even the use of cannabis among the general population was rising.
"[T]he expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10-year period," the authors concluded. "This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and incidence of psychotic disorders. ... This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence."
As of this writing, a handful of news wire reports in Australia, Canada, and the U.K. have reported on the Keele University study. Notably, no American media outlets covered the story.
2. Marijuana Smoke Doesn't Damage the Lungs Like Tobacco
Everyone knows that smoking pot is as damaging, if not more damaging, to the lungs than puffing cigarettes, right? Wrong, according to a team of New Zealand investigators writing in the European Respiratory Journal in August. Researchers at the University of Otago in New Zealand compared the effects of cannabis and tobacco smoke on lung function in over 1,000 adults.
They reported: "Cumulative cannabis use was associated with higher forced vital capacity [the volume of air that can forcibly be blown out after full inspiration], total lung capacity, functional residual capacity [the volume of air present in the lungs at the end of passive expiration] and residual volume.
"Cannabis was also associated with higher airways resistance but not with forced expiratory volume in one second [the maximum volume of air that can be forcibly blown out in the first second during the FVC test], forced expiratory ratio, or transfer factor. These findings were similar amongst those who did not smoke tobacco... By contrast, tobacco use was associated with lower forced expiratory volume in one second, lower forced expiratory ratio, lower transfer factor and higher static lung volumes, but not with airways resistance."
They concluded, "Cannabis appears to have different effects on lung function to those of tobacco." Predictably, the scientists' "inconvenient truth" was not reported in a single media outlet.
3. Cannabis Use Potentially Protects, Rather Than Harms, the Brain
Does smoking pot kill brain cells? Drinking alcohol most certainly does, and many opponents of marijuana-law reform claim that marijuana's adverse effects on the brain are even worse. Are they correct? Not according to recent findings published this summer in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology.
Investigators at the University of California at San Diego examined white matter integrity in adolescents with histories of binge drinking and marijuana use. They reported that binge drinkers ( defined as boys who consumed five or more drinks in one sitting, or girls who consumed four or more drinks at one time ) showed signs of white matter damage in eight regions of the brain.
By contrast, the binge drinkers who also used marijuana experienced less damage in 7 out of the 8 brain regions. "Binge drinkers who also use marijuana did not show as consistent a divergence from non-users as did the binge drink-only group," authors concluded. "[It is] possible that marijuana may have some neuroprotective properties in mitigating alcohol-related oxidative stress or excitotoxic cell death."
To date, only a handful of U.S. media outlets -- almost exclusively college newspapers -- have reported the story.
4. Marijuana Is a Terminus, Not a 'Gateway,' to Hard Drug Use
Alarmist claims that experimenting with cannabis will inevitably lead to the use of other illicit drugs persist in the media despite statistical data indicating that the overwhelming majority of those who try pot never go on to use cocaine or heroin.
Moreover, recent research is emerging that indicates that pot may also suppress one's desire to use so-called hard drugs. In June, Paris researchers writing in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology concluded that the administration of oral THC in animals suppressed sensitivity to opiate dependence.
Also this summer, investigators at the New York State Psychiatric Institute reported in the American Journal on Addictions that drug-treatment subjects who use cannabis intermittently were more likely to adhere to treatment for opioid dependence.
Although a press release for the former study appeared on the Web site physorg.com on July 7, neither study ever gained any traction in the mainstream media.
5. Government's Anti-Pot Ads Encourage, Rather Than Discourage, Marijuana Use
Sure, many of us already knew that the federal government's $2 billion ad campaign targeting pot was failing to dissuade viewers from toking up, but who knew it was this bad?
According to a new study posted online in the journal Health Communication, survey data published by investigators at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania found that many of the government's public-service announcements actually encouraged pot use.
Researchers assessed the attitudes of over 600 adolescents, age 12 to 18, after viewing 60 government-funded anti-marijuana television spots. Specifically, researchers evaluated whether the presence of marijuana-related imagery in the ads ( e.g., the handling of marijuana cigarettes or the depiction of marijuana-smoking behavior ) were more likely or less likely to discourage viewers' use of cannabis.
Messages that depict teens associating with cannabis are "significantly less effective than others," the researchers found. "This negative impact of marijuana scenes is not reversed in the presence of strong anti-marijuana arguments in the ads and is mainly present for the group of adolescents who are often targets of such anti-marijuana ads ( i.e., high-risk adolescents )," the authors determined. "For this segment of adolescents, including marijuana scenes in anti-marijuana ( public-service announcements ) may not be a good strategy."
Needless to say, no outlets in the mainstream media -- many of which donated air time to several of the beleaguered ads in question -- have yet to report on the story.
Family seeks answers after N. Ga. pastor killed in drug sting
September 3rd, 2009 By By Christian Boone and Katie Leslie (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
Family and friends of a Lavonia minister gunned down Tuesday by an undercover police officer continue to look for answers about how he died.
Stephens County Sheriff Randy Shirley said Jonathan Ayers, 29, was not the target of their sting operation and that authorities were looking for a woman they say Ayers dropped off minutes before the shooting. That woman, whose name has not been released, had been charged with cocaine possession and distribution, he said.
Ayers' family maintains he was not involved in illegal drug activity.
"He is one of the Godliest men I've ever known," his brother-in-law Matt Carpenter told AccessNorthGa.com. "We're all shocked and absolutely do not believe he was involved in anything illicit or illegal there."
Carpenter also told AccessNorthGa.com that the family was first informed Ayers died in a traffic accident, and then that he had been shot. Hours later, they learned he died in an officer-involved shooting.
Shirley said Wednesday that Ayers dropped off the sting suspect in downtown Toccoa around 2:30 p.m. and that two agents from the joint task force -- composed of officers from Stephens, Habersham and Rabun counties -- followed the pastor and attempted to question him.
WNEG-TV has surveillance video showing Ayers casually entering a Shell convenience store in Toccoa around 2:30 p.m.
According to that video, a black SUV carrying undercover officers pulls into the parking lot after Ayers left the store.
The pastor tried to avoid them, Shirley said Wednesday, striking one of the agents after putting his car in reverse.
"They yelled, 'Police. Stop,'" Shirley said.
Witnesses to the incident also said the officers identified themselves, said Georgia Bureau of Investigation spokesman John Bankhead.
Shirley said Wednesday that Ayers maneuvered his car towards another agent in a "threatening manner." However, that is unclear from the video.
Shirley first said that one shot was fired by one of the three agents on the scene, striking the pastor in the upper torso. WNEG-TV reports that Shirley said the agent fired two shots into the car.
Ayers drove off before losing control of the vehicle a block away, striking a telephone pole, Shirley said.
Ayers was pastor of Shoal Creek Baptist Church in Lavonia. On his blog, he wrote, "I have three loves in my life: Jesus Christ, my wife Abby, and the Church."
The couple was expecting their first child.
Shirley would not reveal the identity of the woman arrested in the sting. The agent struck by the pastor's vehicle was treated and released from a local hospital, Shirley said.
"Jonathan would have wanted to witness to the police officers involved in the shooting," his family said in a statement.
The GBI is investigating the shooting. The task force agents involved have been placed on administrative leave with pay, Shirley said.
Source: http://www.ajc.com/news/family-seeks-answers-after-129819.html
Canadian Broadcasting Corp: “Doubt Cast on Cannabis, Schizophrenia Link”
September 2nd, 2009 By Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
Well, better late than never.
Doubt cast on cannabis, schizophrenia link
via CBCA British study has cast doubt on the supposed link between cannabis use and schizophrenia.
... This latest study, led by Dr. Martin Frisher of Keele University, examined the records of 600,000 patients aged between 16 and 44.
... Frisher and colleagues compared the trends of cannabis use with general practitioner records of schizophrenia and psychosis.
They argue that if cannabis use does cause schizophrenia, an increase in cannabis use should be followed by an increase in the incidence of schizophrenia.
According to the study, cannabis use in the United Kingdom between 1972 and 2002 has increased four-fold in the general population, and 18-fold among under-18s.
Based on the literature supporting the link, the authors argue that this should be followed by an increase in schizophrenia incidence of 29 per cent between 1990 and 2010.
But the researchers found no increase in the rates of schizophrenia and psychosis diagnosis during that period. In fact, some of the data suggested the incidence of these conditions had decreased.
Over the past few years the mainstream media, as well as federal politicians, have enjoyed promoting the notion that smoking pot induces mental illness. Perhaps most notably, in 2007 the MSM touted that cannabis "could boost the risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life by about 40 percent" - a talking point that was also publicly promoted US anti-drug officials. Similarly, Canadian bureaucrats alleged - just two weeks ago - that marijuana users have a "seven-fold increase" in risk of developing schizophrenia.
Given this environment, I held little hope that anyone in the MSM would bother to report on the Keele University study - which initially appeared online on the website of the journal Schizophrenia Research in late June and was reported on by NORML on July 2 - despite its obvious newsworthiness.
And for nearly two months no one did. But kudos to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and a handful of British tabloids for just now bringing these findings to light (and even acknowledging that the MSM would have arguably provided far more prominence to this story had the findings demonstrated the opposite result.)
For now, let's score one for the good guys, and cross your fingers that the American press will also eventually take notice.
A Saner War on Drugs
September 2nd, 2009 By 2009 Los Angeles Times
California
-------
A panel led by former presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico recommended a new paradigm for the war on drugs earlier this year, and now Latin America is heeding their advice. Mexico and Argentina have begun to relax penalties for possession of small quantities of illegal drugs, treating personal use as a victimless crime and husbanding resources for the fight against big-time narcotics traffickers in a global business that the United Nations values at more than $300 billion annually. This is a sensible strategy that Brazil and Ecuador apparently are poised to adopt; the Obama administration has prudently taken a wait-and-see approach to the changes.
Argentina's Supreme Court last week struck down a law that punished adults with up to two years in jail for marijuana possession, saying personal use is a private affair and that prison time is, therefore, unconstitutional in such cases. Adults are "responsible for making decisions freely about their desired lifestyle without state interference," the ruling said. "Private conduct is allowed unless it constitutes a real danger or causes damage to property or the rights of others." In response, the administration is preparing a law to decriminalize possession of small quantities of drugs while continuing to pursue producers and traffickers.
The Argentine decision came as Mexico decriminalized possession not only of marijuana but of major narcotics, including cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. There, too, selling drugs is still a serious offense, and dealers face prison sentences.
Decriminalization of drugs for personal use eliminates a lucrative source of bribes for corrupt police officers. Critics on one side argue that anything short of full legalization will continue to fuel a hugely profitable illicit drug trade, while critics on the other side say any shift in the direction of legalization condones drug usage and sends the wrong message at a time when thousands are dying in the battles between and against drug cartels in Mexico. This page recognizes the problems of drug consumption in the U.S. and, increasingly, in Latin America, with 460,000 hard-core addicts in Mexico alone.
The Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy argues that drug consumption is best reduced through education and prevention rather than jail time, that drug addiction is best addressed as a public health problem through rehabilitation programs and that the big fight is against organized crime. For these nations, waging tough struggles with limited resources, it makes sense to shift law enforcement, courts and prisons away from small fry and concentrate instead on disrupting violent cartels.
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake
Source: http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v09/n830/a03.htm
Rasmussen Reports: Majority Of Americans Now Agree That Booze Is More Dangerous Than Pot
August 31st, 2009 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
More than half of Americans agree that marijuana is safer than alcohol. Rassmussen Reports has the details here:
51% Rate Alcohol More Dangerous Than Marijuana
via Rasmussen ReportsFifty-one percent (51%) of American adults say alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 19% disagree and say pot is worse.
But 25% say both are equally dangerous. Just two percent (2%) say neither is dangerous.
Younger adults are more likely than their elders to view alcohol as the more dangerous of the two.
Fifty-three percent (53%) of women say alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, compared to 48% of men. Men by a two-to-one margin over women say pot is riskier, but women are more inclined to say both are dangerous.
Unmarried adults are more critical of alcohol than those who are married. Those with children at home think alcohol is more dangerous than those without kids living with them.
Given the multitude of ways that our culture celebrates booze while simultaneously stigmatizing cannabis, these survey results are rather remarkable. Despite more than seven decades of federally sponsored pot propaganda, a slight majority of adults - including many Americans who drink booze and don't smoke pot - recognize that alcohol poses far greater harms to the consumer and to society than does weed.
Here are just a few of the ways:
Quite literally, alcohol is an intoxicant; cannabis is not.
The word intoxicant is derived from the Latin noun, toxicum, meaning: "a poison." It's an appropriate description for booze. Alcohol is toxic to healthy cells and organs, a side-effect that results in some 35,000 deaths per year. Ethanol, the psychoactive ingredient in booze, is carcinogenic following its initial metabolization, which is why even moderate drinking is positively associated with increased incidences of various types of cancer. Heavy alcohol consumption can depress the central nervous system - inducing unconsciousness, coma, and death - and is strongly associated with increased risks of injury (Booze plays a role in about 41,000 fatal accidents per year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.) and acts of violence. In fact, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Crime Statistics, alcohol consumption plays a role in approximately one million violent crimes annually.
By contrast, the active compounds in marijuana, known as cannabinoids, are remarkably non-toxic and actually mimic chemicals naturally produced by the body, so-called endocannabinoids, that are vital for maintaining one's proper health. Unlike alcohol, marijuana is incapable of causing fatal overdose - cannabinoids do not act upon the brain stem - and its use isinversely associated with aggression and injury. Finally, lifetime use of cannabis is not associated with increased risk of mortality or various types of cancer - including lung cancer - and may even reduce such risk.
Given our government's demonization of the cannabis plant and its users it's a wonder that anyone - much less over half of America - is finally recognizing these facts. That said, this awareness does not yet translate into majority support for legalizing cannabis, which Rasmussen reports remains below 50 percent - meaning that we still have our work cut out for us.
Not so fast – potential problem areas with Mexico’s drug decriminalization law
August 31st, 2009 By Radical Russ
We reported last week on the new law inMexico decriminalizing personal possession of drugs. As is often the case, what can look like a great law on first read can have many unintended consequences in actual practice. We received an email from Jorge Hernández Tinajero of the Mexican drug reform organization CUPIHD (Colectivo por una Política Integral Hacia las Drogas) explaining the issue (official news release in English / Spanish):
The new law determines the quantities of drugs allowed to be carried for personal consumption, and it is here where some important concerns arise. First of all, the amounts of drugs permitted (5 grams of marijuana, equivalent approximately to 4 or 5 cigarettes, 0.5 gr. of cocaine, close to four lines, 0.04 g of methamphetamine or ecstasy, maybe 2 pills) are not realistic in terms of the illicit drug market. Cocaine, for example, sells by the gram on the streets. Also, these quantities are not realistic in terms of what a user actually consumes. In comparison, Paraguay for example allows 2 grams of cocaine for personal consumption, four times as much as Mexico.
Establishing such low thresholds can be dangerous because it can become a way to improperly categorize a large number of users as traffickers. Under the new Mexican law, a person is considered a small scale trafficker if caught with more drugs than the quantities allowed, with sentences from 4 to 10 years if they have the "intent to sell". It remains unknown how this intent will be determined or proven, opening up the door to extortion and increasing the possibility of corruption of both police and the judicial power, already a significant problem in Mexico. The risk of corruption and extortion is now even greater because the new law allows local and state institutions to pursue, prosecute and sanction small level trafficking
-something that was limited before to the federal level. It is a this local level where corruption and inefficiency is greatest and where reforms have not been implemented.Worse, even when the intent to sell cannot be proven, users found with quantities of drugs greater than those allowed can receive a sentence of up to three years in jail, an increase from before the law was passed. The new law now establishes these quantities of drugs as the determining factor to distinguish between a user and a trafficker. For these reasons, this law runs the risk of criminalizing a vast group of users, as well as those who make a living off the small-scale dealing but who in reality are not part of the organized crime networks. Imprisoning these users and dealers will not diminish the supply of drugs on the street, nor will it improve Mexico's current public security situation and overwhelming violence. It will however allow the government to justify its current strategies against organized crime by boasting about the number of people incarcerated, but in reality worsen Mexico's already serious prison overpopulation problem.
Marijuana on the street is usually sold in eighths, which is 3.5 grams (if your dealer's honest), so the 5g limit for personal possession seems reasonable. However, as Jorge points out, many people who are mere personal users will have more than 5 grams and low-level dealers are more than likely to carry more than that. This new law is supposed to put the focus on the high level traffickers, but they have the bribe money to avoid prosecution, so once again the low-level dealer and unlucky who possess more than a "personal" amount will be the true targets
Decriminalization of personal amounts is a step in the right direction, but only under legalization will the problems at both the low-level personal-use/dealing range and the high-level murderous and corrupting cartels range be solved.
Source: http://stash.norml.org/not-so-fast-potential-problem-areas-with-mexicos-drug-decriminalization-law/
Warning: People Who Eat Tortillas Might be Marijuana Growers
August 31st, 2009 By Scott Morgan (Chronicle Blog)
The panic over escalating outdoor marijuana cultivation just climbed about five notches on the absurdity scale. I feel bad for laughing because there's nothing funny about racial profiling or our failed marijuana policy, but it's just so ridiculous I can't help myself:
DENVER - A federal warning to beware of campers in national forests who eat tortillas, drink Tecate beer and play Spanish music because they could be armed marijuana growers is racial profiling, an advocate for Hispanic rights said Friday.
The warnings were issued Wednesday by the U.S. Forest Service, which is investigating how much marijuana is being illegally cultivated in Colorado's national forests following the recent discovery of more than 14,000 plants in Pike National Forest.
"That's discriminatory, and it puts Hispanic campers in danger," said Polly Baca, co-chairwoman of the Colorado Latino Forum. [AP]
No kidding. It also puts me in danger, being that it's only been a month since I last enjoyed tortillas and Mexican beer on a camping trip. The whole thing is so preposterous one scarcely knows where to begin:
Marvink Correa, spokesman for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, said federal officials are painting an unfair stereotype of Hispanics.
"When I go camping, I'll be sure to play nothing but Bruce Springsteen," he said.
He's sort of joking, but this is a seriously messed up situation. The government can't go around telling everyone to watch out for folks who play Spanish music outdoors. That kind of hysteria has a tendency to get innocent people hurt. Campgrounds are already filled with paranoid drunken weirdos and they definitely don't need any encouragement to start flipping out on each other.
The whole stupid war on marijuana in this country started as an ill-conceived xenophobic attack on Mexican culture and it seems we've now come full-circle. This is a disaster and it wouldn't be happening if our marijuana policy weren't such a mind-bending theater of idiocy and intolerance. If we don't want Mexicans - or anyone else - growing pot in our national parks, then the only solution is to let the American people grow their own marijuana on private property.
Source: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2009/aug/31/warning_people_who_eat_tortillas
Dispensaries Tap Growing Trend
August 31st, 2009 by Curtis Wackerle, Staff Writer, (Source:Aspen Daily News)
Colorado
-------
After 11 years of working as a carpenter, Billy Miller watched the economy sour.
But after watching interest grow locally around providing marijuana to patients legally registered to use the plant for medicinal purposes in the state of Colorado, the Carbondale resident found his new calling.
The result is Aspen L.E.A.F. ( Local's Emporium for Alternative Farms ), one of two medical marijuana dispensaries to open in Aspen last week. Three other similar businesses are operating downvalley.
In a former dentist's office at the corner of Spring and Main streets, Miller, 32, and two partners in the business say this is only the beginning.
Miller said Aspen is a test case, to see what kind of business a town of 6,000 people can generate. He'd like to expand the L.E.A.F. brand to other communities in the future.
The medicinal uses of the plant are slowly becoming better understood, Miller said. It is extremely useful as an aide to chronic pain, replacing pain killers that have nasty side effects, he said.
There are also economic benefits to be reaped. Miller's business acts a "caregiver" to people who designate it as such. That means Miller can grow six marijuana plants per patient. Other growers who register as caregivers can also legally grow the plant, and then sell their product to L.E.A.F. and other dispensaries. To encourage patients to designate L.E.A.F. as their primary caregiver, Miller offers lower prices to "members." A member pays $100 for 7 grams, as opposed to $120 for cardholders who do not designate L.E.A.F. as their primary caregiver.
Miller also offers marijuana in other forms, including cooking oils ( $100 per bottle, great for salad dressings, Miller said ) and tinctures, which is a liquid extract made from the plant that is taken under the tongue in a dose of three to 10 drops under the tongue.
Miller also hopes to bring in acupuncturists and massage therapists to L.E.A.F. and one day offer classes on how to grow marijuana.
In a town where outdoor activities and manual labor have left many residents walking wounded, Miller thinks he has an audience.
At the end of June, Pitkin County was home to 42 medical marijuana patients, according to the official registry kept by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. While that may not sound like much, consider that there were fewer than three medical marijuana patients living in Pitkin County in June 2008.
Statewide, the numbers are also spiking. As of Aug. 17, there were 10,003 medical marijuana patients in Colorado. There were just 4,700 such patients at the beginning of the year. The state is expecting about 15,000 medical marijuana patients by the end of 2009.
About 90 percent of people on the registry use marijuana to alleviate symptoms of severe pain. Cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, muscle spasms and nausea are other state-approved reasons to get a medical marijuana card. Psychological ailments such as anxiety and bi-polar disorder are not currently approved by the state for medical marijuana treatment.
In the last few weeks, Miller said he has seen 15 friends obtain their medical marijuana cards and made "countless" referrals to local doctors willing to help patients get registered with the state.
To obtain medical marijuana certification, a patient must get doctor approval. The doctor then fills out a basic form and sends it in to the state, which can approve or reject the application. Processing typically takes 30 to 35 days.
It is up to the individual doctor to decide if they wish to recommend patients for medical marijuana use. Not every doctor's office will provide the recommendation.
Ron Razzore, co-owner of the Aspen Center for Cosmetic Medicine practice, will recommend medical marijuana for a patient if he believes it will be useful to them and if the patient meets the state's guidelines.
To provide the recommendation, Razzore said medical documentation of a prospective patient's chronic pain or other ailments is the surest way to go.
Razzore, who practiced family medicine for 25 years before opening the cosmetic medicine clinic, has "definitely turned some patients away" for medical marijuana, he said, although most people he's seen have had legitimate medical concerns.
I've always believed I'd rather someone smoke marijuana than take Percocet or Vicodin," Razzore said. "I'm happy the state has finally recognized that there are some benefits" to medical marijuana.
Colorado voters in 2000 amended the state constitution to legalize marijuana for certain medical purposes. The federal government still considers marijuana a Schedule I controlled substance, meaning the feds see no recognized medical use for the plant.
But a statement made in the spring by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that the federal government would cease to interfere with states that have medical marijuana programs seems to be part of the reason behind the proliferation of dispensaries in Colorado over the last six months. Another is a recent decision by the Colorado Board of Health, which declined to accept an amendment to medical marijuana rules that would limit the number of patients a caregiver could have to five. The proposed amendment was voted down in a day-long hearing in Denver in July that was attended by hundreds of medical marijuana advocates.
The state program is not free from controversy, however. Colorado Attorney General John Suthers last week called for an investigation into the high number of medical marijuana recommendations that are coming out of some doctor's offices. State records indicate that one physician, who is not identified, has issued more than 2,700 medical marijuana recommendations. Another has issued more than 1,000.
Overall, about 750 doctors have submitted medical marijuana recommendations in Colorado, but the top 15 recommending doctors have made 76 percent of all patient recommendations, according to state records.
MAP posted-by: Richard R Smith Jr
Source: http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/136359
15 doctors behind most pot referrals in Colorado
August 31st, 2009 at 4:08 pm By: Radical Russ
(Durango Herald News) DENVER - Two doctors are responsible for referring more than a third of the patients on Colorado's medical-marijuana registry, according to statistics from the state health department.
Of the approximately 10,000 medical-marijuana patients on the state's registry, 75 percent received their recommendations from one of 15 doctors, whose names weren't released because of state confidentiality laws, The Denver Post reported in Sunday editions.
"It's a cause for concern," said Jim Martin, executive director of the state Department of Public Health and Environment. "At least in any other area like this, we would want to be sure that the physicians are meeting the standards of care."
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers suggested the state Board of Medical Examiners investigate the doctors recommending medical marijuana the most often.
"The health department can question whether it's proper medicine to issue hundreds of certifications in one day and perhaps make some referrals to the medical board," Suthers said, referencing a statement by the state's chief medical officer during a recent hearing that one doctor signed for 200 patients in a single day.
This is a refrain we hear a lot in Oregon, where we have a similar stat (I think the law enforcement presentation said "ten doctors have made 75% of referrals" here.) The idea here is to scare the public into buying the framing of "medical marijuana is out of control", "the voters meant medical marijuana for the dying, not 'healthy people'", and "medical marijuana is a sham because 'pot docs' are giving cards to everyone".
Most people don't understand the supply and demand for medical marijuana and doctors. Many well-intentioned physicians still buy into the reefer madness as much as the general public. A doctor who doesn't think twice about handing out refillable Vicodin prescriptions will often still counsel patients against medical marijuana use. Some doctors know the truth about medical marijuana, but for contractual reasons with their building lease, their practice, their HMO, or their hospital, they are forbidden from recommending "illegal drugs". So you end up with 10,000 people who can benefit from medical marijuana, but most of their personal physicians won't recommend, so they go to the THC Foundation* clinic or another medical marijuana specialist. (But 70% of the time that doctor will give you whatever pharmaceutical you ask for that you saw on a TV ad.)
They also don't understand that in order to get the recommendation, most often two doctors have verified the qualifying condition. First the patient has been visiting his primary care doctor who has made many examinations and written up the condition in chart notes. Then the primary care doctor when asked says, "Oh, no, I won't recommend marijuana for you - here, use this expensive side-effect-laden hepatoxic pharmaceutical instead!" So the patient gathers up his medical records from his primary doctor and takes them to a clinic like THCF, where a second doctor reviews the chart, performs an exam, and recommends the medicinal use of marijuana.
Medical marijuana is a specialty, like a podiatrist or neurosurgeon, in that most general doctors aren't educated or qualified in those niche medical sciences. It is not surprising that there would be far fewer doctors in this new specialty than can handle the demand. This is where medical marijuana referral clinics come in to satisfy the demand. Think of it a bit like women's reproductive health and Planned Parenthood - clinics that perform specialty services that are controversial to the public. Colorado has only eleven clinics where a woman in the second trimester of pregnancy (past 14 weeks) can get an abortion, but we don't get headlines like "85% of second-trimester abortions are performed by only 11 doctors statewide!" (imaginary stat for illustrative purposes; I don't know what the real numbers are.)
Finally, in what other situation would 10,000 people getting safe, effective, affordable health care treatment be considered a bad thing? Imagine Paul Stanford had opened a clinic providing health care that provided 10,000 people with flu shots or 10,000 kids with immunizations... I think the headlines would be quite different.
*Full disclosure: THCF is a prime sponsor of this blog and podcast.
Source: http://stash.norml.org/15-doctors-behind-most-pot-referrals-in-colorado/
In Drug-Ravaged Mexico, A New Approach
August 30th, 2009 by Alan Bock, Sr. editorial writer, The Orange County Register, (Source:Orange County Register)
California
-------
Mexico on Aug. 21 officially decriminalized possession and use of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs. Specifically, a police search that turns up a half-gram of cocaine ( about four lines ) five grams of marijuana ( about four cigarettes ), 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams of methamphetamines or 0.015 milligrams of LSD will not bring any jail time.
This might seem counterintuitive, given that Mexico is in the throes of a real, live shooting ( and torturing and decapitating ) drug war that has seen the deaths of 12,000 people since 2006. If Mexico has been getting serious about trying to stop drug trafficking and disassemble the vicious cartels that supply drugs, why "send the message" that possession of small amounts of drugs is OK? Doesn't that undermine the larger anti-drugs effort?
Aside from the fact that police and prosecutors in practice seldom send small-time drug users to jail, given the resources required to do so, there are reasons to hope, based on experience in other countries, the decriminalization just might reduce the prevalence of drug usage and help society get a better handle on drug addiction and related problems, such as deaths due to drug overdose and transmission of AIDS and other infectious diseases through dirty needles.
Indeed, there is considerable evidence, though it falls short of a straight-line cause-and-effect relationship, that the more heavily a country criminalizes the use of drugs, the greater the usage of those drugs is.
It is important to make a distinction between decriminalization and legalization. Under decriminalization possession and use of certain drugs is still illegal, but evidence of such usage is handled administratively rather than through the criminal courts system.
Being caught with drugs therefore does not create a criminal record, with the symbolic and concrete impact this can have on peoples' lives. It turns out that under such a regime more drug users, freed of the fear of a prison sentence or the stigma of a criminal record, seek treatment, which is usually recommended and in some cases mandatory for those caught repeatedly.
The country that has most completely instituted a decriminalization regime is Portugal, which on July 1, 2001, decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Constitutional lawyer andSalon.com commentator Glenn Greenwald did a comprehensive study of the effects of decriminalization in Portugal earlier this year, and found that the drug abuse situation for most previously illicit drugs, including overdose deaths and disease transmission, had improved significantly, compared with the predecriminalization period and compared with other EU countries.
In Portugal the consumption, possession and acquisition of drugs amounting to a 10-day supply for an average user is an administrative offense. Trafficking, defined as possessing more than a 10-day supply, is still punished through the criminal law. Those caught with small amounts of drugs are referred to what is called a Dissuasion Commission, which has wide discretion as to whether to impose a fine or other penalty. While the commissions cannot impose mandatory treatment, they can make suspension of a fine conditional on entering treatment.
Users found to be addicts can be subject to a wider range of sanction, including suspension of the right to practice a licensed profession and a ban on visiting high-risk locales or associating with certain individuals. But the emphasis is on treatment.
One might suppose that decriminalization was instituted because authorities had developed a laissez-faire attitude toward drug use. In fact, as Greenwald writes, "the political impetus for decriminalization was the fact that drug abuse - both in itself and its accompanying pathologies - was an uncontrollable social problem." Drug usage, drug deaths and drug-related disease all skyrocketed during the 1990s under criminalization. A commission convened in 1998 came up with decriminalization as the most effective strategy to get these pathologies under control.
Most EU countries have adopted more harm-reduction-oriented policies than the U.S. has, including several that have depenalized ( no jail time ) marijuana possession. But Portugal is the only country that has gone all the way to decriminalization.
Some predicted a dramatic increase in drug usage and "drug tourism." Paulo Portas of the conservative Popular Party said: "There will be planeloads of students heading for [Portugal] to smoke marijuana and take a lot worse, knowing we won't put them in jail. We promise sun, beaches and any drug you want." Didn't happen. Since decriminalization roughly 95 percent of those cited for drug offenses have been Portuguese.
In fact, the results have been dramatic - in the other direction. Since decriminalization lifetime prevalence rates ( any consumption over a lifetime ) have decreased, especially for the critical adolescent-young-adult population cohort. For 13-15-year-olds the rate decreased from 14.1 percent in 2001 to 10.6 percent in 2006. For 16-18-year-olds, the lifetime prevalence rate, which had increased from 14.1 percent in 1995 to 27.6 percent in 2001, fell to 21.6 percent in 2006. Perhaps most significantly, heroin use, which officials felt was the most socially destructive drug, fell from 2.5 percent to 1.8 percent from 1999-2005.
The number of drug-related HIV and AIDS cases has declined substantially every year, as have Hepatitis B and C infections and drug-related mortality rates.
When compared with the rest of the EU, usage rates in Portugal, which had been among the highest in Europe, are now among the lowest. Portugal now has the lowest lifetime prevalence for cannabis ( marijuana ) usage in Europe, 8.2 percent, while in Europe generally it is 25 percent. Portugal has a lifetime rate of 1.6 percent for cocaine, compared to 4 percent for Europe generally.
For whatever bundle of reasons, we should start getting accustomed to the idea that harsh anti-drugs laws are often correlated with a worsening of drug problems and decriminalization with bringing them into manageable bounds. Mr. Greenwald cites a 2008 survey of 17 countries showing that the U.S. had by far the highest level of cocaine use over a lifetime ( 16.2 percent to second-place New Zealand's 4.3 percent ) and the highest level of cannabis use. As Greenwald writes, "stringent criminalization laws do not produce lower drug usage, and some data suggest the opposite may be true."
Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the pro-reform Drug Policy Alliance, told me that while Mexico's move is encouraging, it would be a mistake to expect the results to replicate Portugal's exactly. Portugal prepared the ground with a thorough commission report and achieved commitment from law enforcement, while Mexico decriminalized smaller amounts, still has a culture of corruption, and may be less prepared to implement the new law, especially when it comes to offering treatment.
I would add that Mexico makes no provision for acquisition of drugs, which is likely to leave the black market largely undisturbed and still powerful. Decriminalization combined with a determination to end trafficking can leave users still dependent on the black market as is still the case for all too many medical patients in California. The way to undermine a black market is to allow a white market to emerge.
Nonetheless, Mexico's move, combined with a court decision in Argentina last week that will have a similar impact on small-time users, has the potential to put a significant dent in the religion of prohibitionism. Now if we can just get politicians in the U.S. to pay attention.
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake
Source: http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v09/n822/a05.htm
U.S. Turns Blind Eye As Partners Legalize Drugs
August 30th, 2009 by Colby Cosh, Times Colonist, (Source:Victoria Times-Colonist
British Columbia
-------
Say, are we still having that debate over whether the United States constitutes an empire? I remember the idea seeming controversial a few years back. In 2009, the whole idea of disagreeing with it seems quaint.
But maybe things will look different in a few years. Empires do not rise and fall; they expand and contract, relax and relent. In an extraordinary turn of events, Caesar has temporarily turned a blind eye to the policing of morals in the provinces, allowing startling drug reforms in two major "partner" states.
This month, the Mexican government decriminalized the possession of very small amounts of illicit drugs. Not just marijuana, which is subject to a possession limit of five grams, but the whole kaboodle: Cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, even heroin.
In general the U. S. media treated this as a counter-intuitive move made in the midst of a full-scale war between drug cartels and the Mexican state.
But it is precisely the bloodiness of that war that has Mexico moving away from ideological prohibitionism.
The idea is to cut into demand by treating addicts as potential treatment clients rather than criminals, to fight corruption among the police by taking away one of their major tools for shaking down the poor and marginalized and to concentrate resources on organized crime.
This is, of course, a form of centralized social planning just as much as total prohibition is. Even a borderline anarchist-libertarian ( like me ) might well question whether it will accomplish the criteria of social peace and harm reduction by which it will be judged; Cato Institute fellow and Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, for one, worries that decriminalization will get the blame if intensified supply-side enforcement leads to more violence.
But the Portuguese model on which the Mexican reform is based, which saw the adoption of Europe's most liberal drug laws in 2001, has been successful in all the ways that most of us would consider important, particularly in reducing the spread of HIV and exposure to drugs amongst teenagers.
One feels that what's needed above all else right now, when it comes to drugs, is a little openness and sincerity. The single worst effect of criminalizing drug possession is to make it harder for everyone to talk about drugs. It has created a world ( although things have changed a lot in the last 20 years ) where most everyone has taken a bong hit at one time or another, but no one wants to admit it, whether it's to their kids or to co-workers or in the newspaper.
And that, in turn, has made it harder to make the core argument that it is none of the state's business what you put in your body. ( Doing so inevitably comes off as sounding like a coded apology for past indiscretions. )
But in some places it is being made anyway. On Tuesday the Supreme Court of Argentina reversed the conviction of a 19-year-old caught with two grams of pot and decriminalized the possession of drugs for personal consumption. The government anticipated the ruling and says it is content to abide by it; meanwhile, other Latin states, including Brazil, are talking about following suit. Crucial to the logic of the court's decision was an article in the Argentine constitution that states, "The private actions of men which in no way offend public order or morality, nor injure a third party, are only reserved to God and are exempted from the authority of judges."
It's a sentiment one might have expected to hear coming from the U.S., at one time. President Barack Obama has been a disappointment to the harm-reduction crowd when it comes to domestic drug reform, but the rapid pace of change in the Latin world shows that the State Department is no longer imposing its will there.
Whether it's because Washington has more urgent priorities like saving the American economy from reverting to the Stone Age, or just because the Bush administration's cadre of drug warriors is gone, American satellites seem to find themselves free to go their own way, perhaps only for a brief moment.
Canadians who have argued that the adoption of a harm-reduction approach here would jeopardize our trade relationship with the U.S. can therefore pipe down for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, we greet the occasion with a law-and-order he-man Conservative government in place -- one which, whatever its virtues when it comes to crimes that have victims, is full of people like Peter van Loan, Rob Nicholson and Tony Clement, and plenty of others who are about as likely to give birth to a muskox on the steps of Parliament as they are to support rational drug policy. From that standpoint, our timing sorta stinks.
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake
Source: http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v09/n822/a05.htm
No need for panic over medical marijuana
August 30th, 2009 By The Durango Herald
The agenda for Tuesday's meeting of the Durango City Council contains an interesting entry. Under the city manager's section is an item that reads, in part, "discussion and possible action concerning an emergency ordinance ... establishing a temporary moratorium on the issuance of business licenses for medical marijuana dispensaries."
The city of Durango is going to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Woodstock by freaking out over pot?
We can stop short of quoting Cheech and Chong routines, but one does have to wonder exactly what crisis necessitates an emergency ordinance. Durango now has two medical marijuana dispensaries. Given that such enterprises are legal, it is unclear why that constitutes an issue, let alone an emergency.
True, the exact legal status of marijuana is muddled. It is banned under state law, except for medical purposes. That exception was specifically authorized by Colorado voters in 2000 and is now part of the state's Constitution.
It remains illegal under federal law. But while cracking down on distributors in states that allow medical marijuana was a priority of the George W. Bush administration, in February the Obama administration directed federal agencies to defer to state laws on the issue.
The result has been something of a medical marijuana boom. About 2,000 people had applied for Colorado's Medical Marijuana Registry by the start of this year. That number is now closer to 10,000. And the actual number of medical users is probably greater.
Not surprisingly, the number of dispensaries is growing, as well. An article about Colorado's "marijuana economy" in The Atlantic, says the number of legal dispensaries statewide is expected to double by the end of 2009. That would mean there would be 60 in a state with a population of almost 5 million. But, while the story's focus on what it calls "ganjapreneurship" is cute, 60 is hardly one on every corner. On average, that is not even one in every county.
So, why the panic? Confusion about the exact legal status of marijuana is a question for Congress and the courts. They can sort it out - or not - in their own good time. Local authorities need not concern themselves with discrepancies between state and federal laws. And until the voters say otherwise, under Colorado law, anyone with a doctor's note attesting to medical need is allowed marijuana.
Is that a good thing? Time will tell. Most of us would approve of almost anything that would ease the suffering of a cancer patient. Most of us would also rather not think that the guy driving the 18-wheeler headed our way was high because he got marijuana for his hangnail.
But there is no reason to think doctors would be so cavalier. Not only do they have too much to lose, but the treatment of conditions such as multiple sclerosis is hardly the type of thing that attracts harebrained people.
Besides, why would anyone not actually ill bother with the legal procedure? It is not as if medical marijuana dispensaries are introducing a new product - or one that cannot already be found in every town, college dorm or high school in the country. Legal dispensaries are meant to help precisely the kind of people who do not know dope dealers. Anyone else who wants pot probably already knows where to get it.
There is also no demonstrated connection between medical and recreational use of marijuana. California's attorney general found that in the 10 years after that state legalized medical marijuana, pot smoking among teens there declined faster than the national rate.
So, why not sit back and let this unfold? The police should keep an eye on things, of course, but that can be limited to observation. Do these shops serve a few customers a day, or is the line around the block? Are the buyers emaciated seniors and people with canes or Grateful Dead fans with the munchies?
It is not clear that Durango can support two legal dispensaries, let alone that the city will face a flood of new applications. Until more is known, the City Council has better things to do than solve problems that do not exist and probably never will.
Source: http://durangoherald.com/sections/Opinion/Editorial/2009/08/30/Dude_chill/
Value of Medical Marijuana is in the Eyes of the Inhaler
August 29th, 2009 By: Contra Costa Times (CA)
California
-------
TO INHALE or not to inhale, that's the question. Whether it's nobler to embrace marijuana as a wonder drug or say out loud what so many others think: What's up with this scam, anyway?
A proposal for a medical marijuana dispensary is the latest controversy to visit Walnut Creek -- perhaps it could be part of the new Neiman Marcus store -- and awaits a ruling from the City Council. But this issue just as easily could land anywhere in California, which became the first state to legalize medical pot with the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996.
Dale Gieringer, one of the sponsors of Prop 215, makes no secret of where he stands.
"There are literally thousands and thousands of doctors in California who have recommended marijuana for medicine," he said.
Gieringer, who holds a Ph.D. from Stanford in economics policy analysis, is the director of the California office of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and he vouches for its medicinal value.
According to a book he cowrote, the Medical Marijuana Handbook, a few puffs can offer relief from just about every ailment from malaria to athlete's foot. His book claims that marijuana helps regulate immunity, inflammation, trauma, blood pressure, body temperature, gastrointestinal function, analgesia, glaucoma, epilepsy and bone formation.
Bothered by arthritis? Try some marijuana.
Parkinson's disease? Marijuana again.
HIV? Hepatitis C? Morning sickness? Marijuana is the answer for all three.
It was mentioned to the good doctor that this one-size-fits-all cure seems vaguely reminiscent of scene from a TV western in which the snake-oil salesman puts up a tent.
"I'm sort of amazed myself at the list of conditions it treats," he said, unapologetically.
He said he has received countless unsolicited calls from sufferers of all manner of ailments, each swearing to the drug's healing powers. Then again, if they were smoking marijuana, maybe they didn't know what they were saying.
"We don't recommend smoking so much as vaporizing," Gieringer corrected. "You get a more immediate relief."
Gieringer explained that 12 other states have followed California's lead in legalizing the drug, including most recently Michigan ( in 2008 ) and New Mexico ( 2007 ). The rest of the pot club -- Vermont, Rhode Island, Montana, Nevada, Colorado, Maine, Oregon, Washington and Alaska -- stand ready to testify to the program's value ( although we don't recommend calling Alaska to the stand; it thought Sarah Palin was a good idea ).
Because a half-full glass is also half-empty, there is a flip side to this discussion. If marijuana's powers are so undeniable, why have 37 states not voted for legalization?
"Because most of those states don't have the initiative process," Gieringer said. "If your state doesn't have the initiative, the decision is in the hands of the legislators, and legislators, as usual, are behind the times when it comes to public opinion."
When it comes to opinions on medical marijuana, though, they are widely divided.
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, Rep. Ron Paul, D-Tex., and former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders are among those in favor, according to the Web site ProCon.org.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta and Dr. Henry Miller, formerly of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are opposed.
Commander Norm Wielsch of the Contra Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team is less absolute. He said he has no problem with the state law, just with those who abuse it.
"If somebody is very sick, dying from cancer or some incurable illness," he said, "I say give them what they need. But what we've seen from people who have medical marijuana cards is a lot of times they are 18- and 19-year-old kids, seemingly in good health, who say they have migraine headaches or irritable bowel syndrome. Just the other day, we picked up a gang member with a medical marijuana card. Some of these guys are not doing it for medical purposes. They're doing it to get high."
Many of us who sit on the sideline -- and we outnumber medical marijuana users in California about 99 to 1 -- have a hard time taking the whole issue seriously.
We're reminded of a college friend who fought off bad colds with two shots of Jack Daniel's and a good night's sleep. He used to refer to this as medical whiskey.
Source: http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v09/n823/a10.htm
Marijuana found in another national park
August 29th, 2009 By Ben Conery (The Washington Times)
The Drug Enforcement Administration Friday announced that it found 14,500 marijuana plants growing in a Colorado national park, the latest in a series of such finds in national parks that authorities say are linked to Mexican drug cartels.
Authorities say they have seen an increase in outdoor marijuana operations run by Mexican drug cartels. In the past several months, federal agents have found nearly $55 million worth of pot plants in national parks and on federal lands in California, Colorado and Idaho.
On Thursday, authorities closed a section of Sequoia National Park in California so they could destroy marijuana plants discovered near a cave filled with crystals that is a popular tourist stop. Most of the marijuana already had been harvested. Authorities estimated the plants were worth more than $36 million.
In June, federal authorities seized 2,250 marijuana plants from California's Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate National Recreational Area. That same month, hikers in Idaho found a site with 12,545 pot plants.
In the most recent Colorado case, the marijuana was found in "the remote, rugged terrain" of Pike National Forest, which is about 60 miles southwest of Denver. The DEA said it is the largest outdoor marijuana-growing operation ever found in Colorado, with an estimated value of $5 million.
"The persons who were involved in this criminal activity had no regard for the damage caused to the forest and environment by the waste they left behind," said Jeffrey D. Sweetin, special agent in charge of the DEA's Denver office. "The public's safety is also at risk for those who recreate on our public lands due to these trafficking groups operating there."
Authorities say they learned of the marijuana site from a passer-by. DEA said Mexican migrant workers had been recruited to work at the site and harvest plants, which were between 4 feet and 6 feet high.
Authorities tracked down two men associated with the site and arrested them last week, but have released few details about them, including their names.
Mr. Sweetin said growing marijuana on public land in the United States has become attractive to drug cartels as increased border security has made it more difficult to smuggle large quantities of marijuana into the U.S.
And, he said, outdoor operations can be set up for relatively little money. Typically, the sites are tucked away relatively close to all-terrain-vehicle trails and campsites at the parks.
Stopping the proliferation of these sites has become a priority for the National Park Service, which dedicated $3.3 million this year to stop growers at parks in the West, including Yosemite, Sequoia and Redwood national parks.
"Before this, the [National Park Service] had set aside a modest fund for marijuana interdiction - about $150,000 a year over the past five years - and parks competed for this money," said Jeffrey Olson, a spokesman for the Park Service. "The bulk of it went to the Pacific West Region, where most of the marijuana grow sites have been found."
Authorities are concerned about the legal ramifications of such sites and the environmental consequences, which, they say, are severe.
"The impacts are numerous," said Gill Quintana, head of the U.S. Forest Service's Denver branch.
He said these include "damage to the lands due to clearing the areas to prepare the garden site, trash left behind, chemicals used to grow the crop [seeping] into the watershed, and the public-safety issues associated with the recreating public coming in contact with these organizations while they're operating on our national lands."
Earlier this month, investigators in California said they were looking for marijuana growers tied to a Mexican drug cartel that they suspect of igniting the La Brea fire that charred more than 88,000 acres of the Los Padres National Forest in the remote Santa Barbara County mountains northwest of Los Angeles.
The fire, which erupted Aug. 8, is thought to be the first major wildfire in the state caused by drug traffickers, a U.S. Forest Service spokesman said.
In a statement, the Forest Service said the blaze was sparked by a "cooking fire in a marijuana drug-trafficking operation ... believed to be run by a Mexican national drug organization. ... There is evidence that the unburned marijuana garden area has been occupied within the last several days."
No arrests have been made in that case.
Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/29/thousands-more-pot-plants-found-in-another-nationa/
Medicinal Marijuana Law Remains Too Hazy
August 29th, 2009 By Spokesman-Review (Spokane, WA)
In 1998, Washington state voters approved an initiative allowing for the use of marijuana for specific medicinal purposes, but the practical application of the law has been hazy. Meanwhile, interpretation and enforcement of the law has varied widely from community to community.
Patients want marijuana for relief from the effects of glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease and other ailments. Suppliers want relief from law enforcement officers who bust them for possession and illegal sales. The conundrum lies in the fact that the law allows for marijuana's use with a medical permit, but doesn't explain how it can be legally obtained. Before November 2008, it was even unclear what amount constituted a legal 60-day supply. That was clarified by the state as 1.5 pounds.
The law says patients can grow marijuana plants, but that isn't practical for many people. Plus, it's not clear that obtaining seeds would even pass legal muster. So dispensaries have sprouted up, but Spokane law enforcement is targeting them, saying one person cannot supply another.
Scott Q. Shupe runs a Spokane dispensary but was recently busted when he traveled to Oregon to purchase marijuana. That state doesn't recognize medical permits from other states.
Compounding all of this is federal law that doesn't even acknowledge a medicinal purpose; however, federal enforcement isn't common.
We don't condone Shupe's act. The Oregon law is clear. But legalizing medicinal marijuana without laying out a reasonable way to obtain it is madness. Certainly marijuana can be abused if used foolishly and if it falls into the wrong hands. So can OxyContin, which is among a long list of prescription drugs that have become a law enforcement headache. A Shopko was recently robbed by a thief seeking the painkiller. But OxyContin can still be obtained with a prescription. Nobody has to manufacture it in their basements.
The overreaction to marijuana stems from the stigma attached to it long ago, when laws lumped it with heroin and other dangerous and illicit drugs. But we know better now. Yet, police departments assign precious resources to ensure that patients don't obtain it. Meanwhile, property crimes go uninvestigated for lack of officers.
The state Legislature needs to clarify the law so that patients with legitimate reasons to use marijuana don't have to be treated like criminals if they do. This would also make it easier for police officers and prosecutors to decide when it really is in the public's interest to intervene.
Source: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/aug/29/medicinal-marijuana-law-remains-too-hazy/
Study Says It’s Easier For Teens To Buy Marijuana Than Beer
August 28th, 2009 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
It's that time of year - time for one of America's leading prohibitionist organizations, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (aka CASA), to once again report that seven-plus decades of criminal pot prohibition have resulted in making cannabis more readily available to teens than alcohol!
Study Says It's Easier For Teens To Buy Marijuana Than Beer
via KPVI News 6A recent study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University has some startling results about teens and drugs.
In their study, they found that 40 percent of teens could get marijuana within a day; another quarter said they could get it within an hour. In another portion of the survey, teens between the ages of 12 and 17 say it's easier to get marijuana than buy cigarettes**, beer or prescription drugs. That number is up 37 percent from 2007.
[**Note: The CASA study actually reported that teens could more readily access pot than beer or prescription drugs; the percentage of teens reporting that either marijuana or cigarettes were the "easiest to buy" were equal (26 percent) -- got to love the mainstream media's dedication to accuracy in reporting. That said, the percentage of Americans actually smoking cigarettes is now at an all-time low.]
Ask any advocate of marijuana prohibition, including CASA's head Joseph 'Russian Roulette' Califano, why they oppose legalization and you will almost always receive the same response: Keeping pot illegal keeps it out of the hands of children. Yet CASA's own survey demonstrates once again that just the opposite is true. In fact, it's legalization, regulation, and public education - coupled with the enforcement of age restrictions - that most effectively keeps mind-altering substances out of the hands of children.
Abdicating the production and distribution of pot solely to black market criminal entrepreneurs increases, rather than decreases, teens' access to cannabis.
In short, no system could possibly provide America's children with greater access to weed than the one we have: prohibition. Now when will our elected officials get the message?
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/
Marijuana Compounds May Offset Alcohol-Induced Toxicity, Study Says
August 27th, 2009 By Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
San Diego, CA: Compounds in cannabis may protect the human brain against alcohol-induced damage, according to clinical trial datapublished online by the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology.
Investigators at the University of California at San Diego examined white matter integrity in adolescents with histories of binge drinking and marijuana use.
They reported that binge drinkers (defined as boys who consumed five or more drinks in one sitting, or girls who consumed four or more drinks at one time) showed signs of white matter damage in eight separate regions of the brain.
By contrast, the binge drinkers who also used marijuana experienced less damage in seven out of the eight brain regions.
"Binge drinkers who also use marijuana did not show as consistent a divergence from non-users as did the binge drink-only group," authors concluded. "[It is] possible that marijuana may have some neuroprotective properties in mitigating alcohol-related oxidative stress or excitotoxic cell death."
In 2005, researchers at the National Institutes of Mental Healthreported that the administration of the non-psychoactive cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD) reduced alcohol-induced cell death in the hippocampus and etorhinal cortex of the brain in a dose-dependent manner by up to 60 percent. "This study provides the first demonstration of CBD as an in vivo neuroprotectant ... in preventing binge ethanol-induced brain injury," investigators concluded in The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.
Commenting on the findings, NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said, "Alcohol and cannabis appear to have contrasting effects on the body," he said. "Ethanol is clearly toxic to healthy and developing cells whereas cannabinoids appear to be relatively non-toxic and possibly even neuroprotective."
For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org. Full text of the study, "White matter integrity in adolescents with histories of marijuana use and binge drinking," will appear in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology.
Source: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7958
Anti-Marijuana Zealot Still Employed By Obama
August 26th, 2009 By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
No employee of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) sans the director has ever drawn more public and academic criticism than David Murray, ONDCP's chief scientist.
Virtually an entire book was derived from the ONDCP's twisting science and statistical data during Murray's eight-year tenure-Dr. Matthew Robinson'sLies, Damn Lies and Drug War Statistics, A Critical Analysis Of Claims Made By The ONDCP. You can watch Murray and Robinson debate about the drug war and ONDCP's methodology at the Cato Institute here.
Question: When will Obama and Holder finally kick Murray to the curb and replace him with someone other than another anti-cannabis zealot masquerading as a 'scientist'?
The Washington Monthly's Charlie Homans cast some much needed, white hot light in Mr. Murray's direction.*
The Bushie Obama Can't Fireby Charles HomansAugust 25, 2009Obama vowed to reverse Bush's hard-line drug policies, but Dubya still has a man raising havoc in the White House drug office. Problem is, Obama can't fire him.
The Bush years were not the finest hour for the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy. Drug czar John Walters, who ran the place beginning in late 2001, waged a militaristic drug war, pouring money into dubiously effective efforts to fight trafficking abroad while letting treatment programs stagnate at home, and obsessing over marijuana at the expense of more dangerous drugs.
It's an approach that Barack Obama's drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, is now trying to steer away from. He has vowed to end the use of the phrase "war on drugs," and the hard-liners who filled out Walters' office are now gone. All of them, that is, except one guy: David Murray, the drug czar's chief scientist, and Walters' most enthusiastic disciple.
David Murray is a lone human memento of the Bush administration's drug war, surrounded bypeople who are trying to undo the work on which he has spent the past eight years.
"He was brought in as a political hatchet man," says Ross Deck, a former ONDCP analyst and a 16-year-veteran of the office who quit during the Walters years. Before joining in the ONDCP, Murray had no prior experience in addiction science, or law enforcement, or anything else particularly related to drug policy.
He is on the record questioning many of the drug policies espoused by Kerlikowske. Congress has spent three years trying to get him fired.
Why, then, does Murray somehow still have a job in the Obama administration? The reason can be found in the fine print of the federal bureaucracy. Midway through his tenure, Walters moved Murray-at the time his special assistant-from a politically appointed job to the chief scientist's post, a theoretically apolitical position that makes him much harder to fire. By law, Kerlikowske can't touch a hair on his head for the first 120 days of his own stint as drug czar. Which means that until the middle of September, Murray is living in a peculiar limbo: a lone human memento of the Bush administration's botched prosecution of the drug war, surrounded by people who are trying to undo the work on which he has spent the past eight years.
ONDCP veterans speak fondly of Murray's predecessor, a defense research veteran named Al Brandenstein, who was the drug czar office's only previous chief scientist from 1991 until Walters removed him in 2004. Brandenstein worked to put advanced drug-detection technologies in the hands of law-enforcement agencies, but he was also interested in advancing the understanding of the demand side of the drug-use equation. In the 1990s, he got government funding for brain-scanning equipment that medical researchers would use to better understand the biochemistry of addiction. Critics in the drug-policy community argue that Brandenstein's work produced little of value, and that his post existed mostly to provide a pretext for government spending on gadgetry-but for better or worse, that was what Congress had asked for when it created the chief scientist job.
Murray, on the other hand, was not. A former cultural anthropologist who had left academia for the conservative think-tank circuit, he had made a name for himself in Washington a decade earlier with an article in Policy Review about the danger out-of-wedlock births posed to the fabric of American society. (It began, memorably, "America is becoming a nation of bastards.") As Walters' special assistant, he had made headlines in Canada in 2003 by suggesting that the U.S.'s northern neighbor's experiments with marijuana decriminalization could cause diplomatic problems along the border.
Shelving most of Brandenstein's work, Murray pursued the occasional science project-he was enthusiastic about testing the Beltway's sewage for traces of cocaine-but mostly used his office as a political soapbox, lambasting opponents and burying unflattering data that suggested his boss wasn't exactly winning the drug war. (The Statistical Assessment Service, a research organization that Murray himself launched in 1994, has in recent years devoted much ink to debunking its own founder's claims on drug-policy issues like needle exchange.)
In congressional testimony, Murray branded medical-marijuana advocates "modern-day snake-oil proponents"; in a 2007 appearance on a panel at the libertarian Cato Institute, he derided the think tank's pro-legalization stance to be "an illusion" that "grows out of late-night dormitory engagements in college that one hopes one outgrows." He also alienated more middle-of-the-road drug-policy experts both inside and outside the bureaucracy; one outside expert recalls attending a drug-research group meeting with Murray and hearing him offhandedly refer to the pot-friendly Netherlands as a "narco-state."
"David acted as though he had said nothing the least bit unusual in saying that," the expert says. "It's indicative of how off the map he is-he simply doesn't understand how strange his own views are about these things."
Congress felt similarly. In the fall of 2005, as the panic over methamphetamine use in rural America was reaching its apex, Walters sent Murray to brief the members the House of Representatives' Meth Caucus-a group formed by mostly rural and Western congressmen in 2001-on what the administration planned to do about the burgeoning problem. The assembled lawmakers were so spectacularly unimpressed that one of them, Indiana Republican Mark Souder, marched out of the meeting and promptly demanded that Murray step down from his post, calling his briefing "pathetic" and an "embarrassment." Murray's performance was so bad, Souder declared, that "if Director Walters and anyone else in that office agrees with what was said today, they should resign."
This was grandstanding, of course. But Congress made more substantial efforts to oust Murray after the Democrats came to power in 2006. Over the next three years, the Senate Appropriations Committee-which controls the federal government's purse strings-used its annual report to criticize the chief scientist directly, a highly unusual gesture. "The Committee," one of the reports reads, "is highly disappointed in the director of this program"-Murray-"and is troubled by his ideas for research and development that appear to have little or no value." When Walters insisted on keeping him in the post in the face of such criticism, the Appropriations Committee responded by slashing funding for it. Murray's office, which received nearly $47 million in 2003, got just $1 million this year.
The committee has made it clear that ONDCP's science shop won't see another dime until Murray is gone, at least from his current job. What happens after that is an open question. (Repeated calls to the ONDCP's press office for an interview with Murray or a comment on his future prospects went unreturned.) While most drug-policy watchers assume Kerlikowske will kick him out of the chief scientist post as soon as he can, actually firing him is trickier. There are ways to encourage burrowed-in ideologues to quit, however-ONDCP veterans recall that George Bush Sr.'s drug czar, Bob Martinez, used to do it by assigning them to an office with no windows, phones, or computers.
"He'll be there until somebody runs him off," Ross Deck, the former ONDCP analyst, says of Murray. "What can they do with him? They can give him a job counting paperclips."
Charles Homans is an editor of the Washington Monthly.
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/26/anti-marijuana-zealot-still-employed-by-obama/
Want To Run The US Government’s Marijuana Grow Farm?
August 8th, 2009 By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
While the government contract to date has been pro forma-theUniversity of Mississippi/Oxford has won the contract every year since the late 1960s and MAPS' and Prof. Lyle Craker's successful lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to effectively break Ol' Miss' monopoly on cultivating cannabis for research and approximately five Compassionate IND patients, and allow the University of Massachusetts/Amherst to cultivate research and therapeutic grade cannabis, is being appealed by DEA-competition can only help science, and the free market place of ideas and research.
Production, Analysis, & Distribution of Cannabis & Marijuana Cigarettes
Solicitation Number: N01DA-10-7773
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Office: National Institutes of Health
Location: National Institute on Drug AbuseSynopsis:
Added: Aug 05, 2009 9:03 am
The National Institute on Drug Abuse is soliciting proposals from qualified organizations having the capability to (1) grow, harvest, analyze, store and distribute GMP grade cannabis (marijuana) on large and small scales; (2) extract cannabis to obtain purified phytocannabinoids including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC), analyze, and store; (3) prepare marijuana cigarettes and related products; and (4) distribute marijuana, marijuana cigarettes and cannabinoids, and other related products for research and other Government programs upon NIDA authorization.Offerors must possess suitable and secure DEA approved outdoor and indoor growing facilities, research laboratory with appropriate analytical instruments, and experienced personnel to conduct the project tasks. Appropriate DEA approved secure facility for manufacturing of marijuana cigarettes, and their storage, and DEA Schedule I registration for marijuana and THC are essential. NIDA anticipates a 1-year with four 1 year options cost reimbursement type contract will be awarded. Additional quantity options for manufacturing cigarettes may also be required. In order to handle substances under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, it is mandatory that offerors possess a DEA Research Registration for Schedules II to V and demonstrate the capability to obtain a DEA registration for Schedule I controlled substances. All studies must be carried out under pertinent FDA regulations, such as current Good Clinical Practice (cGCP) and current Good Laboratory Practice (cGLP) regulations. The pertinent FDA's guidelines/guidance shall be followed. RFP No. N01DA-10-7773 will be available electronically on or about August 25, 2009. You can access the RFP through the FedBizOpps:
http://fbo.gov or through the NIDA website at the following address:http://www.nida.nih.gov/RFP/RFPList.html.
The electronic RFP contains all information needed to submit a proposal. No printed version of the solicitation document or source list is available. NIDA will consider proposals submitted by any responsible offeror. Proposals will be due on or about October 9, 2009. This advertisement does not commit the Government to award a contract. Based upon market research, the Government is not using the policies contained in Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, in its solicitation for the described supplies or services. However, interested persons may identify to the contracting officer their interest and capability to satisfy the Government's requirement with a commercial item within 15 days of this notice.
Contracting Office Address:
6101 Executive Boulevard
Room 260 - MSC 8402
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
Primary Point of Contact.:
Amy Sheib
ap370t@nih.gov
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/08/want-to-run-the-us-governments-marijuana-grow-farm/
See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil
July 8th, 2009 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
Meet Hawaii's Republican Governor Linda Lingle. On Monday, Gov. Lingle vetoed Senate Bill 1058, which called on the legislature to merely study "issues relating to medical cannabis patients and current medical cannabis laws."
Specifically, SB 1058 called for the formation of a legislative task force to:
(1) Examine current state statutes, state administrative rules, and all county policies and procedures relating to the medical marijuana program;
(2) Examine all issues and obstacles that qualifying patients have encountered with the medical marijuana program;
(3) Examine all issue and obstacles that state and county law enforcement agencies have encountered with the medical marijuana program;
(4) Compare and contrast Hawaii's medical marijuana program with all other state medical marijuana programs; and
(5) Address other issues and perform any other function necessary as the task force deems appropriate, relating to the medical marijuana program.
In her veto address, Gov. Lingle alleged - laughably - that the mere act of examining the medical marijuana laws of Hawaii and a dozen other states violates federal anti-drug laws.
"I am returning herewith, without my approval, Senate Bill No. 1058. ... This bill establishes the medical cannabis task force ... to review issues related to (Hawaii's) medical marijuana program and make recommendations for any proposed legislation and rules. ... The medical task force is unnecessary because it would attempt to deal with issues raised by medical marijuana users that can only be addressed by circumventing federal law."
Keep in mind that just days earlier lawmakers in Rhode Island overwhelmingly approved legislation to allow the state to license nonprofit facilities to produce and dispense medicinal cannabis to qualified patients. Yet in Hawaii the Governor would have us believe that just gathering feedback from patients and local law enforcement regarding the state's nearly ten-year-old medical cannabis program somehow violates federal law. It's an absurd position and no doubt Gov. Lingle, who vetoed a similar task force bill last year, knows it.
Of course, the true motive behind Gov Lingle's action - and the similar actions of her fellow prohibitionists - is to silence any sort of public or political debate surrounding America's failed marijuana policies.
This was the motivation behind President Obama's decision to 'laugh off' the issue of marijuana law reform during his online town hall this past March. Silencing free speech was also the driving force behind the actions of members of Congress who earlier this year threatened to withhold funding from the city of El Paso, Texas, if they so much as dared to hold an "honest, open national debate" regarding US drug policy. And surely this was the motivating force behind a South Dakota Judge's decision this week to bar longtime NORML advocate Bob Newland from engaging in any public advocacy of marijuana law reform for one year. (Full disclosure: Bob Newland, under the banner of SoDakNORML, had been leading the petition drive to place a medical marijuana initiative on the 2010 state ballot. In other words, Judge Delaney's decision isn't simply limiting Mr. Newland's constitutional rights to free speech, it's also potentially limiting the voting rights of all South Dakotans.)
Today in California television ads were slated to begin running in support of Assembly Bill 390, the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act - which seeks to legalize, tax, and regulate the retail sale of cannabis to adults in California. I say "were" because many major television outlets have refused - without comment - to air the television spots. Keep in mind, this network blackout is taking place in a state that has already established a regulated market for the distribution of medical cannabis, and whose voters solidly support legalizing the personal consumption of pot by adults.
Frustrating? Most definitely. Disillusioning? Not really.
Prohibitionists will use any means necessary to stifle honest, open debate because they know that they have no legitimate basis to defend marijuana prohibition. Their ardent refusal to even discuss the issue - and their strong arm tactics to intimidate others from discussing it as well - confirm this fact.
Nevertheless, despite their underhanded stalling tactics, the 'national debate' that the prohibitionists have so long feared has already taken place. Granted it did not take place in public forum; rather, and more significantly, it took place in the hearts and minds of the American voter. And we won - hands down. We know it and our opponents know it.
And so does Gov. Linda Lingle.
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/07/08/see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil/
Pain Clinics Test Patients for Marijuana Use
July 7th, 2009 By Dale Gieringer, Director, CA NORML
Like many medical marijuana users, Kristin Redeen needed additional prescription medications for her severe chronic pain. For seven years she had been treated at a private pain clinic in the Central Valley, where a doctor maintained her on Percocet, a semi-synthetic opioid. One day Kristin was unexpectedly asked to submit a urine sample.
"They already knew about my medical marijuana use," says Kristin, who contacted California NORML. "I didn't think I was doing anything wrong."
When the test came back, Kristin was informed that the clinic would no longer renew her prescription because she had tested positive for an illegal controlled substance. Her doctor at the clinic cited legal concerns, claiming -falsely- that DEA regulations forbid giving prescription narcotics to users of marijuana or other illegal drugs.
Kristin was cut off from her Percocet and began suffering seizures. She finally found a physician who was willing to prescribe her another opioid, Vicodin, but only at low doses insufficient to relieve her constant pain.
Kristin is one of a growing number of medical marijuana patients discriminated against by pain clinics. "I must have heard of 25 cases this year," says Doug Hiatt, an attorney in Washington state. "It's Jim Crow medicine."
NORML has received a surge of complaints within the last six months. Many medical marijuana users report that they can't find a clinic willing to take them on. Others, like Kristin, have been abandoned by clinics that suddenly adopted aggressive drug-screening policies.
Clinics say they are legally compelled to drug-test chronic pain patients so as to avoid liability for overdoses and diversion of prescription drugs, particularly opioids such as oxycontin -which have nothing to do with cannabis.
Chronic pain patients have good reason to object to being denied medical access to cannabis. Chronic pain is the leading indication for medical cannabis use, accounting for 90% of the patients in Oregon's medical marijuana program. More than 60 studies have shown cannabinoids to be effective in pain relief, according to a compilation by the International Association of Cannabis Medicine which includes four controlled studies of smoked marijuana by California's Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research.
Studies indicate that cannabis interacts synergistically with opioids in such a way as to improve pain relief [1, 2]. California medical cannabis specialists consistently report that patients are able to reduce use of opioids -typically by 50%- when they add cannabis to their regimen. Cannabis can therefore be seen as a gateway drug leading away from opioid addiction. Nevertheless, patients are being pressured to stop using cannabis if they want to get prescription opioids.
To their dismay, patients have to pay for the drug tests at their own (or their insurers') expense. Carol, a chronic pain patient who had been treated for seven years by the same clinic without any testing, reports that she was billed $325 for a urine screen. The balance of the bill, which totaled $1,601, was paid by her insurer.
Carol says her doctor told her that "the DEA requires him to drug test all his clients, that he has no choice, it is the law."
In fact, there is no law requiring clinics to drug screen patients for marijuana. "It's BS," says Hiatt. Not a single case is known in which pain doctors have been sued or prosecuted for allowing medical marijuana use along with opiates.
Prosecutors have argued that marijuana might be obtained on the illicit market in trade for prescription drugs, though such a scenario seems implausible in medical cannabis states. "It's unwarranted paranoia," saysGregory Carter, MD, one of the few practicing pain experts who recommend marijuana in Washington.
Given that cannabis is notably less toxic and addictive than other prescription narcotics, it seems highly ironic that pain clinics are discouraging its use. The prejudice against marijuana has nothing to do with medical science, but rather with political and legal pressures to crack down on prescription drug use. Non-medical use of prescription drugs has recently emerged as the nation's number-one drug problem du jour.
A new government report, ominously entitled the "National Prescription Drug Threat Assessment," reported 8,500 deaths in 2005 from prescription pain relievers (mainly opioids), more than double the 2001 total. "Diversion and abuse of prescription drugs are a threat to our public health and safety - similar to the threat posed by illicit drugs such as heroin and cocaine," warned Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske.
The Pain Specialists' Meeting
The 2009 American Pain Society Convention in San Diego included a panel on "Cannabinoids in Pain Management," chaired by Dr. Mark Ware of McGill University. Dr. Andrea Hohmann, an expert on stress-level analgesia from the University of Georgia, presented evidence from rodent studies which showed that cannabinoids suppress nociceptive processing through both the CB1 and CB2 receptors, and that endocannabinoids, including 2-AG and anandamide, help suppress pain.
Donald Abrams, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, discussed his studies showing that inhaled marijuana significantly reduced neuropathic pain experienced by HIV patients. Cannabinoids and opioids interact synergistically on separate but parallel pain receptors, Abrams said. He is conducting another study on combined use of cannabinoids and opioids, preliminary results of which appear promising.
Dr. Ware discussed studies involving the variety of cannabinoid medicines available in Canada, which include dronabinol, Sativex, Nabilone, and herbal THC. All of them have demonstrated efficacy in pain relief. Cannabis is now recognized as a "third line" agent for neuropathic pain in Canada. Noting that that its adverse effects are mild to moderate, Ware concluded that "cannabinoid analgesia is the real thing."
During the question session, your correspondent asked why it was that, in light of evidence that cannabis was so useful in pain therapy, there appeared to be an upsurge in drug testing to prevent its use. The panelists could offer no explanation.
We moved on to the exhibition hall, where drug testing companies were conspicuously displaying their wares. Their exhibits showed how well their products could monitor usage of opiates. The exhibitors seemed surprised when we told them that their products were being used against medical marijuana.
One of the more sophisticated exhibitors was Ameritox, which boasted panels for distinguishing a dozen different opioids plus numerous sedatives, tricyclic anti-depressants, barbiturates, and stimulants as well as "drugs of abuse," among them marijuana. Their saleswoman seemed surprised to hear that the Ameritox test was being used to screen out medical marijuana patients. She said that clinics could easily order the screens without the marijuana if they wanted.
Another company boasted how their test could be administered at the doctor's office, thereby allowing the doctor rather than the lab to collect the bill.
Finally, we spoke to a legal expert on pain medication, Ms. Jennifer Bolen, a former prosecutor turned defense attorney, who has a useful website devoted to the subject:
www.legalsideofpain.com.
Ms Bolen pointed to three recent developments that have increased the pressure to conduct drug screening of pain patients. First, pain doctors have suffered a string of stinging legal judgments for over-prescribing opioids to patients who subsequently overdosed. One notable example involved Dr. Thomas Merrill of Florida, whose life sentence was sustained by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals last year.
This February, a prestigious panel of the American Pain Society issued "New Guidelines for Prescribing Opioid Pain Drugs" which counsels that "diligent monitoring of patients is essential. " The report specifically recommends periodic drug screens for chronic opioid patients at risk for aberrant drug behavior, though it doesn't mention cannabis.
Lastly, under legislation that took effect this year, the FDA has new authority to require pharmaceutical companies to implement "risk management" programs to prevent consumer drug misuse.
Medical cannabis patients have no easy remedy to the current drug testing onslaught. In the absence of dire bodily harm, malpractice suits are of no avail. In general, pain clinics have no legal obligation to treat anyone. They commonly require patients to sign contracts allowing them to conduct drug screening at will. Nonetheless, patients may have good grounds to complain to their state medical boards. This is particularly the case where they have been abandoned by their doctors after being made dependent on prescription narcotics.
The ultimate recourse is to educate doctors, many of whom remain woefully ignorant of the literature on medical marijuana and chronic pain. At the APS convention we encountered a distinguished pain specialist from San Diego, who joked about having enjoyed the marijuana muchies with his son, but averred that he wouldn't let his patients use it, on the grounds that it wouldn't be useful, and anyway smoked medicine is bad for the lungs. Like most convention attendees, he had missed the panel on medical cannabis, where Dr. Abrams had discussed the use of smokeless vaporizers.
Still, good physicians should be open to persuasion from patients. Cynthia, a severe chronic pain patient. had frequented the same clinic for 10 years when she was confronted with a surprise urine test. In addition to prescription opiates, she had been using medical marijuana, though her recommendation was four years out of date. The test cost her $100 and her insurer $500 more.
On finding her positive for marijuana, her doctor informed her that she would have to reduce her cannabinoid level to zero. After a heart-to-heart talk, in which she explained to him how she had been able to reduce her opiate use to minimal levels thanks to medical cannabis, her doctor relented. "I feel really lucky,' says Cynthia, "You have to feel out the doctor. We have a special relationship. I don't think he plans to do this with all his patients."
REFERENCES
[1] Lynch and Clark, "Cannabis reduces opioid dose in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain," Journal Pain Symptom Management, (2003) 25(6) 496-8.
[2[ Narang et al., 2008 Efficacy of dronabinol as an adjuvant treatment for chronic pain patients on opioid therapy, J Pain. Mar;9(3):254-64.
From O'Shaughnessy's, Summer 2009
To order this 52-page, all-content, no-jive publication, send $5 to p.o. box 490, Alameda, CA 94501. O'S is available in bulk to physicians, collectives, cooperatives and reform groups for $1/copy for free distribution to patients and interested citizens.
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/07/07/pain-clinics-test-patients-for-marijuana-use/
Rhode Island Challenges Federal Ban By Authorizing Cultivation And Sale Of Marijuana
July 3rd, 2009 By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
Originally published, July 1, 2009, by University of Pittsburgh Law School publication, The Jurist.
Despite the glamorization on the hit Showtime series 'Weeds', flashy documentaries on CNBC delving into the business side of California's multi-billion dollar annual cannabis industry derived from Californian's unprecedented 13-year old legal access to medical cannabis products-qualifying patients in the state (and there are hundreds of thousands of them currently) can access high-quality medical cannabis via 24/7 vending machines in cities like Los Angeles-is Rhode Island the little state that is saying 'yes we cannabis' the loudest via their legislature?
'Californication' Of Cannabis
While California is clearly at the vanguard of implementing major legal
and policy changes in seeming conflict with the federal government's
72-year old cannabis prohibition laws, in fact little ol' Rhode Island
is on the precipice of effectively breaking the federal government's
ban on the cultivation and sale of cannabis by joining New Mexico
as the only states favoring medical cannabis laws to have
state-sanctioned medical cannabis cultivators and retail outlets for
qualifying medical patients.
While there are an estimated 1,800-2,000 medical cannabis dispensaries (or in the new post Mentch parlance, cannabis wellness centers) in California alone, few of them are genuinely, legally sanctioned under state laws to sell cannabis in a retail environment. However, this blooming of cannabis wellness centers in California has happened under the full view of law enforcement, state policy makers and the public health community. Californians have 'Main Street' access to cannabis in many parts of the Golden State, which has evolved entirely organically-in other words, the mores and values of most Californians largely accept cannabis use, whether for recreational or medicinal purposes.
A recent Field poll of California voters affirms this with 56% support for outright legalization.
In Rhode Island, there is no highly refined 'cannabis culture', or
longstanding public cannabis law reform efforts to speak of-unlike
Californians that have publicly debated 'legalizing' cannabis on
numerous statewide ballot initiatives and legislative proposals going
back to the early 1970s-yet, Rhode Island's legislators, from both
parties and chambers, in opposition to the Governor and numerous
federal government's anti-drug bureaucracies (i.e., DEA, ONDCP, NIDA, DOJ, FBI, etc...) first passed a 'self-preservation' medical cannabis law two years ago
[a 'self-preservation' medical cannabis model is defined as a qualified
patient, for which a severely limited number of medical ailments
qualify for cannabis use (i.e., Cancer, AIDS, Glaucoma,
Epilepsy and MS), can legally possess or grow a small amount of
cannabis; there is no legal retail access to cannabis, seeds or plant
cuttings (clones)].
The Little State That Says To Washington: 'Yes We Cannabis!'
However, Rhode Island legislators, only two years after passage of the
original medical cannabis laws, recognized that a self-preservation
model is inadequate to serve the needs of sick, dying or
sense-threatened patients who need whole-smoked cannabis and edibles.
Again, in full opposition to the Governor and federal agencies, overrode their second veto
to establish Rhode Island as the first bona fide state to legally
sanction and license third parties to cultivate and sell cannabis (in
the case of Rhode Island, the recent medical cannabis legislation has
provided initial approval to three medical cannabis wellness centers
for the entire state).
While New Mexico may have officially been the first state to pass legislation in 2007 that allows for the state-sanctioned distribution of medical cannabis to qualified patients, the medical cannabis program has been very slow to get-off-the-ground, and to date has issued a single permit, and no medical cannabis is expected to be lawfully sold in New Mexico for at least another 6 months to a year. Rhode Island, at its current breakneck speed of passing pro-medical cannabis law reforms, will very likely be the first state out of the gate to effectively end the federal government's complete prohibition against cannabis distribution by cultivating and harvesting a crop of medical cannabis by early fall.
The Major Legal and Policy Implications Sparked By Rhode Island
If past serves as prologue, under the prior four presidential
administrations (Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush), their Departments of
Justice most certainly would have raced to federal court and sought to
have any state law that allowed medical cannabis to be cultivated and
distributed found to be in clear violation of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, The Single Convention Treaty of 1961 (the international treaty that effectively made cannabis illegal throughout the world) and stare decisis.
Even numerous full-throated law reformers would concede the strong position the federal government had attained after eight decades of zealous enforcement of anti-cannabis laws.
However, Rhode Island's challenge to the federal government's cannabis prohibition becomes increasingly interesting to political observers and policy wonks in light of President Obama's decidedly different take on the latitude he is comfortable providing states to craft their own medical cannabis laws.
To wit, 1) Attorney General Holder indicated in February that the DEA is no longer going to target and harass state compliant medical cannabis providers in states that adopt medical cannabis laws, and 2) In May, the executive branch issued a memorandum, interestingly entitled, 'Preemption' to all federal agency heads, in effect instructing them to no longer oppose states (or their voters) seeking greater autonomy to pass laws that may possibly be in conflict with federal laws (i.e., medical cannabis laws, etc...), and to only oppose them if there is a positive conflict with federal laws resulting in genuine risks to national security.
While it is hard to swing a dead cat in the Los Angeles-area these days without hitting the cued up patrons of medical cannabis wellness centers, Rhode Island looks to be the very first state to officially end cannabis prohibition, and the feds appear ready to stand down.
Now, if you're a cannabis consumer or lover of liberty, this is 'change' one can believe in!
Ending The Bipartisan War On Pot!
July 2nd, 2009 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
For far too long the federal government's war on cannabis consumers has been a bipartisan effort.
At worst, politicians of both political persuasions have proactively lobbied for tougher pot penalties (or actively opposed efforts to amend such laws); at best, leaders of both major parties have done nothing at all.
When will this situation change? When the core constituency of both major political parties - Republican and Democrat - compel their leaders to make drug law reform a primary part of their legislative platforms.
In practice, this means that Republican leaders need to know that their base cares just as much about marijuana law reform as they do about shrinking the size and scope of government. Conversely, Democrat leaders need to be made aware that their supporters are just as passionate about ending the war on cannabis consumers as they are about addressing issues like climate change and health care.
Is this day coming?
NORML Advisory Board Member Norm Stamper believes so. Writing today on the Huffington Post blog he proclaims, correctly, that a record number of influential progressive publications and pundits are now calling for fundamental changes in drug law reform. A quick review of conservative-leaning websites and periodicals identifies a similar trend.
For decades conventional political wisdom has dictated that drug law reform is the so-called 'third rail' of mainstream politics, when in fact just the opposite is true. American voters of all political persuasions are ready to embrace common-sense marijuana policies.
The question is now: Are they ready and willing to demand them from their political leaders?
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/07/02/ending-the-bipartisan-war-on-pot/
Medical pot users, growers can sue over raids
July 2, 2009 By Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Medical marijuana patients and growers can sue police for illegally raiding their property and destroying their plants, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The 2-1 decision by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento was the first in the state to allow a patient or grower to sue claiming that their rights to cultivate and use medical marijuana have been violated. Those rights are protected by state law but banned by federal law.
Officials in Butte County, where the case arose, argued that patients and suppliers can invoke the medical marijuana law only as a defense to criminal charges, not to sue for damages. The court's dissenting justice said no one is entitled to compensation for the destruction of a drug banned under federal law.
But the court's majority said a marijuana patient or member of a collective has the same right as anyone else to sue officers who violate the constitutional ban on illegal searches and seizures.
The plaintiff, David Williams, is relying on "the same constitutional guarantee of due process available to all individuals," Justice Vance Raye said. He said Williams is not required to go through "the expense and stress of criminal proceedings" to assert his rights.
Williams belonged to a seven-member collective near the town of Paradise. When a sheriff's deputy came to his door without a warrant in September 2005, Williams showed doctors' recommendations for all seven patients that allowed them to grow and use marijuana, he said.
He said the officer had questioned the legality of the collective and ordered him to destroy 29 of the 41 plants on his property or face arrest. He complied, then sued the officer and the county for damages. Wednesday's ruling upheld a Superior Court judge's refusal to dismiss the suit.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Fred Morrison said Congress should ease the federal ban on marijuana to accommodate California and 12 other states that allow medical use. But as long as the ban exists, he said, no one has the right to use the drug, and police are entitled to confiscate it.
Brad Stephens, a deputy county counsel, said the county would probably appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/02/BA3O18HMBU.DTL
Study Debunks Claim That Pot Smoking Causes Mental Illness
July 1st, 2009 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
Much has made - by the mainstream media and others - of the claim that cannabis use causes certain types of mental illness, specifically schizophrenia and psychosis.
Most notably perhaps, a team of researchers writing in the July 28, 2007 edition of the prestigious scientific journal The Lancet, boldly proclaimed that smoking cannabis could boost one's risk of a psychotic episode by 40 percent or more.
Naturally, this alarmist rhetoric received wall-to-wall coverage by the mainstream press. Even more troubling, the supposed 'pot-and-schizophrenia' link was one of the primary reasons cited by British PM Gordon Brown, ex-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and others as the impetus for reclassifying cannabis (from a verbal warning to a criminal offense punishable by up to five years in jail) in the United Kingdom.
Of course, there was a fatal flaw with The Lancet's argument - one that, oddly enough, every single MSM outlet failed to mention. Empirical data did not support the investigators' hypothesis that smoking marijuana was associated with increased rates of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses among the general public - a fact that even the authors begrudgingly admitted when they declared, "Projected trends for schizophrenia incidence have not paralleled trends in cannabis use over time."
Which brings us to 2009.
Two years after The Lancet's dire predictions, a team of researchers at the Keele University Medical School have once and for all put the 'pot-and-mental illness' claims to the test. Writing in a forthcoming edition of the scientific journal Schizophrenia Research, they compare long-term trends in marijuana use and incidences of schizophrenia and/or psychoses in the United Kingdom. And what do they find?
"[T]he expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10 year period. This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and incidence of psychotic disorders. ... This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence."
Should we expect an apology - or even better, a change in policy - from the Gordon Brown regime any time soon? Or at the very least, will some sort of 'correction' be forthcoming from the mainstream news media?
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/07/01/study-debunks-claims-that-pot-smoking-causes-mental-illness/
The Importance of Permitting Consumers the Right to Cultivate Marijuana for Personal Use
July 1st, 2009 By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
For nearly 40 years, NORML has provided a voice in the public policy debate for the tens of millions of Americans who enjoy cannabis responsibly. NORML is and has always been the 'marijuana' consumers' lobby.
In the short run, NORML favors the elimination of all criminal and/or civil penalties prohibiting the possession of cannabis for personal use, regardless of whether one is using it for medical purposes or for personal pleasure. Further, NORML opposes sanctions that presently prohibit the not-for-profit transfer of small amounts of cannabis between adults. This policy, called "decriminalization", was the recommendation of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse in their groundbreaking 1972 report, Marijuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding. Versions of cannabis decriminalization have now been adopted in 13 states.
Cannabis consumers are ordinary Americans who work hard, raise families, pay taxes and contribute in a positive way to their communities. We are not criminals. Just as millions of Americans enjoy a beer or a glass of wine at the end of the day, we enjoy sharing a joint (or, for that matter, a vapor bag) when we relax in the evening. Of the nearly 900,000 marijuana arrests in America each year, about 90% are for possession of small amounts for personal use. Continuing with this Draconian policy makes no sense. That is why three out of four Americans now support decriminalizing the personal possession and use of cannabis.
NORML's ultimate political goal is the establishment of a legally regulated market where consumers can obtain their cannabis in a safe and secure environment. This policy is generally called "legalization". As our country discovered when we experimented with alcohol prohibition, it is only by providing a legally regulated market that we can significantly reduce the crime, corruption and violence associated with a criminal black market.
NORML supports the imposition of state and/or federal age and quality controls governing the commercial production, sale, and use of cannabis to assure public safety and to advise the consumer of the strength of the variety of cannabis being purchased.
And, importantly, we support the imposition of a reasonable tax on commercial cannabis sales that could raise substantial revenue for the various states, to be used for drug education and other programs to encourage responsible use and to discourage abuse. But as we work toward these goals, it is crucial that we underscore the importance of permitting consumers the option to grow their own cannabis.
Alcohol consumers possess the legal right to create their own home brew, free from government interference. Although the vast majority of alcohol drinkers never utilizes this freedom, and prefers the convenience of purchasing alcohol at a retail outlet, that option remains available to those who wish to use it. We believe that similar regulations should govern the non-retail production of cannabis.
The cultivation of cannabis for personal use is the single most important element of the NORML legalization proposal. Allowing for the legal, personal cultivation of cannabis provides consumers with the option to grow their own product should commercially available sources offer cannabis that fails to meet the consumers' needs because it is excessively expensive, too heavily taxed, or of inferior quality. The mere threat of consumers exercising this option should be sufficient to assure that the legal market for cannabis will be responsive to the needs of consumers, and will not be exploitive.
So when any organization or any state or federal legislator proposes legalizing cannabis, either for medical use or for personal pleasure, but forbids the consumer from growing their own cannabis, those of us who lobby on this issue must insist on amendments to permit personal cultivation.
Otherwise we, cannabis law reformers, trade away our only leverage to keep the big corporations and the government honest and responsive to cannabis consumers.
Pro-Marijuana TV Ad Campaign Successful; More Are Planned
June 29th, 2009 By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
A note from one America’s soldiers (and a NORML member) serving in Iraq, along with some comments I saw over the weekend on NORML’s blogs, sharply reminded me of the need to post the final results from the NORML Foundation’s ‘4/20′ nationwide TV ad campaign, as well as the fundraising results notably centered around the ever-increasing popularity of April 20 as ‘Cannabis Consumers’ Day’ around the world.
Please find below a brief report about the number of ads, geographical dispersion of the ads, networks and costs; number of new NORML members, amount of donations received, webpage traffic and media interviews.
Hello Tyler,
Thanks for supporting NORML and having a keen interest in NORML’s longstanding pro-reform advocacy efforts. Since 1970, NORML (and later, the NORML Foundation) assists the victims of cannabis prohibition as well as representing the interests and concerns of the tens of millions of Americans who responsibly consume cannabis.
THANK YOU, thank you very much for serving in the US’ armed forces, especially serving in Iraq!
NORML Foundation’s TV ad campaign (and the donation meter that went with it) ended after April 20th, after nearly 8,000 TV ads were purchased with the $16,000 donated from NORML supporters such as yourself. Thanks again!
Approximately $2,000 in donations earmarked for ‘NORML TV ad campaign’ are escrowed for the next promotional ad campaign.
Your email and suggestion remind me of the need to send the membership/blog post about NORML’s ‘4/20’ ad campaign, its cost, reach and results. Please look for the report to be posted this week to NORML’s frontpage blog.
Tyler, education, legislation and litigation, none of it in support of reform is made possible without the support of stakeholders like you.
Kind regards and be safe in Iraq,
Allen St. Pierre
Executive DirectorNORML/NORML Foundation
1600 K St., NW
Suite 501
Washington, D.C. 20006
www.norml.org
director@norml.org*****************************
2:06 AM, “Tyler D.” <tyler.XX@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hey Allen,My name is Tyler D., and I support NORML and what it stands for. I’m from Louisiana, the land of constriction, and I’m currently in Iraq. I’m sending money to NORML, and buying things like my hemp daypack, tee shirts, and others. I send emails to the folks back home to be active, as well as the Governor, senators, and representatives. I want to know how far away we are from our goal of hitting mainstream commercials for NORML? I mean, it sounds all good and well, but give me an idea… Can you put a temperature bulb on the site somewhere that shows how close we actually are to seeing sense on television? I’d love to see advertisements go mainstream, as would a lot of others, but if there’s a large void, it would give me more incentive to give. If there wasn’t much left, then I would be excited to be that close. It’s a win/win. Just a thought…
Peace sir,
Tyler D.
Over 500 NORML supporters donated slightly more than $16,000 (avg. donation was $32) in support of running the winning 60 second ad from NORML’s 2008 online ad contest.
The advertising media used by the campaign combined low cost national cable and Ohio News Network. For added exposure element a PR bonus blitz was distributed via PRweb.com.
Initially, it was difficult t get approval to run NORML’s PSA/Commercial. Ohio News Network was quick to be first but other media outlets passed. Finally, a national media vendor with homes in every market in the country, gave the go ahead.
The National Cable Homes buy (April 20-April 22, 2009) reached homes with ’smart cableboxes’, which tracks the precise networks and advertising spots watched. NORML only paid for the audience reached and who stayed tuned to the ads.
-97.5% of people who watched the stay tuned in.
-Average length of time they viewed was 59.2 seconds
NORML’s ad buyers viewed the PSA as being very effective, and for the very high percentage of the public who watched the ad, they apparently could not turn away.
The Numbers
7,700 spots ran across 210 markets over three days, in each market, 38 spots ran on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, CNN-Headline News, FX, Spike and Fuse.
-A total of 2,428,858 total viewing households were reached
-A total of 2,394,690 actual viewers watched the commercials live
-34, 168 additional viewers recorded the networks and watched the commercials within 7 days
-75 spots ran in 1.5 million homes on the Ohio News Network from April 23-April 28.
NORML’s PR package reached 30,000 journalists, 30,000 websites and 225,000 RSS subscribers, resulting in over 136,313 viewed packages, and 2,118 media outlets tracked the story.
The avg. cost was $2.07 per 60 second TV ad
*******************************************************
Because of the popularity of ‘4/20′ in general, the fact that the New York Times covered the event (via the University of Colorado NORML chapter’s National Conference on Cannabis Law Reform); Spike, G4 and Comedy Central all aired ‘4/20′ specials; and pro-cannabis law reform rallies around the United States, made for NORML’s launch of the first ever nationwide TV ad campaign in support of ending cannabis prohibition a fortuitous one!
To wit, the largest number of citizens to step up and be counted as bona fide supporters of cannabis law reform (and NORML), over the course a 24-48 hour period, ever happened this ‘4/20′ with over 1,765 new supporters joining the organization; and these newly-minted NORML members donated over $11,500.
Additionally, but to no surprise to NORML’s staff (or ISP provider), NORML’s already popular webpage received a substantial spike in webpage and podcast traffic during ‘4/20′.
Notice NORML and High Time webpages spike, while other cannabis-oriented webpages remained flat (Data by Alexa.com)
NORML and NORML Foundation plan on running more TV, Internet and Radio advertisement campaigns in the second half of 2009.
Stay tune to learn more and how you and your like-minded friends & family can help bring these needed public service advertisements in support of re-legalizing cannabis to the public.
Source: blog.norml.org/2009/06/29/pro-marijuana-tv-ad-campaign-successful-more-are-planned/
L.A. is Trying To Weed Out Pot Sellers
June 28, 2009 Posted by CN Staff By John Hoeffel
Los Angeles, CA -- A city inspector dropped by the Bulldog Cafe Collective on Melrose Avenue last week to see if it was still in business. It was. Inside the spare, modern interior, dusky green marijuana buds were still displayed in plastic jars. An owner who is often at the store tweezed whimsically named strains into small vials for customers.
The store near Hancock Park is among the first 14 medical marijuana dispensaries targeted for extinction by a City Council chagrined that it allowed hundreds to open in Los Angeles despite a 21-month-old moratorium.
The inspections start the process to shut them down. At least one, in Atwater Village, has already closed. But others remain open, weighing their legal options.
City officials plan to decide this week on the next enforcement step.
On Monday, the council will accelerate its drive to roll back the number of dispensaries, holding hearings on 29 more. "We were trying to factor in a significant number so that we can make some headway," said Councilman Ed Reyes, the chairman of the planning committee. "I thought we were going too slow."
As the council embarks on this effort, it faces some obstacles.
The task is herculean, requiring hearings that could easily tie up the planning committee for hundreds of hours. The hearings have been rocky, as council members have struggled with complicated issues and dispensary operators have complained that they were being railroaded. And, if dispensaries refuse to buckle, the city could face costly court battles.
One of the Bulldog Cafe's owners, Anthony Folsom, said the rush to close dispensaries would hurt responsible businessmen and Los Angeles. "The city seems to be caving to political pressure," he said. "People who are in it for the right reason are going to get out, and what they are going to be left with is drug dealers."
The council wound up in this situation because it failed to act on dispensaries' applications for hardship exemptions from the moratorium. That inaction, which lasted almost 17 months, encouraged dispensaries to open; the city attorney's office had decided it could not take dispensaries to court until the council denied their applications.
In the last few months, applications poured in.
On June 9, when the council voted to stop accepting them, there were about 550. The decision did not become effective until Tuesday. By then, the total had hit 883.
"That's a huge number," Reyes said. "Thank God we stopped it."
The moratorium does not spell out what qualifies a dispensary for a hardship exemption, and the city attorney's office has advised the council only that its decisions must be fair and rational.
That vague advice led Councilman Richard Alarcon to warn recently that the city could find itself snarled in lawsuits. "This is a very dangerous road we're going down," he said. "It's going to cost us a ton of money."
Reyes has held just two hearings so far, on the Bulldog Cafe and New Age Wellness, a dispensary that has not yet opened in Venice. They were marked by awkward moments. Council aides presented some inaccurate and unverified information, and Reyes tried to silence the dispensaries' attorneys when they responded to it.
At one point, Stewart Richlin, the attorney for New Age Wellness, leaped up and cried out, "I'd like to challenge that. That's hearsay within hearsay." He kept interrupting until he made his point, which turned out to be correct.
Richlin and medical marijuana advocates were disturbed that Reyes allowed most speakers just one minute.
"Gee, why should they give a full minute?" Richlin said recently. "What if they gave 10 seconds or two seconds? Then you could give your name, and they could say, 'Guilty, death sentence.' I mean this is a kangaroo court.' "
Reyes made no apologies for the procedures. "It's not a debate. It's a hearing," he said. "If it was a debate, I would never finish an item."
The council's decision to reject the applications from the Bulldog Cafe and New Age Wellness suggests it is unlikely to grant many exemptions.
The Bulldog Cafe, which originally opened in North Hollywood, was one of 186 dispensaries that met all of the city's requirements to operate during the moratorium. But its owners say they were forced to move by their landlord, who received a letter from the Drug Enforcement Administration that threatened the landlord with felony charges.
The move required them to get a hardship exemption from the City Council to be allowed to open in a different location.
"This, I think, is the classic hardship case," said Thomas J. Gray, the Bulldog Cafe's attorney.
Many of the city's legal dispensaries, possibly more than 50, filed similar applications when their landlords evicted them after receiving DEA letters. The council appears disinclined to give the letters much weight.
That dismays medical marijuana advocates who believe these dispensaries followed the rules. "I don't understand why the city is going to be hostile with them," said Degé Coutee, who runs the Patient Advocacy Network.
In denying the Bulldog Cafe's application, Reyes noted that the store had moved into the same block as the John C. Fremont library, calling that "an overwhelming factor."
Cindy Chvatal, head of the Hancock Park Homeowners Assn., said many parents whose children use the library and a nearby preschool have complained to her about the dispensary's location.
The city has not adopted an ordinance to control dispensaries and has no restrictions on where they can operate. But, Reyes said, "we have enough common sense to know what we want and don't want."
The council is considering a proposal to keep them 1,000 feet from libraries and other places children frequent.
New Age Wellness claimed as its hardship that it could not open before the moratorium because of uncertainty caused by federal raids and confusion over the city's proposed rules.
Its owners also said they are veteran healthcare professionals. They said that they worked with city officials to plan their store on Rose Avenue so it would comply with any future ordinance and that they have spent at least $108,000.
"We have a lot at stake to lose," said Curt Moore, one of the owners.
But its location also sparked concerns. Neighbors were already irritated by a nearby dispensary.
Whitney Blumenfeld, an aide to Councilman Bill Rosendahl, whose district includes Venice, urged the council to reject the "build it first and ask for forgiveness later" approach.
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: John Hoeffel
Published: June 28, 2009
Copyright: 2009 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
URL: http://drugsense.org/url/rKXV5GEQ
CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives
http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Source: http://cannabisnews.com/news/24/thread24894.shtml
Marijuana POW dies in custody in Houston
June 25th, 2009 By: Russ Belville, NORML Outreach Coordinator
(Raw Story) A woman serving a short sentence in a Houston, Texas, jail for possession of marijuana died in custody over the weekend, and officers are not saying how or why.
The 29-year-old, identified as Theresa Anthony, had expected to spend just two and a half weeks behind bars in the Harris County lockup. On Saturday, Cynthia Prude, Theresa’s mother, received a phone call from the jail’s Chaplain informing her that her daughter was dead.
Theresa Anthony, victim of prohibition
Prude has not been allowed to see the body, nor has the Harris County Sheriff’s Department even spoken with her, according to area media.
On 4 June 2009, the Justice Department concluded a 15 months-long investigation into the Harris County facility and determined in the subsequent 27-page report that over 142 prisoners had died there since 2001. Most expired due to lack of medical care, the report claims.
The Associated Press noted that after the Justice Department declined to make its findings public, The Houston Chronicle was able to obtain a copy, which it released on the Internet.
Wait a minute, how is this possible? According to our last Drug Czar, John Walters, finding a non-violent offender in jail or prison for simple possession is like finding a unicorn.
Theresa Anthony could be you or me. Or could have been a young Barack Obama. Just another dead unicorn, expiring in a cage for the crime of preferring the safest choice of social relaxant or therapeutic medicine.
President Obama, if you can stop giggling for a moment, could you please put “legalization” back on the table? Director Kerlikowske, could you please find the time to add “decriminalization” to your vocabulary? You have the power to see to it that Theresa Anthony is the last unicorn to die in a cell.
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/06/25/marijuana-pow-dies-in-custody-in-houston/
‘The Law and Marijuana’ Chronicles: Why Marijuana Remains Illegal
June 23rd, 2009 By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
Last week Breckenridge Colorado joined the growing chorus of municipalities across America seeking to create a sensible cannabis policy (one, that in principle, is similar to that of alcohol in the recognition between acceptable, responsible adult use and abuse). Even though Colorado is already one of the 13 states that have decriminalized possession amounts of cannabis, following Denver’s lead, Breckenridge voters will soon be asked to make cannabis both a lowest law enforcement priority and the ‘penalty’ for possessing it– nothing. Nada. No fine, no criminal record.
A bright and enthusiastic lawyer with a young and growing family in Breckenridge is one of the chief advocates for this initiative, and in an ongoing ‘The Law and Marijuana‘ series of essays submitted by attorneys from the NORML Legal Committee to be exclusively published by the organization, Sean McAllister opines about why he thinks cannabis prohibition has lasted over 70 years.
-AStP
————————–
By Sean T. McAllister, Esq., Member, NORML Legal Committee (Breckenridge, CO)
Marijuana remains illegal even though public attitudes are clearly changing on this topic. It is illegal even though 100 million Americans have smoked it and suffered little if any negative side effects. It is illegal even though 40% or more of Americans currently support legalization. It is illegal even though it is not physically addictive; you cannot overdose on marijuana; and the dependency rate of marijuana is lower than alcohol.
Marijuana remains illegal even though prohibition is incredibly expensive. The federal government spends at least $10 billion per year specifically on marijuana prohibition. Approximately 60,000 people are in prisons in America on marijuana violations only. If all 15-25 million Americans who smoke marijuana monthly were imprisoned, the country would spend $365 billion per year to incarcerate these people. Considering the country could reap approximately $6.2 billion per year if marijuana were taxed and regulated like alcohol, the war on marijuana easily costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 billion per year.
Marijuana remains illegal even though prohibition has miserably failed. After 35 years of a war on drugs largely targeting marijuana, the same number of high school students now say marijuana is easy to get and they had used it as answered those question in the affirmative in 1975. It remains illegal even though the Obama administration has declared an end to the “war on drugs,” while at the same time laughing off marijuana legalization.
Marijuana prohibition continues even though it empowers Mexican drug cartels. Approximately 60-70% of the profit of Mexican drug cartels comes from marijuana sales. If marijuana were taxed and regulated, this black market would virtually disappear, Mexican drug cartels would be much weaker, and our border would be much more secure.
Despite these facts, most politicians continue support marijuana prohibition. Commission after commission and newspaper editorial board after board may endorse marijuana legalization, but it continues to be ignored in state capitals. Grassroots activism does a great job keeping this issue in the press, but politicians continue to ignore it. Few politicians see it in their narrow interests of reelection to come out in favor of legalization of marijuana.
What follows is a brief analysis of some of the factors that continue to propagate the inertia of marijuana prohibition:
Facts don’t matter
When it comes to marijuana, statistics don’t seem to matter. Costs don’t matter. As noted above, no matter how many billions per year it costs to enforce marijuana prohibition, there seems to be no cost too high to prohibit it. Prohibitionist seem to be saying that there is no cost to high to attempt to limit marijuana use.
Overall use and teen use is lower in countries that have legalized (Amsterdam) or fully decriminalized marijuana (Portugal, Spain, Britian) than in the United States. There is no real evidence that marijuana is a gateway drug (in fact research shows that marijuana is largely a terminus drug - meaning people use nothing more than marijuana throughout their lives).
In Colorado alone, 13,000 people are arrested every year on marijuana charges. Another few hundred are in prison on marijuana charges. In total, Colorado spends around $85 million dollars per year on marijuana prohibition. If Colorado taxed and regulated marijuana, the net gain for the state coffers would be $150 million per year.
None of this seems to matter to those in favor of prohibition. Instead, the debate turns on value judgments and justifications not tried to any empirical data. While those favoring legalization should continue to insist that we deal with empirical data, facts alone will not legalize marijuana.
Prohibition is a hangover of the 60s culture war
By far the greatest impediments to living in a world where marijuana is not criminalized are the left over stereotypes and culture wars from the 1960s and 70s. Those where the decades when the counterculture made widespread marijuana use synonymous with alternative lifestyles and an implicit rejection of mainstream traditional American values.
The classic narrative of drug use in America is that while it may have started out as an innocent and idealized behavior in the 60s, the 70s and early 80s saw the “drug culture” deteriorate into a narcissistic world of selfishness and excess. The irresponsibility of some early users saddled the next several generations with the general notion that marijuana users were not good citizens and their lifestyles did not produce healthy communities and families. Simply put, prohibitionist have succeeded in branding marijuana users as irresponsible and not serious. That perception must change, even if it means more people “coming out of the closet” and showing that marijuana use can occur in conjunction with healthy, intelligent lifestyles.
Marijuana Prohibition Criminalizes Youth and Leads to Skewed Electoral Results
The classic pattern of marijuana use is that people begin experiment with marijuana near the end of high school. Experimentation steadily tappers off through their late 20s and for most people by their mid-30s, marijuana use is a rare or nonexistent experience. As people acquire more responsibility (marriage, children, mortgage), they find less room in their lives for marijuana.
This trend also explains why political change is so hard. As marijuana withers from adults’ habits, they are less likely to pursue or advocate for reform. By a person’s mid-30s, he or she has already quit using marijuana so they have no incentive to seek its legalization. This leads to the general atmosphere of marijuana reform, which is that too few people remain directly affected throughout their lifetimes so as to care about changing marijuana laws. Those that continue to “care,” perhaps care too much and are seen as radicals by the establishment. The reform movement needs to engage past users to help change marijuana laws.
Free rider problem and Selective Enforcement
For those that will continue to use marijuana throughout their lifetime (perhaps 6%-10% of users), there also is little incentive to advocate for legalization. As few as 2 in 100 people ever suffer criminal justice sanctions as a consequence of their marijuana use. Because so few stakeholders feel the effects of prohibition, those with the most at stake in legalization are not in the streets demanding change. The difference between the gay rights movement and marijuana proponents is that by advocating for marijuana rights people immediately subject themselves to criminal prosecution – something no longer possible for gay activists.
Related to the free rider problem is the low stakes involved in most marijuana arrests. With the exception of a few states in the deep south and Utah, in most places marijuana arrests result in a small fine and perhaps community service and/or drug counseling. The popular stereotype that our prisons are filled with people who only smoked marijuana cigarettes is not accurate. Small time users generally do not go to jail, but cultivators and distributors do. Therefore, the lack of serious sanctions has also deflated the potential movement against injustice because the stakes are so small. Why would a doctor or lawyer risk his or her reputation seeking to legalize marijuana when the sanctions are already so slight? Again, these free riders need to be convinced that advocating for marijuana legalization is a “gateway issue” to reforming the larger failed drug war and that they may not avoid prosecution forever.
Inability to have an honest discussion about drugs – lack of acknowledgement of responsible use
Another barrier to societal acceptance of marijuana is the inability to have an honest dialogue about the potential positive benefits of marijuana use. Universally, when drugs and marijuana are discussed in public, the frame of debate is that marijuana use is a self-destructive and unhealthy activity. There is little public acknowledgement that for millions of people occasional and responsible marijuana use has greatly enhanced their lives, such as by making a walk in nature powerfully introspective, by resulting in riotous laughter, or by making their sex lives more fulfilling. Instead, those who are usually the most outspoken about marijuana’s positive aspects tend to preach in a manner that makes marijuana use out to be an unmitigated good, refusing to acknowledge any negative consequences of abuse. The message of legalization must be that while legalization may marginally increase some irresponsible behavior, the savings from ending the war on marijuana will far outstrip any harms.
Just say no is an easy message for parents
Parents have always had a hard time discussing drug use with their children. Many parents are conflicted on this issue because a large percentage of parents once experimented with marijuana. Keeping marijuana illegal gives parents an unassailable reason why their kids should not use it: because it is illegal. The simplicity and utility of prohibition is a major reason that many parents passively support it, even if they privately don’t believe marijuana is harmful. Parents need to be shown alternative methods for keeping their children away from marijuana, such as science based drug education.
A long term minority without a constitutional right protecting them
The main Constitutional defense to marijuana prosecution is that it violates rights to privacy under the 5th and 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, other than Alaska, most experts believe that state privacy rights are not strong enough to protect marijuana use in your own home. There are no other significant constitutional guarantees that can be expected to protect marijuana users. Unlike racial minorities or gays and lesbians, it is unlikely that marijuana users can seek refuge in Constitutional clauses for their activities. With only 15-25 million regular users, about 10%-15% of all adults in America, it is unlikely that a majority of American adults will ever use marijuana on a regular basis as long as it is illegal. Without a constitutional right to protect them, it is unlikely they will be able to muster electoral majorities in the next 10-15 years to end their persecution.
Discomfort with Freedom
Despite America being the “land of the free and home of the brave,” in practice there appears to be a significant resistance and discomfort with giving people the freedom to make potentially bad choices. Regardless of how many can use marijuana safely or responsibly, if some abuse it, many will oppose legalizing it. This inherent discomfort with the actual practice of freedom is a major cultural hurdle to legalization.
The many have always paid for the poor choices of the few. Marijuana prohibition is by definition a preemptive war which seeks to criminalize all who use marijuana because a few may abuse it. While America seems to recognizing the futility of preemptive wars, there is still a strong undercurrent of support for this type of reaction.
Discomfort with Marijuana Intoxication Compared with Alcohol
There is no principled distinction between alcohol and marijuana intoxication. The Attorney General of Colorado says that people can drink alcohol in “sub-intoxicating doses,” which seems only possible for those chronic users of alcohol who are not affected by small amounts. Of course, the mild psychedelic or psychological aspects of the marijuana are different than alcohol. The paranoia resulting from marijuana use in a small number of users is among its most common psychological negative effect. While most people experience great insight and pleasure from the use of marijuana, others experience this paranoia. The general discomfort with psychedelic or spiritual experiences related to marijuana use lead many to a conclusion that it should not be widely used. Again, this is the many paying for the negative consequences of the few.
Conclusion
Marijuana legalization is gaining steam. I believe firmly that in my lifetime it will be legal for both medical and recreational purposes. What seems necessary at this point is to build a movement of tolerance for responsible marijuana users’ rights to be left alone. This tolerance will also need to acknowledge that a small minority of people may abuse their freedom if marijuana is legalized and that society will need to deal with those negative effects. Surely all the money saved on incarceration and prohibition would cover the costs of any negative effects of legalization. Rather than spending another generation toiling under a failed system, I hope we can end this failed preemptive war on marijuana soon. However, it will not end until the reform movement addresses the above concerns and transforms the debate back into a human-centered fact-based dialogue which focuses on reasonable solutions rather than ideology.
Sean T. McAllister, Esq.
McAllister Law Office, P.C.
PO Box 3903
Breckenridge, CO 80424
970-453-6594
www.mcallisterlawoffice.com
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/06/23/the-law-and-marijuana-chronicles-why-marijuana-remains-illegal/
Fox News Infected With “Reefer Madness”
June 17th, 2009 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
Fox News is running an alarmist story today under the outrageous headline,“Marijuana Not Only Gets You High, It Damages Your DNA.”
The ‘news’ story, which several other mainstream media outlets are also promoting, is based on a new British studyassessing the effects of, ahem, “calf thymus DNA treated in vitro (in a Petri dish) … with the smoke generated from 1, 5, and 10 cannabis cigarettes.”
Yes, really.
So how did Fox “We report, you decide” News summarize this non-story? Let’s take a look.
What Fox News reported: “Smoking marijuana not only gets you high, but it also alters your DNA.”
What the study actually said: “[T]hese results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke, implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human healthwith the possibility to initiate cancer development.”
What Fox News reported: “There have been many studies on the toxicity of tobacco smoke,” researcher Rajinder Singh said in a news release. “Cannabis in contrast has not been so well studied.”
What Fox News didn’t report: From the March 2009 issue of the scientific journal Medicinal Research Reviews, “Research on the chemistry and pharmacology of cannabinoids and endocannabinoids has reached enormous proportions. … [A]pproximately 15,000 articles on Cannabis sativa L. and cannabinoids and over 2,000 articles on endocannabinoids (are available in the scientific literature).”
What Fox News reported: “Singh said cannabis smoke contains 400 compounds including 60 cannabinoids. It also contains 50 percent more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke, Singh added.”
What Fox News didn’t report: From the November 2007 issue of the scientific journal Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, “Vaporization of marijuana does not result in exposure to combustion gases, … and [was] preferred by most subjects compared to marijuana cigarettes. … The Volcano [vaporizer] device is an effective and apparently safe vehicle for THC delivery, and warrants further investigation in clinical trials of cannabis for medical purposes.”
What Fox News reported: “‘The smoking of 3-4 cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day,’ the team wrote in the journal.”
Except for the fact that it isn’t. In fact, here’s what Donald Tashkin of the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, had to say about the subject earlier this month in an interview with the McClatchy newspaper chain. (**Note: Dr. Tashkin has performed US-government sponsored studies of marijuana and lung function for over 30 years and is considered to be the United States’ — if not the world’s — foremost expert on the subject.)
“What we found instead was no association (between marijuana smoking and cancer) and even a suggestion of some protective (anti-cancer) effect. … Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects. But at this point, I’d be in favor of legalization (of marijuana). I wouldn’t encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don’t think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm.”
Just for the record, in 2006, Tashkin led the largest population case-control study (yes, Dr. Tashkin actually performed research on humans, not ‘calf thymus DNA’) ever to assess the use of marijuana and lung cancer risk. The study, which included more than 2,200 subjects (1,212 cases and 1,040 controls), reported that marijuana smoking was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or upper aerodigestive tract – even among individuals who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints during their lifetime.
Let the folks at Fox put that in their pipe and smoke it.
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/06/17/fox-news-infected-with-reefer-madness/
'Drug kingpin' sentenced to nine years in prison
By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer (Tulsa World)
A “drug kingpin” was sentenced Tuesday to nine years in prison for participating in a continuing criminal enterprise that brought large amounts of illegal drugs from Mexico into the Tulsa and Kansas City areas.
Mario Orion Bonilla, 24, pleaded guilty Nov. 25 to violating the federal drug-kingpin statute, which pertains to defendants who purportedly occupied management roles in drug-trafficking organizations involving at least five people who engaged in a series of felonies and made a substantial profit.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Allen Litchfield told the court Tuesday that Bonilla was a leader in the conspiracy.
The case involved thousands of kilograms of marijuana and multiple kilograms of cocaine and methamphetamine, according to a document Litchfield filed in federal district court last week. However, Bonilla’s plea pertained only to the marijuana aspect of the plot.
Bonilla was among 11 defendants named in a March 2008 indictment by a Tulsa federal grand jury. Among the others was Manuel Bonilla, Mario Bonilla’s 37-year-old brother who also has been charged under the drug-kingpin statute.
Litchfield said Tuesday that, to his knowledge, Manuel Bonilla is still at large in Mexico. U.S. authorities eventually will attempt to have Manuel Bonilla extradited, he said.
In his plea agreement, Mario Bonilla said, “I was involved with my brother, Manuel Bonilla, in transporting the illegal drug marijuana.” Later in the document, Mario Bonilla claimed that “the drugs originated in Mexico and were controlled by a man named Jose Saenz.”
Co-defendant Jose Luis Saenz-Diaz — who was captured last October in El Paso, Texas — was sentenced May 14 by U.S. Chief District Judge Claire Eagan to 24 years and five months in prison for conspiring to bring cocaine into the United States from Mexico.
Saenz, 37, pleaded guilty in February, admitting that he took part in a plot to bring between 50 and 150 kilograms of cocaine into the United States.
As part of their sentences, Eagan entered a $1.5 million judgment ordering Saenz-Diaz, Mario Bonilla and several other defendants to give up what authorities believe to be drug proceeds.
Eagan also ordered that Mario Bonilla be under court supervision for five years after his eventual release from prison.
Source:
Lawmakers Call For An End To Federal Marijuana Prosecutions
June 18th, 2009 By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
Washington, DC: Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, along with co-sponsors Ron Paul (R-TX); Maurice Hinchey (D-NY); Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA); and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), will reintroduce legislation today to limit the federal government’s authority to arrest and prosecute minor marijuana offenders.
The measure, entitled an “Act to Remove Federal Penalties for Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults,” would eliminate federal penalties for the personal possession of up to 100 grams (over three and one-half ounces) of cannabis and for the not-for-profit transfer of up to one ounce of pot – making the prosecutions of these offenses strictly a state matter.
Under federal law, defendants found guilty of possessing small amounts of cannabis for their own personal use face up to one year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.
Passage of this act would provide state lawmakers the choice to maintain their current penalties for minor marijuana offenses or eliminate them completely. Lawmakers would also have the option to explore legal alternatives to tax and regulate the adult use and distribution of cannabis free from federal interference.
To date, thirteen states have enacted laws ‘decriminalizing’ the possession of marijuana by adults. Minor marijuana offenders face a citation and small fine in lieu of a criminal arrest or time in jail.
“The federal government has much more important business to attend to than targeting, arresting and prosecuting adults who use marijuana responsibly,” NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said. “This is an issue that ought to be handled by the states, not the Feds.”
According to nationwide polls, three out of four voters believe that adults who possess marijuana should not face arrest or jail, and one out of two now say that cannabis should be regulated like alcohol.
The reintroduction of the Frank/Paul bill comes one week after the duo reintroduced HR 2835, The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act of 2009 – which seeks to halt federal interference in states that have enacted medical marijuana laws – and just days after Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) called for federal legislation to sentence certain first-time marijuana offenders to 25 years in prison.
“The US Congress has a definite choice,” said St. Pierre. “They can choose the path of compassion, fiscal responsibility, and common sense by supporting Barney Frank’s and Ron Paul’s efforts, or they can continue down America’s failed drug war path by endorsing Rep. Kirk’s draconian legislation. It is abundantly clear which direction the voters wish to go; will their elected officials follow?”
Additional information about the ‘Act to Remove Federal Penalties for Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults’ is available at NORML’sTake Action Center.
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/06/18/lawmakers-call-for-an-end-to-federal-marijuana-prosecutions/
Source: http://blog.norml.org/2009/06/18/lawmakers-call-for-an-end-to-federal-marijuana-prosecutions/
Updates
Recent Additions
According to new poll, majority of Americans support marijuana legalization
December 10th, 2009 By: Russ Belville, NORML Outreach Coordinator
53% support for marijuana legalization! This...
Will Foster is Free! He Walked Out of Prison in Oklahoma Today
November 25th, 2009 By: Phillip Smith, Chronicle Blog
Medical marijuana patient Will Foster is a free man. According to a phone call I just received from his partner, Susan Mueller, Foster was released...
Recommendation of Release by Will Foster's Judge
November 12th, 2009 By: Garret Overstreet, Tulsa NORML
The judge in Will Foster's case recommended Wednesday that Will Foster be released and not sent back to prison. This came as a surprise Wednesday...
BREAKING NEWS: California Lawmakers To Debate Marijuana Legalization Tomorrow!
October 27th, 2009: By Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
California state lawmakers arescheduled to hear testimony tomorrow in support of taxing and regulating the commercial production and distribution of marijuana for adults age 21 and...
Four Prohibition Pragmatists And A Drug War Whore
October 25th, 2009: By Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
A quick review from this week's avalanche of cannabis-related news, comes a stark contrast that reveals: Four Prohibition Pragmatists And A Drug War Whore
Prohibition Pragmaticism
Wisconsin - When...
