Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
MASSACHUSETTS: UP IN SMOKE
UP IN SMOKE
Pot, Politics and the Public. The Move to Decriminalize Marijuana.
Shelley doesn't want her real name used.
She's 40 years old, the mother of four, a full-time professional in a Worcester office. And a pot smoker.
Eleven years ago, she was going through a painful divorce and taking Zoloft to help her cope.
"It was awful. I didn't feel good, I didn't feel depressed, I didn't feel anything. My physician at the time said, 'Look, I'm not supposed to tell you this, but there is something that could help you.'"
He didn't "prescribe" marijuana, she says, but suggested there might be some benefits. Shelley came off the Zoloft and began smoking several nights a week out by the fire pit in her backyard, usually after 9 p.m. If it rained, she retreated to the garage.
The pot relaxes her, helps her sleep. She said she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder dating back to childhood, and the weed "re-sets me." She continues the ritual of a few nightly tokes, which she equates to the glass of wine someone else might drink after a long day.
There is one significant difference.
"I would lose everything if I got caught," she says, shaking her head. "For what? For smoking an herb that comes out of the earth."
Shelley has been writing checks to the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy ( CSMP ), the group promoting the passage of Question 2 on the Nov. 4 ballot. Question 2 would decriminalize the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by replacing arrest and judicial processing with a system of civil penalties. That baggie of grass, so long as its weight stays beneath the magic number, would net the holder a $100 fine, and no permanent criminal record.
Whether or not marijuana should be legalized is a debate that has been waged in fits and starts since pot became the drug of choice for a new generation. Currently, 12 states have decriminalized marijuana at some level ( see sidebar ). Nevada was the most recent to decriminalize, in 2001.
Now it's Massachusetts' turn to wrestle with the question of whether the full force of the criminal justice system should be brought to bear on low-level marijuana offenses. Question 2 made it to the ballot in large part because of the financial backing of billionaire George Soros, who in 2007 contributed $400,000 to the ballot campaign. In 2000 Soros contributed heavily to a failed ballot question that would have softened penalties for manufacturing or distributing controlled substances.
Despite the heat generated between proponents and detractors, Question 2 has largely flown below the radar, subsumed by a highly charged presidential campaign, Wall Street woes and beetle invasions. It's not even the most controversial question on the Nov. 4 ballot: that title goes to Question 1, the repeal of the state income tax.
Still, while national leadership and pocketbook issues dominate the airwaves, both sides on the pot decriminalization issue are ramping up efforts to convince the public this is either the best or worst idea to come down the Mass Pike in a long time.
$29.5 Million.
That's the amount CSMP pegs as the potential savings if the one-ounce law is passed. The figure comes from a 2002 study by Jeffrey A. Miron, Senior Lecturer on Economics at Harvard University ( updated to reflect 2008 values ), who with several studies on the topic under his belt has become something of a pied piper on decriminalizing marijuana.
Miron contends that tens of millions of dollars are being spent in law enforcement, judicial and corrections resources in connection with marijuana-related incidents. Resources, he says, that could be better deployed.
"This is a modest proposal," says CSMP spokesperson Whitney Taylor. "We're saying that $29.5 million should stay in public coffers to fight serious or violent crimes. Jeff's economic model shows that once a cop puts the cuffs on somebody, he's [the police officer] off the street. He gets paid to go to court ... there are a lot of law enforcement costs. We just think the money could be put to better use."
Taylor says the proposed law also means that someone arrested for a marijuana offense will not have his or her name listed permanently as part of CORI ( Criminal Offender Record Information ), as is presently the case. A CORI check reveals if a person has been arrested, even if the charges are dismissed. Such an arrest, Taylor insists, can be a lifelong barrier to employment, housing, coaching youth sports, becoming a foster or adoptive parent, or obtaining professional licensure.
"With Question 2, the penalty would fit the crime," Taylor says. "Those lifelong barriers would not be there.
"We don't promote or condone marijuana use," she adds. "This is a criminal justice issue to us." In the case of youthful offenders, Taylor says, the CSMP proposal brings parents or guardians into the loop immediately, since the citation is delivered directly to them. The offender is then required to complete a drug awareness course and community service.
"You put a kid in an orange jumpsuit picking up trash as his friends go by, that's an effective punishment," she says.
"A dopey smokescreen" is William Breault's favorite description of Question 2 ( his favorite term for Soros: "Sugar daddy of drug legalization" ). It pops up in the packet of anti-legalization literature he's been passing out. It crops up in conversation. It's the rallying cry he's using in his Sherman's March from the Berkshires to New Bedford to torch the arguments of his opponents. For months the director of the Main South Alliance for Public Safety has been visiting police chiefs, mayors and public officials of every grade to spread the message that decriminalizing possession of even small amounts of marijuana is a bad idea.
"If you lower the bar on use, then abuse will rise. If this passes, getting caught with an ounce will be like getting a speeding ticket," he says, noting that an ounce is the equivalent of about 40 joints.
Breault bristles at the suggestion that marijuana is not a gateway drug to harder stuff.
"I've seen it," he says. "I've lived with it. Through the years I've seen people [with drug problems] who started smoking a joint at age 12, and the fact is if they don't smoke that joint they have a 70 percent better chance of not moving on to harder drugs."
He cites a report by the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association that, in turn, pulls together studies done by organizations like the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, that shows marijuana use has declined significantly among teenagers since 2001. Decriminalizing the drug, they insist, could reverse that downward trend.
One thing both sides seem to agree on -- although they don't acknowledge that they agree -- is that few people actually do prison time for possession of marijuana. Representatives from each side say it's not true that thousands are languishing in jails for pot possession while murderers and rapists roam free.
"Nobody goes to jail for simple possession," says Worcester District Attorney Joseph Early Jr., who has joined the other 10 D.A.s throughout the state to oppose Question 2. Early says possession is typically not a stand-alone charge, and is often clumped with other offenses like assault and battery or operating under the influence.
The D.A. touts his Diversion Program, which allows offenders ages 17 to 23 to do eight hours of community service, take a substance abuse counseling class online, and stay clean ( testing is done ), after which possession charges are dismissed. Early stresses that all this is done pre-arraignment, which keeps the charge off the offender's permanent record.
The catch: you only get one bite of the apple. Subsequent arrests are handled in standard fashion. Still, he notes, possession of an ounce or less results in a continued-without-finding for six months, and if there are no violations in that time, the person's record is sealed.
"We've got to look at it and say, 'Why are we doing this?'" Early says of Question 2. As a matter of public safety, it's a no-brainer, he believes, citing the incidence of motor vehicle and workplace accidents due to marijuana use.
Early and Breault note that the pot being smoked circa 2008 is a far cry from the stuff the baby boomers inhaled during the Summer of Love. Breault points to a study by the University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project that found levels of THC -- the main psychoactive substance in cannabis -- in samples the university tested are more than double what they were in 1983 thanks to advanced growing methods. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy also recently released a report that using marijuana increases the risk of developing mental disorders by 40 percent, and that teenagers who use are three times more likely to have suicidal thoughts than nonusers.
Taylor says opponents are throwing up red herrings to refute CSMP's arguments, especially regarding the amount of prison time, or lack of, for offenders.
"We've never said the prisons are full of people arrested for possession of marijuana. We know that's not true," she says. "If you look at the other states that have decriminalized marijuana, an ounce is about the median amount. This is a pragmatic course of action."
She contests the assertions of Breault and others that marijuana is a gateway to harder drugs.
"That's like saying every person who rides a bicycle is going to ride a motorcycle," Taylor says.
Not all local government officials oppose the relaxing of weed laws.
State Rep. Jim O'Day ( D-Worcester ) supports Question 2, and says the key is to educate voters that the measure is not a blanket attempt to legalize marijuana.
"If it was, I'd vote against it," he says. Until the CORI system can be reformed, a pot arrest "haunts someone for a long time. If you can keep them off of CORI and there is a fine associated with an offense, there is still a consequence to negative behavior."
O'Day, a former bar owner, says "alcohol is the true gateway drug."
"I've seen behavior in people drinking that would boggle your mind," he says. "I can't remember ever seeing the violence and rage in people who smoke marijuana that I've seen in people when they're drinking."
State Sen. Harriette Chandler ( D-Worcester ) offers the prevailing legislative view that the laws are working. The "current law is satisfactory," she says. "The district attorney and the police know how to implement them. The laws are there and I see no reason to change them."
For now, Shelley, will continue to quietly write checks in support of Question 2.
"Just saying pot is bad isn't enough," she says. "Saying I can't use it responsibly is not enough. I'm sorry, but people don't go from being potheads to being cokeheads because they like what pot does and they want more. They go from pot to coke, or something else, because they don't like the buzz they get from pot.
"Look, I'm involved in the community, I pay my taxes, my kids aren't troublemakers. I don't drive when I'm high. If this passes, I wouldn't change the precautions I take when it comes to smoking pot. It's still a pretty intimate act."
[sidebar]
WHAT IT MEANS
If Question 2 passes, the new law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be fined $100; those under 18 would also pay a fine of $100 and be required to complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense. The program would include 10 hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion about the use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs.
If the underage offenders don't complete the program, the fine could be increased to as much as $1,000, unless the offender showed an inability to pay, or an inability to participate in such a program. The offender's parents could also be held liable for the increased penalty. Anyone under 17 who fails to complete the program could be subject to a delinquency proceeding.
Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing any other penalty, sanction or disqualifications, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana.
The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred.
. Summary from the Attorney General's Office
[sidebar By Andy Sullivan]
RALLY GOERS: IT'S HIGH TIME FOR CHANGE
"Vote yes" on Question 2, the Massachusetts Sensible Marijuana Initiative Policy, was the cry for thousands of supporters on Boston Common for the 19th annual Freedom Rally Sept. 20. With a mix of activists, supporters and hippies of all ages, the field was littered with acoustic guitars, games of hacky sack and a hazy cloud of smoke. It was a relatively peaceful gathering filled with live music and vendors. Worcester-area residents made the trip to Boston and found the event a unique experience.
"It's a positive environment," said Sean LeVoir, 20, of Worcester. "There's a lot of love going on around here.
"It's definitely not what I was expecting," he said. "I thought it would be some crazy festival and everyone would be smoking pot. There's really not that much weed-smoking going around. It's more for the cause, I think."
The event was co-sponsored by the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition ( MassCann ) and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Some felt the benefit of the rally was the chance to share their opinions about marijuana use in an open forum.
"If people get together, it'd be nice to see some changes," said John Jacobs, 17, of Holden. "I don't think it's bad for anyone, as long as you are responsible enough to control it."
LeVoir thinks Massachusetts could benefit from a change.
"Massachusetts tends to be a state that tries to impose laws on freedoms and keep people from doing what they want," said LeVoir. "People should be able to smoke weed if they want. There are a bunch of things that are much more addicting. Nicotine is at the top of the list, and you can buy that."
Police patrolled the area all afternoon; Six arrests were made. Steven Epstein, a MassCann founder, said he hopes people don't fall into the trap of perceiving the rally as a haven for slackers and troublemakers, but rather as a call for reform.
With Question 2 appearing on the ballot, this year's event took on more significance, Epstein said.
"If you take away the criminal aspect of [marijuana] and the forbidden fruit, kids have become less interested," he said.
The rally seemed to have the kind of impact Epstein was anticipating. Rally goers who were interviewed said they plan to make Question 2 a priority when they cast their vote. The new policy would be a $100 fine, without any further disciplinary action for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana.
"It's been passed in 11 other states," said Courtney Caramillo of Worcester. "Why couldn't it be successful here?"
[sidebar]
WHAT OTHER STATES DO
Currently, 12 states have decriminalized marijuana at some level -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon.
A sampling of the penalties:
New York issues a civil citation for the first two offenses of possessing 25 grams or less, and fines of $100 and $200 respectively. A third offense is a misdemeanor, which can result in five days incarceration and/or a fine of $250.
In Colorado, possession of less than 100 grams is considered a "minor misdemeanor," which does not create a public record.
Nebraska issues a civil citation and fine of $300 for a first offense of 1 ounce or less. There is also the possibility the offender may have to take a drug education course.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n899/a07.html
Newshawk: http://www.MassCann.org/
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Thu, 25 Sep 2008
Source: Worcester Magazine (MA)
Page: Cover Feature - Image www.mapinc.org/images/UpinSmoke.jpg
Copyright: 2008 Worcester Publishing Ltd
Contact: editorial@worcestermag.com
Website: http://www.worcestermag.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2124
Author: Jim Keogh
Cited: Question 2 http://sensiblemarijuanapolicy.org/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Committee+for+Sensible+Marijuana+Policy
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?161 (Marijuana - Regulation)
Pot, Politics and the Public. The Move to Decriminalize Marijuana.
Shelley doesn't want her real name used.
She's 40 years old, the mother of four, a full-time professional in a Worcester office. And a pot smoker.
Eleven years ago, she was going through a painful divorce and taking Zoloft to help her cope.
"It was awful. I didn't feel good, I didn't feel depressed, I didn't feel anything. My physician at the time said, 'Look, I'm not supposed to tell you this, but there is something that could help you.'"
He didn't "prescribe" marijuana, she says, but suggested there might be some benefits. Shelley came off the Zoloft and began smoking several nights a week out by the fire pit in her backyard, usually after 9 p.m. If it rained, she retreated to the garage.
The pot relaxes her, helps her sleep. She said she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder dating back to childhood, and the weed "re-sets me." She continues the ritual of a few nightly tokes, which she equates to the glass of wine someone else might drink after a long day.
There is one significant difference.
"I would lose everything if I got caught," she says, shaking her head. "For what? For smoking an herb that comes out of the earth."
Shelley has been writing checks to the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy ( CSMP ), the group promoting the passage of Question 2 on the Nov. 4 ballot. Question 2 would decriminalize the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by replacing arrest and judicial processing with a system of civil penalties. That baggie of grass, so long as its weight stays beneath the magic number, would net the holder a $100 fine, and no permanent criminal record.
Whether or not marijuana should be legalized is a debate that has been waged in fits and starts since pot became the drug of choice for a new generation. Currently, 12 states have decriminalized marijuana at some level ( see sidebar ). Nevada was the most recent to decriminalize, in 2001.
Now it's Massachusetts' turn to wrestle with the question of whether the full force of the criminal justice system should be brought to bear on low-level marijuana offenses. Question 2 made it to the ballot in large part because of the financial backing of billionaire George Soros, who in 2007 contributed $400,000 to the ballot campaign. In 2000 Soros contributed heavily to a failed ballot question that would have softened penalties for manufacturing or distributing controlled substances.
Despite the heat generated between proponents and detractors, Question 2 has largely flown below the radar, subsumed by a highly charged presidential campaign, Wall Street woes and beetle invasions. It's not even the most controversial question on the Nov. 4 ballot: that title goes to Question 1, the repeal of the state income tax.
Still, while national leadership and pocketbook issues dominate the airwaves, both sides on the pot decriminalization issue are ramping up efforts to convince the public this is either the best or worst idea to come down the Mass Pike in a long time.
$29.5 Million.
That's the amount CSMP pegs as the potential savings if the one-ounce law is passed. The figure comes from a 2002 study by Jeffrey A. Miron, Senior Lecturer on Economics at Harvard University ( updated to reflect 2008 values ), who with several studies on the topic under his belt has become something of a pied piper on decriminalizing marijuana.
Miron contends that tens of millions of dollars are being spent in law enforcement, judicial and corrections resources in connection with marijuana-related incidents. Resources, he says, that could be better deployed.
"This is a modest proposal," says CSMP spokesperson Whitney Taylor. "We're saying that $29.5 million should stay in public coffers to fight serious or violent crimes. Jeff's economic model shows that once a cop puts the cuffs on somebody, he's [the police officer] off the street. He gets paid to go to court ... there are a lot of law enforcement costs. We just think the money could be put to better use."
Taylor says the proposed law also means that someone arrested for a marijuana offense will not have his or her name listed permanently as part of CORI ( Criminal Offender Record Information ), as is presently the case. A CORI check reveals if a person has been arrested, even if the charges are dismissed. Such an arrest, Taylor insists, can be a lifelong barrier to employment, housing, coaching youth sports, becoming a foster or adoptive parent, or obtaining professional licensure.
"With Question 2, the penalty would fit the crime," Taylor says. "Those lifelong barriers would not be there.
"We don't promote or condone marijuana use," she adds. "This is a criminal justice issue to us." In the case of youthful offenders, Taylor says, the CSMP proposal brings parents or guardians into the loop immediately, since the citation is delivered directly to them. The offender is then required to complete a drug awareness course and community service.
"You put a kid in an orange jumpsuit picking up trash as his friends go by, that's an effective punishment," she says.
"A dopey smokescreen" is William Breault's favorite description of Question 2 ( his favorite term for Soros: "Sugar daddy of drug legalization" ). It pops up in the packet of anti-legalization literature he's been passing out. It crops up in conversation. It's the rallying cry he's using in his Sherman's March from the Berkshires to New Bedford to torch the arguments of his opponents. For months the director of the Main South Alliance for Public Safety has been visiting police chiefs, mayors and public officials of every grade to spread the message that decriminalizing possession of even small amounts of marijuana is a bad idea.
"If you lower the bar on use, then abuse will rise. If this passes, getting caught with an ounce will be like getting a speeding ticket," he says, noting that an ounce is the equivalent of about 40 joints.
Breault bristles at the suggestion that marijuana is not a gateway drug to harder stuff.
"I've seen it," he says. "I've lived with it. Through the years I've seen people [with drug problems] who started smoking a joint at age 12, and the fact is if they don't smoke that joint they have a 70 percent better chance of not moving on to harder drugs."
He cites a report by the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association that, in turn, pulls together studies done by organizations like the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, that shows marijuana use has declined significantly among teenagers since 2001. Decriminalizing the drug, they insist, could reverse that downward trend.
One thing both sides seem to agree on -- although they don't acknowledge that they agree -- is that few people actually do prison time for possession of marijuana. Representatives from each side say it's not true that thousands are languishing in jails for pot possession while murderers and rapists roam free.
"Nobody goes to jail for simple possession," says Worcester District Attorney Joseph Early Jr., who has joined the other 10 D.A.s throughout the state to oppose Question 2. Early says possession is typically not a stand-alone charge, and is often clumped with other offenses like assault and battery or operating under the influence.
The D.A. touts his Diversion Program, which allows offenders ages 17 to 23 to do eight hours of community service, take a substance abuse counseling class online, and stay clean ( testing is done ), after which possession charges are dismissed. Early stresses that all this is done pre-arraignment, which keeps the charge off the offender's permanent record.
The catch: you only get one bite of the apple. Subsequent arrests are handled in standard fashion. Still, he notes, possession of an ounce or less results in a continued-without-finding for six months, and if there are no violations in that time, the person's record is sealed.
"We've got to look at it and say, 'Why are we doing this?'" Early says of Question 2. As a matter of public safety, it's a no-brainer, he believes, citing the incidence of motor vehicle and workplace accidents due to marijuana use.
Early and Breault note that the pot being smoked circa 2008 is a far cry from the stuff the baby boomers inhaled during the Summer of Love. Breault points to a study by the University of Mississippi's Potency Monitoring Project that found levels of THC -- the main psychoactive substance in cannabis -- in samples the university tested are more than double what they were in 1983 thanks to advanced growing methods. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy also recently released a report that using marijuana increases the risk of developing mental disorders by 40 percent, and that teenagers who use are three times more likely to have suicidal thoughts than nonusers.
Taylor says opponents are throwing up red herrings to refute CSMP's arguments, especially regarding the amount of prison time, or lack of, for offenders.
"We've never said the prisons are full of people arrested for possession of marijuana. We know that's not true," she says. "If you look at the other states that have decriminalized marijuana, an ounce is about the median amount. This is a pragmatic course of action."
She contests the assertions of Breault and others that marijuana is a gateway to harder drugs.
"That's like saying every person who rides a bicycle is going to ride a motorcycle," Taylor says.
Not all local government officials oppose the relaxing of weed laws.
State Rep. Jim O'Day ( D-Worcester ) supports Question 2, and says the key is to educate voters that the measure is not a blanket attempt to legalize marijuana.
"If it was, I'd vote against it," he says. Until the CORI system can be reformed, a pot arrest "haunts someone for a long time. If you can keep them off of CORI and there is a fine associated with an offense, there is still a consequence to negative behavior."
O'Day, a former bar owner, says "alcohol is the true gateway drug."
"I've seen behavior in people drinking that would boggle your mind," he says. "I can't remember ever seeing the violence and rage in people who smoke marijuana that I've seen in people when they're drinking."
State Sen. Harriette Chandler ( D-Worcester ) offers the prevailing legislative view that the laws are working. The "current law is satisfactory," she says. "The district attorney and the police know how to implement them. The laws are there and I see no reason to change them."
For now, Shelley, will continue to quietly write checks in support of Question 2.
"Just saying pot is bad isn't enough," she says. "Saying I can't use it responsibly is not enough. I'm sorry, but people don't go from being potheads to being cokeheads because they like what pot does and they want more. They go from pot to coke, or something else, because they don't like the buzz they get from pot.
"Look, I'm involved in the community, I pay my taxes, my kids aren't troublemakers. I don't drive when I'm high. If this passes, I wouldn't change the precautions I take when it comes to smoking pot. It's still a pretty intimate act."
[sidebar]
WHAT IT MEANS
If Question 2 passes, the new law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be fined $100; those under 18 would also pay a fine of $100 and be required to complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense. The program would include 10 hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion about the use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs.
If the underage offenders don't complete the program, the fine could be increased to as much as $1,000, unless the offender showed an inability to pay, or an inability to participate in such a program. The offender's parents could also be held liable for the increased penalty. Anyone under 17 who fails to complete the program could be subject to a delinquency proceeding.
Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing any other penalty, sanction or disqualifications, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana.
The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred.
. Summary from the Attorney General's Office
[sidebar By Andy Sullivan]
RALLY GOERS: IT'S HIGH TIME FOR CHANGE
"Vote yes" on Question 2, the Massachusetts Sensible Marijuana Initiative Policy, was the cry for thousands of supporters on Boston Common for the 19th annual Freedom Rally Sept. 20. With a mix of activists, supporters and hippies of all ages, the field was littered with acoustic guitars, games of hacky sack and a hazy cloud of smoke. It was a relatively peaceful gathering filled with live music and vendors. Worcester-area residents made the trip to Boston and found the event a unique experience.
"It's a positive environment," said Sean LeVoir, 20, of Worcester. "There's a lot of love going on around here.
"It's definitely not what I was expecting," he said. "I thought it would be some crazy festival and everyone would be smoking pot. There's really not that much weed-smoking going around. It's more for the cause, I think."
The event was co-sponsored by the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition ( MassCann ) and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Some felt the benefit of the rally was the chance to share their opinions about marijuana use in an open forum.
"If people get together, it'd be nice to see some changes," said John Jacobs, 17, of Holden. "I don't think it's bad for anyone, as long as you are responsible enough to control it."
LeVoir thinks Massachusetts could benefit from a change.
"Massachusetts tends to be a state that tries to impose laws on freedoms and keep people from doing what they want," said LeVoir. "People should be able to smoke weed if they want. There are a bunch of things that are much more addicting. Nicotine is at the top of the list, and you can buy that."
Police patrolled the area all afternoon; Six arrests were made. Steven Epstein, a MassCann founder, said he hopes people don't fall into the trap of perceiving the rally as a haven for slackers and troublemakers, but rather as a call for reform.
With Question 2 appearing on the ballot, this year's event took on more significance, Epstein said.
"If you take away the criminal aspect of [marijuana] and the forbidden fruit, kids have become less interested," he said.
The rally seemed to have the kind of impact Epstein was anticipating. Rally goers who were interviewed said they plan to make Question 2 a priority when they cast their vote. The new policy would be a $100 fine, without any further disciplinary action for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana.
"It's been passed in 11 other states," said Courtney Caramillo of Worcester. "Why couldn't it be successful here?"
[sidebar]
WHAT OTHER STATES DO
Currently, 12 states have decriminalized marijuana at some level -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon.
A sampling of the penalties:
New York issues a civil citation for the first two offenses of possessing 25 grams or less, and fines of $100 and $200 respectively. A third offense is a misdemeanor, which can result in five days incarceration and/or a fine of $250.
In Colorado, possession of less than 100 grams is considered a "minor misdemeanor," which does not create a public record.
Nebraska issues a civil citation and fine of $300 for a first offense of 1 ounce or less. There is also the possibility the offender may have to take a drug education course.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n899/a07.html
Newshawk: http://www.MassCann.org/
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Thu, 25 Sep 2008
Source: Worcester Magazine (MA)
Page: Cover Feature - Image www.mapinc.org/images/UpinSmoke.jpg
Copyright: 2008 Worcester Publishing Ltd
Contact: editorial@worcestermag.com
Website: http://www.worcestermag.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2124
Author: Jim Keogh
Cited: Question 2 http://sensiblemarijuanapolicy.org/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Committee+for+Sensible+Marijuana+Policy
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?161 (Marijuana - Regulation)
Friday, September 26, 2008
POLL: MICHIGAN VOTERS LEAN TOWARD APPROVAL OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA, STEM CELL RESEARCH
A majority of Michiganians is inclined to legalize marijuana for sick
people, but a second statewide ballot proposal to relax restrictions
on stem cell research in Michigan is a closer contest -- and the
advertising blitz has just begun on that measure.
The latest Detroit News-WXYZ Action News poll found that the voters,
by a 59-37 margin, favor the ballot proposal to allow terminally and
seriously ill people to legally use marijuana if a doctor certified
the drug could ease their suffering.
The statewide poll was conducted for The News, WXYZ and three
outstate television stations from Saturday to Monday by Lansing's
EPIC-MRA. It showed that the biggest backers were women (63 percent
support), Metro Detroiters (60 percent) and Democrats (68 percent).
Among men, the proposal garnered 51 percent support and 49 percent of
Republicans favored it.
If Proposal 1 is approved by voters in November, Michigan would
become the 13th state to legalize medical marijuana. Supporters
estimate that as many as 50,000 Michigan residents would legally
qualify for medical marijuana to treat a host of "debilitating"
medical problems such as cancer, HIV /AIDS, hepatitis C, Alzheimer's
disease, Crohn's disease and chronic diseases or their treatments
that produce wasting syndrome, severe pain, sever nausea, seizures or
muscle spasms, such as those caused by multiple sclerosis.
"I'm all for it," said poll participant Jeff Bergel, a 52-year-old
wholesale representative and father of two from Walled Lake.
"I lost a brother-in-law to brain cancer last year and I think
marijuana could have helped make his more comfortable. My dad has
glaucoma and I understand it could help him as well."
On the controversial issue of stem cells, poll respondents, by a
50-32 margin, favor amending the state Constitution to allow
scientists to derive embryonic stem cells from human embryos for
medical research. Support among women is 57 percent compared to 42
percent among men. Support is 56 percent in Metro Detroit, but 45
percent among voters in the rest of the state.
Michigan has one of the nation's most restrictive laws on stem cell
research; a scientist here who uses new human embryos for stem cell
research can face a $10 million fine and up to 10 years in prison.
Supporters of embryonic stem cell research say research could lead to
better therapies and possible cures for a host of diseases and
injuries such as cancer, Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes and spinal
cord injuries. Opponents -- including political heavy hitters Right
to Life of Michigan and the Michigan Catholic Conference -- say
research on human embryos is morally wrong because it destroys life.
Critics of the measure also say its adoption could lead to human
cloning, although the proposal doesn't seek to change state law that
already bans cloning.
"I've thought about it a lot and I think stem cell research would be
all right," said Regina Gerling, a grandmother from Muskegon who took
part in the poll.
"I'm a diabetic, so I wish they would find new cures." Law
enforcement groups are near unanimous in their opposition to medical
marijuana, saying it's part of a broader agenda to legalize marijuana
for everyone. But there doesn't appear to be any group ready to spend
money on an ad campaign to defeat the measure.
Michael Opland, a 64-year-old father of three from Harrison Township,
said he supports medical marijuana, although he believes a lot of
people would get the marijuana even though their medical conditions
wouldn't warrant it.
"A certain number of people would probably take advantage of the
law," he said. "But it's worth it to get marijuana to people who
really need it."
The stem cell campaign is likely to get red-hot in the coming weeks.
Opponents of the proposal started running TV commercials this week,
suggesting that Michigan taxpayers would shell out hundreds of
millions of dollars for the research. The opposition group, Michigan
Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation, filed a
financial statement with the state on Thursday, showing it has rose
about $595,000 -- including $500,000 from the Catholic Conference --
and had $233,000 on hand as of Sept. 18.
Supporters of stem cell research have not yet launched an ad
campaign, although they are expected to shortly. They say the ballot
proposal doesn't direct a dime of state money to research. The group,
CureMichigan, filed its financial statement on Thursday, showing it
had raised $2.27 million and had $257,000 on hand. It also has loans
and obligations of more than $1.5 million, including more than $1
million in loans from the A. Alfred Taubman Trust of Bloomfield Hills.
Judith Maser, a retired clothing buyer from Novi, was originally
opposed to stem cell research.
"Now I believe stem cell research could help a lot of people," she
said. "I think medicine has gotten so advanced that this is the
future for our young people
Newshawk: Updated Website: YES on 1 http://stoparrestingpatients.org/
Pubdate: Thu, 25 Sep 2008
Source: Detroit News (MI)
Webpage: http://drugsense.org/url/UjWp9S8j
Copyright: 2008 The Detroit News
Contact: letters@detnews.com
Website: http://detnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/126
Author: Charlie Cain, Detroit News Lansing Bureau
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Michigan+Coalition+for+Compassionate+Care
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
people, but a second statewide ballot proposal to relax restrictions
on stem cell research in Michigan is a closer contest -- and the
advertising blitz has just begun on that measure.
The latest Detroit News-WXYZ Action News poll found that the voters,
by a 59-37 margin, favor the ballot proposal to allow terminally and
seriously ill people to legally use marijuana if a doctor certified
the drug could ease their suffering.
The statewide poll was conducted for The News, WXYZ and three
outstate television stations from Saturday to Monday by Lansing's
EPIC-MRA. It showed that the biggest backers were women (63 percent
support), Metro Detroiters (60 percent) and Democrats (68 percent).
Among men, the proposal garnered 51 percent support and 49 percent of
Republicans favored it.
If Proposal 1 is approved by voters in November, Michigan would
become the 13th state to legalize medical marijuana. Supporters
estimate that as many as 50,000 Michigan residents would legally
qualify for medical marijuana to treat a host of "debilitating"
medical problems such as cancer, HIV /AIDS, hepatitis C, Alzheimer's
disease, Crohn's disease and chronic diseases or their treatments
that produce wasting syndrome, severe pain, sever nausea, seizures or
muscle spasms, such as those caused by multiple sclerosis.
"I'm all for it," said poll participant Jeff Bergel, a 52-year-old
wholesale representative and father of two from Walled Lake.
"I lost a brother-in-law to brain cancer last year and I think
marijuana could have helped make his more comfortable. My dad has
glaucoma and I understand it could help him as well."
On the controversial issue of stem cells, poll respondents, by a
50-32 margin, favor amending the state Constitution to allow
scientists to derive embryonic stem cells from human embryos for
medical research. Support among women is 57 percent compared to 42
percent among men. Support is 56 percent in Metro Detroit, but 45
percent among voters in the rest of the state.
Michigan has one of the nation's most restrictive laws on stem cell
research; a scientist here who uses new human embryos for stem cell
research can face a $10 million fine and up to 10 years in prison.
Supporters of embryonic stem cell research say research could lead to
better therapies and possible cures for a host of diseases and
injuries such as cancer, Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes and spinal
cord injuries. Opponents -- including political heavy hitters Right
to Life of Michigan and the Michigan Catholic Conference -- say
research on human embryos is morally wrong because it destroys life.
Critics of the measure also say its adoption could lead to human
cloning, although the proposal doesn't seek to change state law that
already bans cloning.
"I've thought about it a lot and I think stem cell research would be
all right," said Regina Gerling, a grandmother from Muskegon who took
part in the poll.
"I'm a diabetic, so I wish they would find new cures." Law
enforcement groups are near unanimous in their opposition to medical
marijuana, saying it's part of a broader agenda to legalize marijuana
for everyone. But there doesn't appear to be any group ready to spend
money on an ad campaign to defeat the measure.
Michael Opland, a 64-year-old father of three from Harrison Township,
said he supports medical marijuana, although he believes a lot of
people would get the marijuana even though their medical conditions
wouldn't warrant it.
"A certain number of people would probably take advantage of the
law," he said. "But it's worth it to get marijuana to people who
really need it."
The stem cell campaign is likely to get red-hot in the coming weeks.
Opponents of the proposal started running TV commercials this week,
suggesting that Michigan taxpayers would shell out hundreds of
millions of dollars for the research. The opposition group, Michigan
Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation, filed a
financial statement with the state on Thursday, showing it has rose
about $595,000 -- including $500,000 from the Catholic Conference --
and had $233,000 on hand as of Sept. 18.
Supporters of stem cell research have not yet launched an ad
campaign, although they are expected to shortly. They say the ballot
proposal doesn't direct a dime of state money to research. The group,
CureMichigan, filed its financial statement on Thursday, showing it
had raised $2.27 million and had $257,000 on hand. It also has loans
and obligations of more than $1.5 million, including more than $1
million in loans from the A. Alfred Taubman Trust of Bloomfield Hills.
Judith Maser, a retired clothing buyer from Novi, was originally
opposed to stem cell research.
"Now I believe stem cell research could help a lot of people," she
said. "I think medicine has gotten so advanced that this is the
future for our young people
Newshawk: Updated Website: YES on 1 http://stoparrestingpatients.org/
Pubdate: Thu, 25 Sep 2008
Source: Detroit News (MI)
Webpage: http://drugsense.org/url/UjWp9S8j
Copyright: 2008 The Detroit News
Contact: letters@detnews.com
Website: http://detnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/126
Author: Charlie Cain, Detroit News Lansing Bureau
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Michigan+Coalition+for+Compassionate+Care
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S NEW POT RULES NOT ENOUGH
Medical Marijuana Laws Must Be Changed Federally to Have Any Impact
California Attorney General Jerry Brown's new attempt to settle the
nerves of medical marijuana dispensers and patients is a weak attempt
to make proposition 215 stronger.
Attorney General Brown has introduced an eleven-page directive aimed
at clearing up some issues between state and federal governments. He
believes his new guidelines will minimize legal worries and ease
patient worries.
In 1996 when proposition 215 was passed by an overwhelming vote,
medical marijuana dispensaries started popping up like Trader Joes
all over the state. People started getting prescriptions for their
"back pain" and everyone was happy.
At the same time, federally, this was all very illegal.
Twelve years has gone by and dozens of dispensaries have been opened,
been raided, and been reopened just to be raided again. Hundreds of
millions of dollars have been made from the profits and millions have
been spent on trying to fight the legislation.
Brown's eleven-page directive now gives police the ability to
distinguish between criminals and legitimate marijuana sellers. It
also protects patients from getting arrested unlawfully. Brown's plan
also will change dispensaries into non-profit or cooperatives, to cut
out big money operations that exploit the medical label and sell to
just about anyone.
One other step Brown wants to take is to change the amount of pot on
the market, making it so only a patient, caregiver or dispensary
could grow the small amount of medical marijuana needed. Brown's plan
has just cleaned up the legislation at the state level. It will not
stop the DEA from raiding dispensaries or harassing patients.
The police should already be able to distinguish criminals from
legitimate marijuana sellers. Don't the legitimate guys usually sell
during the day at a place with a sign that says medical marijuana in
neon green?
As for turning these dispensaries into non-profits, they probably
only report a quarter of their earnings as it is so this will be no
big hurdle for them to get around. I am sure there are millions of
tax-free dollars going through legitimate dispensaries.
The amount of pot on the market will not change by only allowing
patients or dispensaries to grow the plants. The law now says a
patient is allowed to grow up to six plants and a dispensary is
allowed to grow six plants per patient it serves. There is no way a
dispensary knows how many patients it has from week to week or even
day to day. If they have 65 regular patients they must 65 people that
try and go to a different dispensary every week. Does that mean they
have 130 patients and are allowed to grow 780 plants?
Making all these changes at the state level is continuing to get the
medical marijuana laws nowhere. The changes need to be made federally
and only then will the dispensers be able to run their business with
out fear from the DEA.
Newshawk: Just Say Know: http://www.efsdp.org
Pubdate: Wed, 24 Sep 2008
Source: Sonoma State Star (Sonoma State U, Edu)
Copyright: 2008 Sonoma State Star
Contact: http://www.sonomastatestar.com/home/lettertotheeditor/
Website: http://www.sonomastatestar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4862
Author: Benjamin Browning
Referenced: The Attorney General's guidelines http://drugsense.org/url/kKMJR2lu
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Jerry+Brown
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/dispensaries
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
California Attorney General Jerry Brown's new attempt to settle the
nerves of medical marijuana dispensers and patients is a weak attempt
to make proposition 215 stronger.
Attorney General Brown has introduced an eleven-page directive aimed
at clearing up some issues between state and federal governments. He
believes his new guidelines will minimize legal worries and ease
patient worries.
In 1996 when proposition 215 was passed by an overwhelming vote,
medical marijuana dispensaries started popping up like Trader Joes
all over the state. People started getting prescriptions for their
"back pain" and everyone was happy.
At the same time, federally, this was all very illegal.
Twelve years has gone by and dozens of dispensaries have been opened,
been raided, and been reopened just to be raided again. Hundreds of
millions of dollars have been made from the profits and millions have
been spent on trying to fight the legislation.
Brown's eleven-page directive now gives police the ability to
distinguish between criminals and legitimate marijuana sellers. It
also protects patients from getting arrested unlawfully. Brown's plan
also will change dispensaries into non-profit or cooperatives, to cut
out big money operations that exploit the medical label and sell to
just about anyone.
One other step Brown wants to take is to change the amount of pot on
the market, making it so only a patient, caregiver or dispensary
could grow the small amount of medical marijuana needed. Brown's plan
has just cleaned up the legislation at the state level. It will not
stop the DEA from raiding dispensaries or harassing patients.
The police should already be able to distinguish criminals from
legitimate marijuana sellers. Don't the legitimate guys usually sell
during the day at a place with a sign that says medical marijuana in
neon green?
As for turning these dispensaries into non-profits, they probably
only report a quarter of their earnings as it is so this will be no
big hurdle for them to get around. I am sure there are millions of
tax-free dollars going through legitimate dispensaries.
The amount of pot on the market will not change by only allowing
patients or dispensaries to grow the plants. The law now says a
patient is allowed to grow up to six plants and a dispensary is
allowed to grow six plants per patient it serves. There is no way a
dispensary knows how many patients it has from week to week or even
day to day. If they have 65 regular patients they must 65 people that
try and go to a different dispensary every week. Does that mean they
have 130 patients and are allowed to grow 780 plants?
Making all these changes at the state level is continuing to get the
medical marijuana laws nowhere. The changes need to be made federally
and only then will the dispensers be able to run their business with
out fear from the DEA.
Newshawk: Just Say Know: http://www.efsdp.org
Pubdate: Wed, 24 Sep 2008
Source: Sonoma State Star (Sonoma State U, Edu)
Copyright: 2008 Sonoma State Star
Contact: http://www.sonomastatestar.com/home/lettertotheeditor/
Website: http://www.sonomastatestar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4862
Author: Benjamin Browning
Referenced: The Attorney General's guidelines http://drugsense.org/url/kKMJR2lu
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Jerry+Brown
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/dispensaries
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
California sees nearly 75,000 marijuana arrests in 2007
Donna Tam/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 09/23/2008 01:29:06 AM PDT
The nearly 75,000 marijuana-related arrests in California last year are
prompting marijuana law reform activists to say that laws aren't stopping
people from getting what they want, while local law enforcement responds
that the increased number of arrests is simply the result of tighter
enforcement.
"This has been going on for close to a century now and they're clearly not
eradicating or stopping anything. It just continues," said Dale Gieringer, a
spokesman for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
According to the state Department of Justice's Criminal Justice Statistics
Center, 74,119 felony and misdemeanor marijuana arrests were made in 2007, a
jump of nearly 10,000 arrests from 2006, which saw 65,386.
Between 2001 and 2006, the differences from year to year were much smaller.
In Humboldt County alone, more people are getting arrested, and more of
those arrested are getting charged with serious crimes.
The number of marijuana-related arrests in Humboldt nearly doubled between
2006 and 2007, jumping from 564 to 971. In 2006, 138 people were charged
with marijuana felonies, while in 2007 that number ballooned to 550.
Meanwhile, the number of marijuana misdemeanors between the two years has
stayed roughly the same.
Gieringer said the statewide numbers are the highest since 1990, which he
says is a sign that these arrests are only wasting taxpayer money.
Marijuana should be legalized and taxed like alcohol, he said.
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said while there may be some
legitimate reasons to legalize marijuana, increased arrests is not one of
them.
"I don't think the increased arrest is any indication that this needs to be
legalized," he said. "It's no more than if murder went up that we should
legalize murder."
Gallegos said there could be more marijuana in the streets, but more arrests
could also mean an increase in the amount of resources dedicated to
intercepting the drug, as demonstrated by recent federal activity.
"There's been an increase of federal presence, and there's going to be more
increases of fed presence," he said. "What they're seeing is law enforcement
saying, enough is enough."
The main source of the jump in numbers from 2006 to 2007 is felony arrests,
the Criminal Justice Statistics Center numbers show. In 2006, there were
13,548 felony arrests made while 16,124 felony arrests were made in 2007.
The state Department of Justice's Campaign Against Marijuana Planting, or
CAMP, has also been eradicating more marijuana plants.
Last year the agency pulled 271,000 plants in Humboldt County, up from just
59,000 in 2006.
But Humboldt County Sheriff's Department Spokeswoman Brenda Godsey said the
destruction of those plants probably doesn't add much to the state's arrest
numbers. The Sheriff's Department works closely with CAMP to target
large-scale commercial grows.
"In Humboldt County our efforts are particularly in outdoor grows and
because they can be so dangerous we make a deliberate effort to be
conspicuous and noisy when we enter," she said, adding that their goal is to
eradicate the marijuana.
Regardless of the numbers, Gallegos said the threat of illegal marijuana is
a very real one, citing the abuse of 215 cards.
"They're putting a law that was enacted to alleviate the suffering of ill
people at risk," he said.
BOX:
The 2007 Numbers:
74,119 arrests statewide
16,124 felony
57,995 misdemeanor
971 arrests in Humboldt County
550 felony
421 misdemeanor
The 2006 Numbers:
65,386 arrests statewide
13,548 felony
51,838 misdemeanor
564 arrests in Humboldt County
138 felony
426 misdemeanor
http://www.times-standard.com/ci_10536275?source=rss
Article Launched: 09/23/2008 01:29:06 AM PDT
The nearly 75,000 marijuana-related arrests in California last year are
prompting marijuana law reform activists to say that laws aren't stopping
people from getting what they want, while local law enforcement responds
that the increased number of arrests is simply the result of tighter
enforcement.
"This has been going on for close to a century now and they're clearly not
eradicating or stopping anything. It just continues," said Dale Gieringer, a
spokesman for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
According to the state Department of Justice's Criminal Justice Statistics
Center, 74,119 felony and misdemeanor marijuana arrests were made in 2007, a
jump of nearly 10,000 arrests from 2006, which saw 65,386.
Between 2001 and 2006, the differences from year to year were much smaller.
In Humboldt County alone, more people are getting arrested, and more of
those arrested are getting charged with serious crimes.
The number of marijuana-related arrests in Humboldt nearly doubled between
2006 and 2007, jumping from 564 to 971. In 2006, 138 people were charged
with marijuana felonies, while in 2007 that number ballooned to 550.
Meanwhile, the number of marijuana misdemeanors between the two years has
stayed roughly the same.
Gieringer said the statewide numbers are the highest since 1990, which he
says is a sign that these arrests are only wasting taxpayer money.
Marijuana should be legalized and taxed like alcohol, he said.
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said while there may be some
legitimate reasons to legalize marijuana, increased arrests is not one of
them.
"I don't think the increased arrest is any indication that this needs to be
legalized," he said. "It's no more than if murder went up that we should
legalize murder."
Gallegos said there could be more marijuana in the streets, but more arrests
could also mean an increase in the amount of resources dedicated to
intercepting the drug, as demonstrated by recent federal activity.
"There's been an increase of federal presence, and there's going to be more
increases of fed presence," he said. "What they're seeing is law enforcement
saying, enough is enough."
The main source of the jump in numbers from 2006 to 2007 is felony arrests,
the Criminal Justice Statistics Center numbers show. In 2006, there were
13,548 felony arrests made while 16,124 felony arrests were made in 2007.
The state Department of Justice's Campaign Against Marijuana Planting, or
CAMP, has also been eradicating more marijuana plants.
Last year the agency pulled 271,000 plants in Humboldt County, up from just
59,000 in 2006.
But Humboldt County Sheriff's Department Spokeswoman Brenda Godsey said the
destruction of those plants probably doesn't add much to the state's arrest
numbers. The Sheriff's Department works closely with CAMP to target
large-scale commercial grows.
"In Humboldt County our efforts are particularly in outdoor grows and
because they can be so dangerous we make a deliberate effort to be
conspicuous and noisy when we enter," she said, adding that their goal is to
eradicate the marijuana.
Regardless of the numbers, Gallegos said the threat of illegal marijuana is
a very real one, citing the abuse of 215 cards.
"They're putting a law that was enacted to alleviate the suffering of ill
people at risk," he said.
BOX:
The 2007 Numbers:
74,119 arrests statewide
16,124 felony
57,995 misdemeanor
971 arrests in Humboldt County
550 felony
421 misdemeanor
The 2006 Numbers:
65,386 arrests statewide
13,548 felony
51,838 misdemeanor
564 arrests in Humboldt County
138 felony
426 misdemeanor
http://www.times-standard.com/ci_10536275?source=rss
Monday, September 22, 2008
CO: STUDENT FIGHTS CU OVER HAZY MARIJUANA LAW
STUDENT FIGHTS CU OVER HAZY MARIJUANA LAW
"I Was Never Really Worried About The Court Case Because I Was Following The State Law."
A University of Colorado at Boulder student who has a medical-marijuana card will be given his pot back by campus police Monday.
CU officials relented when threatened with a lawsuit after campus police confiscated less than 2 ounces of pot from Edward Nicholson's dorm room, and officials threatened him with suspension.
Nicholson, 20, said he was holding the drug for his 23-year-old brother, a chronic-pain sufferer.
State law allows doctor-recommended marijuana use for those "suffering from debilitating medical conditions." Caregivers of patients must carry state-issued medical-marijuana cards.
Nicholson is the cardholder because he says pot is easier to buy in Boulder than in Aurora, where his family lives.
The ordeal started last winter when an officer smelled pot in Nicholson's dorm lockbox during a room walk-through on winter break. When Nicholson brandished his registry card, that officer didn't cite him.
But in February and March, Nicholson said he was awakened several nights in a row by CU-Boulder police officers who said they could smell pot coming from his room. Nicholson said he doesn't smoke pot and called the late-night door knocks obnoxious.
"They were on an unbelievable power trip," he said.
CU officials couldn't talk about the case, citing student privacy laws.
In May, campus authorities threatened to suspend him for a semester, to commit him to community service and drug and alcohol testing, and make him write a paper about the harmful effects of the drug on his schooling.
After Nicholson hired lawyer Robert Corry, who threatened a lawsuit, CU officials threw the case out.
"They didn't do any harm to me, but they sure tried," said Nicholson, who is now in his second year at CU and living off-campus. "I was never really worried about the court case because I was following the state law."
CU officials revised their policies this fall to accommodate the 8-year-old medical-marijuana law.
CU students - even medical-pot cardholders - are not allowed to store the drug in dorms. But officials say they'll release first-year students from the on-campus residency requirement if they are cardholders "at their prerogative," said CU lawyer Jeremy Hueth, who worked on Nicholson's case.
"If they ( medical-marijuana cardholders ) would rather move off campus . . . we're not going to penalize them for it," he said.
There are 1,955 cardholders in Colorado, according to last year's statistics from the state health department.
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said in a statement responding to the CU case Friday that the medical-marijuana law has become a "front for widespread marijuana distribution."
"The proponents of these laws make them intentionally ambiguous, causing significant problems for law enforcement in Colorado and elsewhere," he said
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n884/a08.html
Newshawk: Just Say Know: http://www.efsdp.org
Votes: 0
Webpage: http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_10519236
Pubdate: Sat, 20 Sep 2008
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2008 The Denver Post Corp
Contact: openforum@denverpost.com
Website: http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: Allison Sherry
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
"I Was Never Really Worried About The Court Case Because I Was Following The State Law."
A University of Colorado at Boulder student who has a medical-marijuana card will be given his pot back by campus police Monday.
CU officials relented when threatened with a lawsuit after campus police confiscated less than 2 ounces of pot from Edward Nicholson's dorm room, and officials threatened him with suspension.
Nicholson, 20, said he was holding the drug for his 23-year-old brother, a chronic-pain sufferer.
State law allows doctor-recommended marijuana use for those "suffering from debilitating medical conditions." Caregivers of patients must carry state-issued medical-marijuana cards.
Nicholson is the cardholder because he says pot is easier to buy in Boulder than in Aurora, where his family lives.
The ordeal started last winter when an officer smelled pot in Nicholson's dorm lockbox during a room walk-through on winter break. When Nicholson brandished his registry card, that officer didn't cite him.
But in February and March, Nicholson said he was awakened several nights in a row by CU-Boulder police officers who said they could smell pot coming from his room. Nicholson said he doesn't smoke pot and called the late-night door knocks obnoxious.
"They were on an unbelievable power trip," he said.
CU officials couldn't talk about the case, citing student privacy laws.
In May, campus authorities threatened to suspend him for a semester, to commit him to community service and drug and alcohol testing, and make him write a paper about the harmful effects of the drug on his schooling.
After Nicholson hired lawyer Robert Corry, who threatened a lawsuit, CU officials threw the case out.
"They didn't do any harm to me, but they sure tried," said Nicholson, who is now in his second year at CU and living off-campus. "I was never really worried about the court case because I was following the state law."
CU officials revised their policies this fall to accommodate the 8-year-old medical-marijuana law.
CU students - even medical-pot cardholders - are not allowed to store the drug in dorms. But officials say they'll release first-year students from the on-campus residency requirement if they are cardholders "at their prerogative," said CU lawyer Jeremy Hueth, who worked on Nicholson's case.
"If they ( medical-marijuana cardholders ) would rather move off campus . . . we're not going to penalize them for it," he said.
There are 1,955 cardholders in Colorado, according to last year's statistics from the state health department.
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said in a statement responding to the CU case Friday that the medical-marijuana law has become a "front for widespread marijuana distribution."
"The proponents of these laws make them intentionally ambiguous, causing significant problems for law enforcement in Colorado and elsewhere," he said
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n884/a08.html
Newshawk: Just Say Know: http://www.efsdp.org
Votes: 0
Webpage: http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_10519236
Pubdate: Sat, 20 Sep 2008
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2008 The Denver Post Corp
Contact: openforum@denverpost.com
Website: http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: Allison Sherry
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Monday, September 15, 2008
IMPRISONMENT NOT ANSWER TO DRUG WAR
George Jung, played by Johnny Depp in the movie "Blow," made me and millions of Americans question the logic of our nation's drug laws. In the movie, Jung is sentenced to prison for possession of marijuana. After Jung is released, he said, "Danbury wasn't a prison, it was a crime school. I went in with a bachelor of marijuana, came out with a doctorate of cocaine."
Our country has one of the largest per-capita prison populations in the world, and taxpayers spend over $450 billion per year to enforce laws against consensual crimes, which is more than five times what we spend on education each year. We found out pretty quickly during prohibition how well those laws work. At least that time Congress passed a constitutional amendment.
The idea that we should lock up drug addicts began in the U.S. and quickly spread to the rest of the developed world. Recently, some countries are beginning to question why we are spending so much money punishing rather than rehabilitating drug addicts. Mexico, Switzerland and Portugal are among the countries that have decided to funnel often-scarce police and correctional funding into combating violent criminals and those who endanger others with their drug use, instead of locking up nonviolent offenders found with only small amounts of illegal drugs.
In 2001, Portugal's drug czar Vitalino Canas told England's The Guardian, "America has spent billions on enforcement but it has got nowhere. We view drug users as people who need help and care."
Canas says the change is not meant to completely legalize drug use, but instead of jail time, drug users are still subject to fines and community service in addition to probation and court-ordered detox treatment, to the discretion of the judge.
In 2006, Mexican President Vicente Fox signed a bill into law that would decriminalize possession of small amounts of controlled substances, a controversial decision that has given Mexico more resources to fight drug cartels and violence.
The "war on drugs" began in the early 1970's, when President Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Administration. Can we even call the war on drugs an actual war? After all, wars end. Since then, our prison population has more than quadrupled, and more than one out of every 100 adults is in jail or prison. In the 1980s, several laws were put into place that were supposed to help us deal with the drug problem. One of these was a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for crack cocaine possession. Only recently has the logic of this law been questioned by Congress. As research shows, it tended to unfairly target minorities, and it was disproportional to the penalty for possessing powder cocaine.
Perhaps we should begin to think about the drug problem as a public health problem, not as a crime problem. If we spent as much money rehabilitating our nation's drug users as we do locking them up, we would be able to provide addiction treatment, vocational training, and extended probation programs to keep people off drugs without throwing them into our prison system, where non-violent offenders are subjected to violent crime, infectious disease, and overcrowding. Nearly 60 percent of prisoners are drug felons and over 65 percent of those released from prison commit a felony or serious misdemeanor within three years of their release. This pattern turns nonviolent offenders into violent and repeat criminals instead of treating the underlying drug addiction and providing a path back into society.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n864/a10.html
Newshawk: Just Say Know: http://www.efsdp.org
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Thu, 11 Sep 2008
Source: TCU Daily Skiff (Texas Christian University, TX Edu)
Copyright: 2008 TCU Daily Skiff
Contact: http://www.tcudailyskiff.com/home/lettertotheeditor/ url
Website: http://www.tcudailyskiff.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1289
Author: Matthew Rosson
Note: Matthew Rosson is a sophomore prebusiness major from Lincoln, Neb.
Our country has one of the largest per-capita prison populations in the world, and taxpayers spend over $450 billion per year to enforce laws against consensual crimes, which is more than five times what we spend on education each year. We found out pretty quickly during prohibition how well those laws work. At least that time Congress passed a constitutional amendment.
The idea that we should lock up drug addicts began in the U.S. and quickly spread to the rest of the developed world. Recently, some countries are beginning to question why we are spending so much money punishing rather than rehabilitating drug addicts. Mexico, Switzerland and Portugal are among the countries that have decided to funnel often-scarce police and correctional funding into combating violent criminals and those who endanger others with their drug use, instead of locking up nonviolent offenders found with only small amounts of illegal drugs.
In 2001, Portugal's drug czar Vitalino Canas told England's The Guardian, "America has spent billions on enforcement but it has got nowhere. We view drug users as people who need help and care."
Canas says the change is not meant to completely legalize drug use, but instead of jail time, drug users are still subject to fines and community service in addition to probation and court-ordered detox treatment, to the discretion of the judge.
In 2006, Mexican President Vicente Fox signed a bill into law that would decriminalize possession of small amounts of controlled substances, a controversial decision that has given Mexico more resources to fight drug cartels and violence.
The "war on drugs" began in the early 1970's, when President Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Administration. Can we even call the war on drugs an actual war? After all, wars end. Since then, our prison population has more than quadrupled, and more than one out of every 100 adults is in jail or prison. In the 1980s, several laws were put into place that were supposed to help us deal with the drug problem. One of these was a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for crack cocaine possession. Only recently has the logic of this law been questioned by Congress. As research shows, it tended to unfairly target minorities, and it was disproportional to the penalty for possessing powder cocaine.
Perhaps we should begin to think about the drug problem as a public health problem, not as a crime problem. If we spent as much money rehabilitating our nation's drug users as we do locking them up, we would be able to provide addiction treatment, vocational training, and extended probation programs to keep people off drugs without throwing them into our prison system, where non-violent offenders are subjected to violent crime, infectious disease, and overcrowding. Nearly 60 percent of prisoners are drug felons and over 65 percent of those released from prison commit a felony or serious misdemeanor within three years of their release. This pattern turns nonviolent offenders into violent and repeat criminals instead of treating the underlying drug addiction and providing a path back into society.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n864/a10.html
Newshawk: Just Say Know: http://www.efsdp.org
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Thu, 11 Sep 2008
Source: TCU Daily Skiff (Texas Christian University, TX Edu)
Copyright: 2008 TCU Daily Skiff
Contact: http://www.tcudailyskiff.com/home/lettertotheeditor/ url
Website: http://www.tcudailyskiff.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1289
Author: Matthew Rosson
Note: Matthew Rosson is a sophomore prebusiness major from Lincoln, Neb.
TAXPAYERS TO DECIDE WHETHER MARIJUANA SHOULD BE 'LOW PRIORITY'
The group Sensible Fayetteville has gathered enough signatures to put a measure on the Nov. 4 ballot that will make a misdemeanor possession of marijuana the lowest priority for law enforcement.
Many have mixed feelings about the effect this ordinance could have on the city: Jacob Holloway, field organizer for Sensible Fayetteville, said an initiative like this sends "a message that we will no longer accept inaction," while City Attorney Kit Williams said the ordinance essentially would have "no effect" on Fayetteville residents.
What actually should bring the issue of decriminalizing marijuana to full focus, then, is the overcrowding of jails and the spending of taxpayers' money to house those charged with misdemeanors.
About 400 marijuana-related arrests were made in 2005 in Fayetteville, and the state of Arkansas spends about $30 million a year making arrests for marijuana use, said Ryan Denham, campaign director for Sensible Fayetteville.
"We have more serious fish to fry than going after someone with a small amount of marijuana," Mayor Dan Coody said.
We agree. But legalizing marijuana - or keeping it illegal - is not the issue.
The fact this measure simply is being placed on the November ballot is a significant step forward for all Fayetteville citizens. Who better to decide whether marijuana possession should be criminalized and how tax money should be spent than the Fayetteville taxpayers themselves?
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n861/a06.html
Newshawk: Just Say Know: http://www.efsdp.org
Votes: 1
Pubdate: Wed, 10 Sep 2008
Source: Arkansas Traveler, The (AR Edu)
Copyright: 2008 The Arkansas Traveler
Contact: traveler@uark.edu
Website: http://thetraveleronline.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2717
Cited: Sensible Fayetteville http://www.sensiblefayetteville.com
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana)
The group Sensible Fayetteville has gathered enough signatures to put a measure on the Nov. 4 ballot that will make a misdemeanor possession of marijuana the lowest priority for law enforcement.
Many have mixed feelings about the effect this ordinance could have on the city: Jacob Holloway, field organizer for Sensible Fayetteville, said an initiative like this sends "a message that we will no longer accept inaction," while City Attorney Kit Williams said the ordinance essentially would have "no effect" on Fayetteville residents.
What actually should bring the issue of decriminalizing marijuana to full focus, then, is the overcrowding of jails and the spending of taxpayers' money to house those charged with misdemeanors.
About 400 marijuana-related arrests were made in 2005 in Fayetteville, and the state of Arkansas spends about $30 million a year making arrests for marijuana use, said Ryan Denham, campaign director for Sensible Fayetteville.
"We have more serious fish to fry than going after someone with a small amount of marijuana," Mayor Dan Coody said.
We agree. But legalizing marijuana - or keeping it illegal - is not the issue.
The fact this measure simply is being placed on the November ballot is a significant step forward for all Fayetteville citizens. Who better to decide whether marijuana possession should be criminalized and how tax money should be spent than the Fayetteville taxpayers themselves?
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n861/a06.html
Newshawk: Just Say Know: http://www.efsdp.org
Votes: 1
Pubdate: Wed, 10 Sep 2008
Source: Arkansas Traveler, The (AR Edu)
Copyright: 2008 The Arkansas Traveler
Contact: traveler@uark.edu
Website: http://thetraveleronline.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2717
Cited: Sensible Fayetteville http://www.sensiblefayetteville.com
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana)
CO: Marijuana a growing battle
Medical Marijuana Can Be Used, Distributed, but Cultivators Face Jail
HUERFANO COUNTY - Mike Stetler is proud of his garden. It took him
months to get the lush jungle just right.
"Beautiful, isn't it?" he said.
A decade ago, the labor of planting would have been impossible for
Stetler. Strung out on Demerol, OxyContin, morphine and oxycodone,
the pain-addled Navy veteran was, he says, "a slobbering zombie,
stupid and living in la-la land."
Since 2002, though, when he started growing and smoking the medicinal
marijuana he now tends so carefully, he hasn't touched a pill.
"The pain isn't all the way gone, but I can live again. I can get out
of bed. The sun is shining on me again," he said. "See what God does?
He gives us something beautiful to use. This healing herb. And what happens?"
What happened is sheriff's deputies landed a helicopter on his land,
broke open two padlocked gates and ransacked his trailer, ripping a
gaping hole in the roof. They seized 44 marijuana plants and more
than eight state-issued medical-marijuana cards that indicate other
medical-marijuana patients have told the state he is their designated
caregiver. They left a search warrant hanging over Stetler's
medical-marijuana sign.
Almost eight years after Colorado voters approved Amendment 20,
engraving in the Colorado Constitution the lawful use of
doctor-recommended medical marijuana for those "suffering from
debilitating medical conditions," police and prosecutors zealously
pursue medical-marijuana growers like Stetler, citing everything from
the fact that they just don't like the law to concerns about public
safety and confusion over what the law allows.
The law is "overly broad," "a work in progress," "vague" and "a
mistake," according to cops and prosecutors along the Front Range,
home to more than three-quarters of the state's 3,302 residents
enrolled in the Colorado medical-marijuana registry program. There
are 12 states in the U.S. that have medical-marijuana laws. Of the 10
with marijuana card systems, Colorado is the only state that does not
issue caregivers like Stetler licenses that specifically allow for cultivation.
"Marijuana cultivation is a violation of federal and state law. Just
because someone says 'medical marijuana' doesn't mean we
automatically back off and we don't enforce the law," said Larry
Abrahamson, district attorney for Larimer County, where more than 45
percent of felony marijuana cases in the past decade have involved
growers, many with state-issued cards. "Just because we have
Amendment 20 does not mean we have free marijuana for everyone."
Raid, but No Charges
Tucked into a lonely corner of 7,755- resident Huerfano County,
Stetler has nursed 33 new marijuana plants from the sandy soil. Good
medicine, he says, squeezing sticky, stinky and crystallized buds
atop listing 7-foot stalks.
His plants are growing on private land miles from a paved road in two
sheds posted with 13 state-issued medical-marijuana certificates that
designate Stetler is now a licensed care giver for 13 patients. His
doctor has advised he needs 15 plants to alleviate his constant pain
stemming from a 1990 car accident.
Since the raid more than a year ago, Huerfano County Sheriff Bruce
Newman has not filed any charges or returned Stetler's plants. No
visits from police. Not even a ticket or a letter. Newman said he's waiting.
"We want to see what happens with some of these other cases," said
Newman, who suspects not all of Stetler's 44 plants were legal and
has destroyed them. "There's a lot of legal stuff up in the air, and
it's going to take judges making decisions to figure it out."
The amendment seems to be functioning for people who use and
distribute medical marijuana. Eleven storefront dispensaries operate
openly in Colorado, some distributing medical marijuana to as many as
600 patients who need as much as an ounce of the weed a week. More
than 500 doctors have recommended marijuana, and the number of
patients on the state's registry has almost doubled since January.
"I'd have to say it is working," said Denver attorney Warren Edson,
who represents half of the state's dispensaries. "But the
dispensaries are not cultivating, and there's a huge need. The
cultivation side is problematic." Lawyer Sean T. McAllister of
Breckenridge. (Joe Amon, The Denver Post)
Indeed, for the green-thumbed suppliers of the statewide demand for
thousands of pounds of medical marijuana, life is not good. While
Amendment 20 outlines a host of protections for medical-marijuana
patients and allows them to designate a caregiver, the law does
nothing to address growers.
So though many medical-marijuana patients designate growers as
caregivers, the marijuana farmers are subject to arrest-first,
ask-if-it's-medical-later SWAT raids. They face lengthy and costly
legal battles, which, regardless of an acquittal, dismissal or
conviction, end with dead marijuana plants.
"The police are supposed to be protecting me from thieves and such,
but they are the thieves," said Stetler, who is one of three
designated caregivers in Colorado preparing a civil lawsuit demanding
compensation for plants destroyed by police.
"It's not right. They are making up their own laws and mocking the
state's laws they are supposed to be protecting. They are mocking the
voters they serve."
"Where do they think all the medical marijuana for more than 3,000
patients comes from?" said marijuana farmer Chris Crumbliss, who has
been raided twice in Larimer County despite possessing dozens of
state-issued medical-marijuana cards from patients listing him as
their primary caregiver. "Do they want one person growing for 50
people, or do they want 50 people growing on their own?"
Law Rubs Wrong Way
For police, Amendment 20 conflicts with federal laws and long-held
state laws prohibiting cultivation of marijuana.
Even worse, say police, Amendment 20's requirement that all property
and plants seized in a medical-marijuana investigation "shall not be
harmed, neglected, injured, or destroyed" is unworkable. (If a cop
waters a marijuana plant, is she breaking the law?)
And the notion that marijuana - which the federal government
considers a "Schedule I" substance alongside PCP and methamphetamine
- can be legal at all dismisses decades of law enforcement culture
and ingrained drug war doctrine.
Larimer County's Jim Alderden is a folksy sheriff who refers to
Amendment 20 as an "ill-conceived law" and aggressively pursues
marijuana growers. They may call themselves licensed caregivers, but
he calls them "dope dealers."
"Wholesale drug dealers are hiding under the umbrella afforded them
by the statute," he says. "These people are nothing more than dope
dealers, and they are hiding under this thing, and we are not going
to back off. These people who say they are caregivers providing for
60 to 70 people are running the same sort of scam you see on the West
Coast where people see a physician who is willing to prostitute
themselves for money and say 'here's the dope.' "
Scott Carr, the regional director for Colorado's THC Clinic in Wheat
Ridge, disagrees with Alderden's assessment of doctors who recommend
marijuana. Carr says the doctors in his clinic care for their
patients and advise the best treatment for their ailments.
"We do a pretty extensive screening of medical history. We get charts
and copies of doctor notes," Carr said.
Jeff Sweetin, head of Denver's branch of the federal Drug Enforcement
Administration, regularly hears growers pleading their product is
medical marijuana. When the operations "reach into hundreds of plants
and millions of dollars, that argument that they are immune because
of state medical-marijuana laws is absurd," Sweetin said.
"I think it was a mistake. It's bad public policy, and it put cops in
a terrible spot," Sweetin said of Amendment 20. "The very term
'medical marijuana' doesn't hold much water. I mean really, what kind
of medicine do you smoke?"
Sweetin fields calls "all the time" from Colorado cops begging his
help when a court orders the return of marijuana or growing equipment.
"Ninety-nine times out of 100, our answer is, 'This is not our
problem to fix.' I feel for these guys and they are my friends and
they are partners, but it is not the position of the DEA to rescue
everybody from their state's legislation."
A Need for Clarity
If there's one thing cops, prosecutors, attorneys and growers agree
on, it's that more work is needed to lift the fog surrounding
Amendment 20 and its implementation. How it's going to get done is
the big question.
Last month, Crumbliss stood trembling with his arms held high in his
front yard at 4 a.m., his boxers pulled to his ankles, his head and
face wrapped in a T-shirt, a laser-scoped assault rifle trained on
his chest and his dogs howling from a shower of tear gas. He kept
saying one thing over and over: "I have a license to grow medical marijuana."
The armored men behind the guns were Larimer and Boulder county
sheriff's deputies in a multi-jurisdictional, predawn SWAT-team raid
of three of Crumbliss' homes. After months of investigation - which
included no-subpoena-needed access to Poudre Valley Rural Electric
Association electrical usage reports from Crumbliss' and neighbors'
homes - the raid netted 200 marijuana plants and 25 pounds of
cannabis. Crumbliss and his wife, Tiffany, were arrested and charged
with a host of felonies that could land them in prison for almost a
decade. It was the second time in two years Larimer County cops have
raided the Crumblisses, who have never hidden their predilection
toward medical marijuana.
"I thought I was going to be executed," said Crumbliss, a father of
two and a perpetually grinning marijuana farmer who holds more than
40 state medical-marijuana licenses from patients who list him as
their primary caregiver. "I've never had a felony in my life. I
preach love and compassion. I really believe what I'm doing is legal
and I am following the letter of the law. And it's an honor and a
privilege to stand up for sick people who can't stand up for
themselves. It might earn me a spot in jail, and it might earn me a
place in heaven."
Sean McAllister, the attorney who represented Crumbliss against his
previous and still-pending marijuana cultivation charges from 2007,
called Larimer County's "smash and grab" tactics "the worst abuse
I've ever seen by police of the medical-marijuana law because they
are arresting first and determining if it's medical later."
McAllister, the founder of Sensible Colorado, a nonprofit advocating
for drug policy reform, said the writers of Amendment 20 made too
many compromises and growers like Crumbliss are left in the law's "gray areas."
"You can smoke it. You can dispense it. But how are they supposed to
grow it?" said McAllister, a Breckenridge attorney who specializes in
medical-marijuana cases. "Unfortunately the Crumblisses are the
guinea pigs who are going to have to test the legal status of
Colorado's medical-marijuana laws."
Prosecutions Increase
Larimer County, which medical-marijuana attorney Rob Corry calls "the
worst" in its pursuit of medical-marijuana caregivers, is not alone
in its hunt for marijuana farmers. Across the state, prosecutors in
recent years have pursued more cases than ever against growers who
argue they are within the bounds of Amendment 20. Last year,
prosecutors in El Paso, Jefferson, Denver and Larimer counties - home
to nearly half the state's medical-marijuana patients - tried 72
felony cultivation cases, up from nine cases in 2000.
Part of the issue is public safety, said Lynn Kimbrough, spokeswoman
for Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey. She explained a litany
of potential hazards involving the unregulated business of marijuana
growing operations: fire danger from high electrical use and indoor
grow lamps, price gouging, the safety of the product and the
potential dangers facing future residents of a house where marijuana was grown.
"There is no mandate in our office to go out and aggressively
prosecute caregivers or growers, but we are not going to look the
other way," Kimbrough said. "I think (district attorneys) would
welcome some more attention to this because there is a sense that
there is some work that still needs to be done to clarify the process
and perhaps regulate the business aspect and ensure the safety of the
people for whom this law was meant to help."
[sidebar]
COURTS OFFER SOME SKETCHY GUIDANCE ON AMENDMENT'S GRAY AREAS
Attorneys for law enforcement and the medical-marijuana community are
staying busy. Tweaking an amendment to the state constitution is much
more difficult than tinkering with legislation, so guidance is found
in court decisions. In recent years, Colorado's courtrooms have
hosted a few explorations of Amendment 20's gray areas:
Q. To how many patients can one licensed caregiver provide marijuana?
A. Denver District Judge Larry Naves in July 2007 tossed out the
former state mandate of five, ruling the limit set by the state's
department of health lacked public input and "does not appear to be
based on any medical or scientific evidence." So the question is: How
many patients can a caregiver have? The answer, apparently, is more than five.
Q. How many plants can a caregiver tend for each patient?
A. The amendment allows for six plants but also notes that patients
and caregivers can argue that "greater amounts were medically
necessary to address the patient's debilitating medical condition."
That "greater amount" part has been tested in Arapahoe County, where
the district attorney has declined to prosecute a 2004 case involving
one licensed patient growing 12 plants and a 2007 case involving 71 plants.
Q. Do you even need a medical-marijuana license?
A. Maybe just a doctor's note or recommendation is enough, according
to a Gunnison jury in 2006 that acquitted a man of felony charges
leveled by police who found four marijuana plants growing in his
garage. Ryan Margenau did not have a card from the state's registry
program, but he did have a doctor's verbal recommendation to use
marijuana to ease the pain of the 14 herniated discs he suffered in a
car wreck. The jury, in what was Colorado's first medical-marijuana
jury trial, said the doctor's advice was enough.
Q. If police destroy marijuana involved with a medical-marijuana
investigation, do they have to compensate the patient or caregiver?
A. Police in Jefferson County, Aurora, Craig and Fort Collins
reluctantly have returned marijuana-growing equipment and desiccated
plants. The possibility of reimbursement -- at the federal Drug
Enforcement Administration's estimated value of $5,200 per plant --
will be tested in a trio of lawsuits. The not-yet-filed lawsuits in
Huerfano County, Fort Collins and Aurora would demand police pay for
plants seized and destroyed in investigations that ended without prosecution.
Newshawk: Please Write a LTE www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides
Pubdate: Sun, 14 Sep 2008
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Webpage: http://www.denverpost.com/previous2/home/ci_10452384
Copyright: 2008 The Denver Post Corp
Contact: openforum@denverpost.com
Website: http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: Jason Blevins, The Denver Post
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Amendment+20
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
HUERFANO COUNTY - Mike Stetler is proud of his garden. It took him
months to get the lush jungle just right.
"Beautiful, isn't it?" he said.
A decade ago, the labor of planting would have been impossible for
Stetler. Strung out on Demerol, OxyContin, morphine and oxycodone,
the pain-addled Navy veteran was, he says, "a slobbering zombie,
stupid and living in la-la land."
Since 2002, though, when he started growing and smoking the medicinal
marijuana he now tends so carefully, he hasn't touched a pill.
"The pain isn't all the way gone, but I can live again. I can get out
of bed. The sun is shining on me again," he said. "See what God does?
He gives us something beautiful to use. This healing herb. And what happens?"
What happened is sheriff's deputies landed a helicopter on his land,
broke open two padlocked gates and ransacked his trailer, ripping a
gaping hole in the roof. They seized 44 marijuana plants and more
than eight state-issued medical-marijuana cards that indicate other
medical-marijuana patients have told the state he is their designated
caregiver. They left a search warrant hanging over Stetler's
medical-marijuana sign.
Almost eight years after Colorado voters approved Amendment 20,
engraving in the Colorado Constitution the lawful use of
doctor-recommended medical marijuana for those "suffering from
debilitating medical conditions," police and prosecutors zealously
pursue medical-marijuana growers like Stetler, citing everything from
the fact that they just don't like the law to concerns about public
safety and confusion over what the law allows.
The law is "overly broad," "a work in progress," "vague" and "a
mistake," according to cops and prosecutors along the Front Range,
home to more than three-quarters of the state's 3,302 residents
enrolled in the Colorado medical-marijuana registry program. There
are 12 states in the U.S. that have medical-marijuana laws. Of the 10
with marijuana card systems, Colorado is the only state that does not
issue caregivers like Stetler licenses that specifically allow for cultivation.
"Marijuana cultivation is a violation of federal and state law. Just
because someone says 'medical marijuana' doesn't mean we
automatically back off and we don't enforce the law," said Larry
Abrahamson, district attorney for Larimer County, where more than 45
percent of felony marijuana cases in the past decade have involved
growers, many with state-issued cards. "Just because we have
Amendment 20 does not mean we have free marijuana for everyone."
Raid, but No Charges
Tucked into a lonely corner of 7,755- resident Huerfano County,
Stetler has nursed 33 new marijuana plants from the sandy soil. Good
medicine, he says, squeezing sticky, stinky and crystallized buds
atop listing 7-foot stalks.
His plants are growing on private land miles from a paved road in two
sheds posted with 13 state-issued medical-marijuana certificates that
designate Stetler is now a licensed care giver for 13 patients. His
doctor has advised he needs 15 plants to alleviate his constant pain
stemming from a 1990 car accident.
Since the raid more than a year ago, Huerfano County Sheriff Bruce
Newman has not filed any charges or returned Stetler's plants. No
visits from police. Not even a ticket or a letter. Newman said he's waiting.
"We want to see what happens with some of these other cases," said
Newman, who suspects not all of Stetler's 44 plants were legal and
has destroyed them. "There's a lot of legal stuff up in the air, and
it's going to take judges making decisions to figure it out."
The amendment seems to be functioning for people who use and
distribute medical marijuana. Eleven storefront dispensaries operate
openly in Colorado, some distributing medical marijuana to as many as
600 patients who need as much as an ounce of the weed a week. More
than 500 doctors have recommended marijuana, and the number of
patients on the state's registry has almost doubled since January.
"I'd have to say it is working," said Denver attorney Warren Edson,
who represents half of the state's dispensaries. "But the
dispensaries are not cultivating, and there's a huge need. The
cultivation side is problematic." Lawyer Sean T. McAllister of
Breckenridge. (Joe Amon, The Denver Post)
Indeed, for the green-thumbed suppliers of the statewide demand for
thousands of pounds of medical marijuana, life is not good. While
Amendment 20 outlines a host of protections for medical-marijuana
patients and allows them to designate a caregiver, the law does
nothing to address growers.
So though many medical-marijuana patients designate growers as
caregivers, the marijuana farmers are subject to arrest-first,
ask-if-it's-medical-later SWAT raids. They face lengthy and costly
legal battles, which, regardless of an acquittal, dismissal or
conviction, end with dead marijuana plants.
"The police are supposed to be protecting me from thieves and such,
but they are the thieves," said Stetler, who is one of three
designated caregivers in Colorado preparing a civil lawsuit demanding
compensation for plants destroyed by police.
"It's not right. They are making up their own laws and mocking the
state's laws they are supposed to be protecting. They are mocking the
voters they serve."
"Where do they think all the medical marijuana for more than 3,000
patients comes from?" said marijuana farmer Chris Crumbliss, who has
been raided twice in Larimer County despite possessing dozens of
state-issued medical-marijuana cards from patients listing him as
their primary caregiver. "Do they want one person growing for 50
people, or do they want 50 people growing on their own?"
Law Rubs Wrong Way
For police, Amendment 20 conflicts with federal laws and long-held
state laws prohibiting cultivation of marijuana.
Even worse, say police, Amendment 20's requirement that all property
and plants seized in a medical-marijuana investigation "shall not be
harmed, neglected, injured, or destroyed" is unworkable. (If a cop
waters a marijuana plant, is she breaking the law?)
And the notion that marijuana - which the federal government
considers a "Schedule I" substance alongside PCP and methamphetamine
- can be legal at all dismisses decades of law enforcement culture
and ingrained drug war doctrine.
Larimer County's Jim Alderden is a folksy sheriff who refers to
Amendment 20 as an "ill-conceived law" and aggressively pursues
marijuana growers. They may call themselves licensed caregivers, but
he calls them "dope dealers."
"Wholesale drug dealers are hiding under the umbrella afforded them
by the statute," he says. "These people are nothing more than dope
dealers, and they are hiding under this thing, and we are not going
to back off. These people who say they are caregivers providing for
60 to 70 people are running the same sort of scam you see on the West
Coast where people see a physician who is willing to prostitute
themselves for money and say 'here's the dope.' "
Scott Carr, the regional director for Colorado's THC Clinic in Wheat
Ridge, disagrees with Alderden's assessment of doctors who recommend
marijuana. Carr says the doctors in his clinic care for their
patients and advise the best treatment for their ailments.
"We do a pretty extensive screening of medical history. We get charts
and copies of doctor notes," Carr said.
Jeff Sweetin, head of Denver's branch of the federal Drug Enforcement
Administration, regularly hears growers pleading their product is
medical marijuana. When the operations "reach into hundreds of plants
and millions of dollars, that argument that they are immune because
of state medical-marijuana laws is absurd," Sweetin said.
"I think it was a mistake. It's bad public policy, and it put cops in
a terrible spot," Sweetin said of Amendment 20. "The very term
'medical marijuana' doesn't hold much water. I mean really, what kind
of medicine do you smoke?"
Sweetin fields calls "all the time" from Colorado cops begging his
help when a court orders the return of marijuana or growing equipment.
"Ninety-nine times out of 100, our answer is, 'This is not our
problem to fix.' I feel for these guys and they are my friends and
they are partners, but it is not the position of the DEA to rescue
everybody from their state's legislation."
A Need for Clarity
If there's one thing cops, prosecutors, attorneys and growers agree
on, it's that more work is needed to lift the fog surrounding
Amendment 20 and its implementation. How it's going to get done is
the big question.
Last month, Crumbliss stood trembling with his arms held high in his
front yard at 4 a.m., his boxers pulled to his ankles, his head and
face wrapped in a T-shirt, a laser-scoped assault rifle trained on
his chest and his dogs howling from a shower of tear gas. He kept
saying one thing over and over: "I have a license to grow medical marijuana."
The armored men behind the guns were Larimer and Boulder county
sheriff's deputies in a multi-jurisdictional, predawn SWAT-team raid
of three of Crumbliss' homes. After months of investigation - which
included no-subpoena-needed access to Poudre Valley Rural Electric
Association electrical usage reports from Crumbliss' and neighbors'
homes - the raid netted 200 marijuana plants and 25 pounds of
cannabis. Crumbliss and his wife, Tiffany, were arrested and charged
with a host of felonies that could land them in prison for almost a
decade. It was the second time in two years Larimer County cops have
raided the Crumblisses, who have never hidden their predilection
toward medical marijuana.
"I thought I was going to be executed," said Crumbliss, a father of
two and a perpetually grinning marijuana farmer who holds more than
40 state medical-marijuana licenses from patients who list him as
their primary caregiver. "I've never had a felony in my life. I
preach love and compassion. I really believe what I'm doing is legal
and I am following the letter of the law. And it's an honor and a
privilege to stand up for sick people who can't stand up for
themselves. It might earn me a spot in jail, and it might earn me a
place in heaven."
Sean McAllister, the attorney who represented Crumbliss against his
previous and still-pending marijuana cultivation charges from 2007,
called Larimer County's "smash and grab" tactics "the worst abuse
I've ever seen by police of the medical-marijuana law because they
are arresting first and determining if it's medical later."
McAllister, the founder of Sensible Colorado, a nonprofit advocating
for drug policy reform, said the writers of Amendment 20 made too
many compromises and growers like Crumbliss are left in the law's "gray areas."
"You can smoke it. You can dispense it. But how are they supposed to
grow it?" said McAllister, a Breckenridge attorney who specializes in
medical-marijuana cases. "Unfortunately the Crumblisses are the
guinea pigs who are going to have to test the legal status of
Colorado's medical-marijuana laws."
Prosecutions Increase
Larimer County, which medical-marijuana attorney Rob Corry calls "the
worst" in its pursuit of medical-marijuana caregivers, is not alone
in its hunt for marijuana farmers. Across the state, prosecutors in
recent years have pursued more cases than ever against growers who
argue they are within the bounds of Amendment 20. Last year,
prosecutors in El Paso, Jefferson, Denver and Larimer counties - home
to nearly half the state's medical-marijuana patients - tried 72
felony cultivation cases, up from nine cases in 2000.
Part of the issue is public safety, said Lynn Kimbrough, spokeswoman
for Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey. She explained a litany
of potential hazards involving the unregulated business of marijuana
growing operations: fire danger from high electrical use and indoor
grow lamps, price gouging, the safety of the product and the
potential dangers facing future residents of a house where marijuana was grown.
"There is no mandate in our office to go out and aggressively
prosecute caregivers or growers, but we are not going to look the
other way," Kimbrough said. "I think (district attorneys) would
welcome some more attention to this because there is a sense that
there is some work that still needs to be done to clarify the process
and perhaps regulate the business aspect and ensure the safety of the
people for whom this law was meant to help."
[sidebar]
COURTS OFFER SOME SKETCHY GUIDANCE ON AMENDMENT'S GRAY AREAS
Attorneys for law enforcement and the medical-marijuana community are
staying busy. Tweaking an amendment to the state constitution is much
more difficult than tinkering with legislation, so guidance is found
in court decisions. In recent years, Colorado's courtrooms have
hosted a few explorations of Amendment 20's gray areas:
Q. To how many patients can one licensed caregiver provide marijuana?
A. Denver District Judge Larry Naves in July 2007 tossed out the
former state mandate of five, ruling the limit set by the state's
department of health lacked public input and "does not appear to be
based on any medical or scientific evidence." So the question is: How
many patients can a caregiver have? The answer, apparently, is more than five.
Q. How many plants can a caregiver tend for each patient?
A. The amendment allows for six plants but also notes that patients
and caregivers can argue that "greater amounts were medically
necessary to address the patient's debilitating medical condition."
That "greater amount" part has been tested in Arapahoe County, where
the district attorney has declined to prosecute a 2004 case involving
one licensed patient growing 12 plants and a 2007 case involving 71 plants.
Q. Do you even need a medical-marijuana license?
A. Maybe just a doctor's note or recommendation is enough, according
to a Gunnison jury in 2006 that acquitted a man of felony charges
leveled by police who found four marijuana plants growing in his
garage. Ryan Margenau did not have a card from the state's registry
program, but he did have a doctor's verbal recommendation to use
marijuana to ease the pain of the 14 herniated discs he suffered in a
car wreck. The jury, in what was Colorado's first medical-marijuana
jury trial, said the doctor's advice was enough.
Q. If police destroy marijuana involved with a medical-marijuana
investigation, do they have to compensate the patient or caregiver?
A. Police in Jefferson County, Aurora, Craig and Fort Collins
reluctantly have returned marijuana-growing equipment and desiccated
plants. The possibility of reimbursement -- at the federal Drug
Enforcement Administration's estimated value of $5,200 per plant --
will be tested in a trio of lawsuits. The not-yet-filed lawsuits in
Huerfano County, Fort Collins and Aurora would demand police pay for
plants seized and destroyed in investigations that ended without prosecution.
Newshawk: Please Write a LTE www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides
Pubdate: Sun, 14 Sep 2008
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Webpage: http://www.denverpost.com/previous2/home/ci_10452384
Copyright: 2008 The Denver Post Corp
Contact: openforum@denverpost.com
Website: http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: Jason Blevins, The Denver Post
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Amendment+20
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
Friday, September 12, 2008
September 12, 2008: "SWAT Team Abuse in Berwyn Heights" featuring Cheye Calvo.
http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=726
Here's an MP3 from the Cato Institute with Cheye Calvo (Mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland) describing how police conducted a baseless no-knock marijuana raid on his home, killing his two labrador retrievers. It's chilling.
The good news is that Calvo and his family adopted a new labrador from a shelter and are working to restore some order back into their life.
Here's an MP3 from the Cato Institute with Cheye Calvo (Mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland) describing how police conducted a baseless no-knock marijuana raid on his home, killing his two labrador retrievers. It's chilling.
The good news is that Calvo and his family adopted a new labrador from a shelter and are working to restore some order back into their life.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Rethinking the government's War on Drugs
September 11, 2008 by Bob Barr
As both a U.S. Attorney and Member of Congress, I defended drug prohibition.
But it has become increasingly clear to me, after much study, that our
current strategy has not worked and will not work. The other candidates for
president prefer not to address this issue, but ignoring the failure of
existing policy exhibits both a poverty of thought and an absence of
political courage. The federal government must turn the decision on drug
policy back to the states and the citizens themselves.
My change in perspective might shock some people, but leadership requires a
willingness to assess evidence and recognize when a strategy is not working.
We are paying far too high a price for today's failed policy to continue it
simply because it has always been done that way.
It is obvious that, like Prohibition's effort to eradicate alcohol usage,
drug prohibition has not succeeded. Despite enormous law enforcement efforts
— including the dedicated service of many thousands of professional men and
women — the government has not halted drug use. Indeed, the problem is worse
today than in 1972, when Richard Nixon first coined the phrase "War on
Drugs."
Whether we like it or not, tens of millions of Americans have used and will
continue to use drugs. Yet in 2005 we spent more than $12 billion on federal
drug enforcement efforts. Another $30 billion went to incarcerate
non-violent drug offenders.
These people must live forever with the scarlet letter P for prison. Only
luck saved even presidents and candidates for president from bearing the
same mark, which would have disqualified them from not only high political
office, but also many more commonplace jobs.
The federal drug laws affect even those who have never smoked (or inhaled!)
a marijuana cigarette. One of the lessons I learned while serving in
Congress is how power tends to concentrate in Washington, and how that
concentration of power begets more power and threatens individual liberty.
The ever-expanding drug war is a perfect illustration of this principle.
We simply must bring our system back into balance. First, the federal
government should get out of the "drug war" and allow states to determine
their own drug policies. Rather than continuing to arrest and imprison
people for offenses that do not directly harm other people, we should focus
federal law enforcement on crimes involving serious fraud or violence, with
identifiable victims. Even then, only where there is a clear and specific
federal interest, should the federal government be involved.
As president, I would also begin dismantling the vast bureaucracies that
have grown up as part of the drug war. My drug "czar" would diminish rather
than expand the office. Importantly, the vast power of the federal
government would no longer be employed to override the decision of the
citizens of the states to reform their drug laws.
I also would review my presidential pardon and commutation powers as a
possible means to reduce the number of people in federal prison for
non-violent drug offenses. We can no longer afford the human and economic
costs of imprisoning so many thousands of people for drug possession. This
is the most destructive impact of drug prohibition.
With regard to the medicinal use of marijuana, it appears that politics,
rather than true science, led to the government's classification of
marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, preventing its medical use,
and has blocked attempts to reconsider that classification. As president, I
would direct the DEA to initiate, for the first time, a truly open, fair,
and objective process to test and evaluate the medical potential of
marijuana. Based on the studies that I have consulted, I believe the result
would be reclassification of the drug.
Regardless of federal policy, the federal government should accept the
decisions of the citizens of the states if they choose to allow the medical
use of marijuana. As president, I would ensure that no executive branch
official interfered in a state initiative or referendum campaign. I also
would direct the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Agency to
respect state law. Crimes of violence, whether involving drugs or not, must
continue to be investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate law
enforcement agencies.
None of this means that I believe drug use to be harmless, or appropriate
for minors. For that reason I would encourage people and institutions
throughout America, from churches to social agencies to sports leagues, to
work together to address drug abuse. One of our nation's greatest strengths
is the willingness of people to organize outside of government to solve
human problems.
But treating what is, at base, a moral, spiritual, and health problem as a
matter of federal criminal law has solved nothing. The next president must
put politics aside and take a long, hard look at the failure of the federal
war on drugs. We must reestablish the primacy of individual choice and
state's rights in deciding these issues. This always has been the greatest
strength of America, and should be again.
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2008/09/rethinking-the-governments-war-on-drugs/
As both a U.S. Attorney and Member of Congress, I defended drug prohibition.
But it has become increasingly clear to me, after much study, that our
current strategy has not worked and will not work. The other candidates for
president prefer not to address this issue, but ignoring the failure of
existing policy exhibits both a poverty of thought and an absence of
political courage. The federal government must turn the decision on drug
policy back to the states and the citizens themselves.
My change in perspective might shock some people, but leadership requires a
willingness to assess evidence and recognize when a strategy is not working.
We are paying far too high a price for today's failed policy to continue it
simply because it has always been done that way.
It is obvious that, like Prohibition's effort to eradicate alcohol usage,
drug prohibition has not succeeded. Despite enormous law enforcement efforts
— including the dedicated service of many thousands of professional men and
women — the government has not halted drug use. Indeed, the problem is worse
today than in 1972, when Richard Nixon first coined the phrase "War on
Drugs."
Whether we like it or not, tens of millions of Americans have used and will
continue to use drugs. Yet in 2005 we spent more than $12 billion on federal
drug enforcement efforts. Another $30 billion went to incarcerate
non-violent drug offenders.
These people must live forever with the scarlet letter P for prison. Only
luck saved even presidents and candidates for president from bearing the
same mark, which would have disqualified them from not only high political
office, but also many more commonplace jobs.
The federal drug laws affect even those who have never smoked (or inhaled!)
a marijuana cigarette. One of the lessons I learned while serving in
Congress is how power tends to concentrate in Washington, and how that
concentration of power begets more power and threatens individual liberty.
The ever-expanding drug war is a perfect illustration of this principle.
We simply must bring our system back into balance. First, the federal
government should get out of the "drug war" and allow states to determine
their own drug policies. Rather than continuing to arrest and imprison
people for offenses that do not directly harm other people, we should focus
federal law enforcement on crimes involving serious fraud or violence, with
identifiable victims. Even then, only where there is a clear and specific
federal interest, should the federal government be involved.
As president, I would also begin dismantling the vast bureaucracies that
have grown up as part of the drug war. My drug "czar" would diminish rather
than expand the office. Importantly, the vast power of the federal
government would no longer be employed to override the decision of the
citizens of the states to reform their drug laws.
I also would review my presidential pardon and commutation powers as a
possible means to reduce the number of people in federal prison for
non-violent drug offenses. We can no longer afford the human and economic
costs of imprisoning so many thousands of people for drug possession. This
is the most destructive impact of drug prohibition.
With regard to the medicinal use of marijuana, it appears that politics,
rather than true science, led to the government's classification of
marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, preventing its medical use,
and has blocked attempts to reconsider that classification. As president, I
would direct the DEA to initiate, for the first time, a truly open, fair,
and objective process to test and evaluate the medical potential of
marijuana. Based on the studies that I have consulted, I believe the result
would be reclassification of the drug.
Regardless of federal policy, the federal government should accept the
decisions of the citizens of the states if they choose to allow the medical
use of marijuana. As president, I would ensure that no executive branch
official interfered in a state initiative or referendum campaign. I also
would direct the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Agency to
respect state law. Crimes of violence, whether involving drugs or not, must
continue to be investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate law
enforcement agencies.
None of this means that I believe drug use to be harmless, or appropriate
for minors. For that reason I would encourage people and institutions
throughout America, from churches to social agencies to sports leagues, to
work together to address drug abuse. One of our nation's greatest strengths
is the willingness of people to organize outside of government to solve
human problems.
But treating what is, at base, a moral, spiritual, and health problem as a
matter of federal criminal law has solved nothing. The next president must
put politics aside and take a long, hard look at the failure of the federal
war on drugs. We must reestablish the primacy of individual choice and
state's rights in deciding these issues. This always has been the greatest
strength of America, and should be again.
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2008/09/rethinking-the-governments-war-on-drugs/
Did McCain Tamper with the Drug Enforcement Agency to Protect His
by: Matt Stoller
Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:06
A whistleblower is coming forth against John and Cindy McCain, and
the picture he is painting is not a pretty one. You've probably
heard about Cindy McCain stealing prescription drugs from her charity
in the 1990s. Today, Tom Gosinski, her former employee and a close
friend of the McCain's, came out on the record about the entire
sordid episode. And it appears that McCain used his Senate staff and
resources to cover up Cindy's drug use, and potentially to prevent
the Drug Enforcement Agency from investigating his wife's theft of
illegal prescription drugs. John McCain certainly used his political
connections to begin a campaign of intimidation against Gosinski,
because at the time - this was after the Keating 5 scandal - another
major scandal would have derailed his career. Gosinski stayed quiet
out of fear until today; a recent fight with cancer has strengthened
his resolve. As he told me today, if he can beat cancer, he can go
on the record regarding how the McCain's do business.
Gosinski was an employee of Cindy McCain who helped her run her
charity, the American Voluntary Medical Team (AVMT) in the early to
mid-1990s. At the time Gosinski worked for her, Cindy McCain was
addicted to prescription painkillers, taking between 30-50 pills a
day of Vicatem and/or Percocet. She had doctors writing out
prescriptions in other peoples' names, including Gosinski. When
Gosinski found one of the prescription slips, he got angry, and Cindy
had him fired. This part of the story is just kind of sad, but not
damning; Cindy McCain was a lonely and bored wife who turned to drugs
in place of what was a loveless marriage full of fundraisers and in
all likelihood, various infidelities (or so were the rumors Gosinski
heard at the time).
Now, it begins to get dangerous and vicious after Gosinksi was
fired. At first the McCain's said they'd help him find a job, but it
became clear to Gosinksi that McCain was using his political
connections to blackball him from another job in Republican politics
in Arizona. So he sued the McCain's for wrongful termination, and
went to the Drug Enforcement Agency to find out the legal
repercussions of having prescriptions for painkillers written in his
name. To retaliate, McCain then had his political ally, Rick Romley,
open an extortion investigation against Gosinksi. In the course of
that investigation, it was revealed that the DEA was circling around
Cindy McCain and her charity. It's not clear what they were
investigating her for, but it is clear she was bringing illegal
prescription drugs around the world on a diplomatic passport secured
for her by McCain's Senate office.
McCain's Senate staff and Senate resources were intimately involved
in Cindy's work with the charity. John McCain procured her a
diplomatic passport, which meant that her bags were not searched by
customs, and Mark Salter and Torie Clarke were both coordinating with
Gosinski on logistics for the trips abroad. Here's Gosinski on the
coordination with McCain's Senate staff.
The charity was supposed to conduct medical missions abroad, but
Cindy was also stealing from the charity's supply of drugs for her
own personal use. In August of 1994, the story was going to come
out, and so John McCain came out with his side of the story. He
claimed he didn't know that Cindy McCain was using drugs until 1994,
a clear lie. Cindy McCain overdosed in 1991, and John McCain went to
the hospital in Sedona and told the hospital staff not to make the
information about Cindy public. Gosinski heard about the overdose in
1992, after he began work for Cindy McCain.
There are lots of unanswered questions, but the basic contours of the
story are clear. John McCain used his position as a Senator to help
his wife abuse illegal drugs and avoid being searched by customs, and
somehow his wife managed to avoid any charges by the DEA or the state
(which has mandatory minimums in cases like this) on drug charges
despite ample evidence. Did the DEA or the state not file charges
against her because of political pressure? Did they keep this on the
Federal level to avoid mandatory minimums for Cindy McCain because of
political pressure from McCain? Did John McCain and/or his Senate
staff tamper with a criminal investigation of his wife and her
conspiracy to fraudulently obtain illegal drugs?
Whether illegal or not, and an investigation by Congress should
happen, this is clearly a massive and overreaching case of both
corruption on a personal sordid level and an abuse of power. And you
might be seeing Gosinski on mainstream media soon.
We need an investigation into what happened here. What did McCain
know about the investigation of his wife and did he use his power as
a Senator to help her abuse drugs or avoid prosecution? When he was
one of a hundred Senators, it was of minor importance. And now?
Well it would be nice to know if the next President is engaged in
behavior more characteristic of an influence peddling mob boss than
an upright politician.
Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 02:06
A whistleblower is coming forth against John and Cindy McCain, and
the picture he is painting is not a pretty one. You've probably
heard about Cindy McCain stealing prescription drugs from her charity
in the 1990s. Today, Tom Gosinski, her former employee and a close
friend of the McCain's, came out on the record about the entire
sordid episode. And it appears that McCain used his Senate staff and
resources to cover up Cindy's drug use, and potentially to prevent
the Drug Enforcement Agency from investigating his wife's theft of
illegal prescription drugs. John McCain certainly used his political
connections to begin a campaign of intimidation against Gosinski,
because at the time - this was after the Keating 5 scandal - another
major scandal would have derailed his career. Gosinski stayed quiet
out of fear until today; a recent fight with cancer has strengthened
his resolve. As he told me today, if he can beat cancer, he can go
on the record regarding how the McCain's do business.
Gosinski was an employee of Cindy McCain who helped her run her
charity, the American Voluntary Medical Team (AVMT) in the early to
mid-1990s. At the time Gosinski worked for her, Cindy McCain was
addicted to prescription painkillers, taking between 30-50 pills a
day of Vicatem and/or Percocet. She had doctors writing out
prescriptions in other peoples' names, including Gosinski. When
Gosinski found one of the prescription slips, he got angry, and Cindy
had him fired. This part of the story is just kind of sad, but not
damning; Cindy McCain was a lonely and bored wife who turned to drugs
in place of what was a loveless marriage full of fundraisers and in
all likelihood, various infidelities (or so were the rumors Gosinski
heard at the time).
Now, it begins to get dangerous and vicious after Gosinksi was
fired. At first the McCain's said they'd help him find a job, but it
became clear to Gosinksi that McCain was using his political
connections to blackball him from another job in Republican politics
in Arizona. So he sued the McCain's for wrongful termination, and
went to the Drug Enforcement Agency to find out the legal
repercussions of having prescriptions for painkillers written in his
name. To retaliate, McCain then had his political ally, Rick Romley,
open an extortion investigation against Gosinksi. In the course of
that investigation, it was revealed that the DEA was circling around
Cindy McCain and her charity. It's not clear what they were
investigating her for, but it is clear she was bringing illegal
prescription drugs around the world on a diplomatic passport secured
for her by McCain's Senate office.
McCain's Senate staff and Senate resources were intimately involved
in Cindy's work with the charity. John McCain procured her a
diplomatic passport, which meant that her bags were not searched by
customs, and Mark Salter and Torie Clarke were both coordinating with
Gosinski on logistics for the trips abroad. Here's Gosinski on the
coordination with McCain's Senate staff.
The charity was supposed to conduct medical missions abroad, but
Cindy was also stealing from the charity's supply of drugs for her
own personal use. In August of 1994, the story was going to come
out, and so John McCain came out with his side of the story. He
claimed he didn't know that Cindy McCain was using drugs until 1994,
a clear lie. Cindy McCain overdosed in 1991, and John McCain went to
the hospital in Sedona and told the hospital staff not to make the
information about Cindy public. Gosinski heard about the overdose in
1992, after he began work for Cindy McCain.
There are lots of unanswered questions, but the basic contours of the
story are clear. John McCain used his position as a Senator to help
his wife abuse illegal drugs and avoid being searched by customs, and
somehow his wife managed to avoid any charges by the DEA or the state
(which has mandatory minimums in cases like this) on drug charges
despite ample evidence. Did the DEA or the state not file charges
against her because of political pressure? Did they keep this on the
Federal level to avoid mandatory minimums for Cindy McCain because of
political pressure from McCain? Did John McCain and/or his Senate
staff tamper with a criminal investigation of his wife and her
conspiracy to fraudulently obtain illegal drugs?
Whether illegal or not, and an investigation by Congress should
happen, this is clearly a massive and overreaching case of both
corruption on a personal sordid level and an abuse of power. And you
might be seeing Gosinski on mainstream media soon.
We need an investigation into what happened here. What did McCain
know about the investigation of his wife and did he use his power as
a Senator to help her abuse drugs or avoid prosecution? When he was
one of a hundred Senators, it was of minor importance. And now?
Well it would be nice to know if the next President is engaged in
behavior more characteristic of an influence peddling mob boss than
an upright politician.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
FOUR HELD IN THEFT OF MARIJUANA PLANTS
Four men were arrested Tuesday on suspicion of taking 23 marijuana
plants from a backyard garden off Valley West Drive in west Santa Rosa.
The homeowner had a permit to grow the plants legally for medicinal use.
Witnesses in the neighborhood said they saw several men climbing a
fence around the Jose Avenue home just before 1 p.m., then hauling
the freshly cut plants to a car parked nearby.
Residents in the home said they had seen the men before.
"We had been seeing people circle the neighborhood for about a week,"
said one of the residents who asked not to be named. "Either they
sniffed it out or had seen it."
The four suspects were taken into custody after police interrupted
the theft, said Sgt. Steve Fraga.
Greg Cibrian, 20; Victor Raul Marin Coria, 19; Lloyd Melvin Fouche,
20; and Hector Said Magana, 22, all of Santa Rosa, were arrested on
suspicion of grand theft, conspiracy and possession of marijuana.
All four of the men are known gang members, Fraga said.
A fifth suspect dropped several pounds of freshly harvested marijuana
at the corner of Jose Avenue and Josefa Street and fled. Police
searched the area, but did not find him, Fraga said.
The stolen plants were found in the trunk of a 1994 Cadillac sedan,
as were gardening shears used to cut the plants, Fraga said.
Residents said the 4-foot-tall plants were four to six weeks away
from harvest and were being grown to assist a family member suffering
from knee and back pain after several operations.
Newshawk: Richard Lake
Pubdate: Wed, 10 Sep 2008
Source: Press Democrat, The (Santa Rosa, CA)
Copyright: 2008 The Press Democrat
Contact: letters@pressdemo.com
Website: http://www.pressdemo.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/348
Author: Laura Norton, The Press Democrat
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Marijuana - California)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
plants from a backyard garden off Valley West Drive in west Santa Rosa.
The homeowner had a permit to grow the plants legally for medicinal use.
Witnesses in the neighborhood said they saw several men climbing a
fence around the Jose Avenue home just before 1 p.m., then hauling
the freshly cut plants to a car parked nearby.
Residents in the home said they had seen the men before.
"We had been seeing people circle the neighborhood for about a week,"
said one of the residents who asked not to be named. "Either they
sniffed it out or had seen it."
The four suspects were taken into custody after police interrupted
the theft, said Sgt. Steve Fraga.
Greg Cibrian, 20; Victor Raul Marin Coria, 19; Lloyd Melvin Fouche,
20; and Hector Said Magana, 22, all of Santa Rosa, were arrested on
suspicion of grand theft, conspiracy and possession of marijuana.
All four of the men are known gang members, Fraga said.
A fifth suspect dropped several pounds of freshly harvested marijuana
at the corner of Jose Avenue and Josefa Street and fled. Police
searched the area, but did not find him, Fraga said.
The stolen plants were found in the trunk of a 1994 Cadillac sedan,
as were gardening shears used to cut the plants, Fraga said.
Residents said the 4-foot-tall plants were four to six weeks away
from harvest and were being grown to assist a family member suffering
from knee and back pain after several operations.
Newshawk: Richard Lake
Pubdate: Wed, 10 Sep 2008
Source: Press Democrat, The (Santa Rosa, CA)
Copyright: 2008 The Press Democrat
Contact: letters@pressdemo.com
Website: http://www.pressdemo.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/348
Author: Laura Norton, The Press Democrat
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Marijuana - California)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
LUNATIC DRUG WARRIORS STILL IGNORE POWERFUL POT SCIENCE
Twenty years ago, on Sept. 6, 1988, the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration's chief administrative law judge issued a landmark
ruling, but don't expect any celebrations or commemorations in
Washington, D.C. Our government has ignored this historic decision
since the day it was issued, inflicting needless misery on millions.
Indeed, most Americans don't know it ever happened.
In response to a petition asking that marijuana be moved from
Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act, which bars
medical use, to a lower schedule that would permit physician
prescriptions, Judge Francis Young held extensive hearings that began
in the summer of 1986. He heard from an impressive array of expert
witnesses, resulting in thousands of pages of documentation.
Young laid out his findings in a detailed, 69-page ruling, walking
readers through the scientific evidence. He concluded that the law
didn't just permit moving marijuana to Schedule II, but required it.
"Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically
active substances known to man," he wrote. "By any measure of
rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised
routine of medical care. ... The evidence in this record clearly
shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the
distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with
safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary
and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers
and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record."
Remember, this was no pot-addled "legalizer" writing. It was the
chief administrative law judge within the top federal agency
responsible for enforcing our drug laws. Unfortunately, the ruling
had no legal force. In legal terms, it was a recommendation, not an
order that had to be followed.
And the DEA chose not to follow it. Six years after top DEA officials
rejected Young's recommendation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. circuit ruled that the agency did have the right to ignore its
own administrative law judge.
Because the federal government chose to disregard the results of its
own investigation, the medical marijuana controversy continues to
rage today. Losing patience with the feds, 12 states have acted to
permit medical use of marijuana under their state laws. If Michigan
passes the medical marijuana initiative on its November ballot, that
number will increase to 13, comprising roughly 1 in 4 Americans.
But while those state laws provide considerable protection for
medical marijuana patients, states cannot provide an exemption from
federal law. Even in the 12 states that have medical marijuana laws,
patients and caregivers have been arrested, terrorized and even had
their children taken away.
Meanwhile, the medical evidence continues to mount. Another federally
commissioned study, this time by the Institute of Medicine, confirmed
in 1999 that marijuana has legitimate medical uses.
More recently, newly published clinical trials have found that
marijuana effectively relieves certain types of hard-to-treat pain,
including the nerve pain that often accompanies multiple sclerosis,
HIV/AIDS and other diseases. Other research suggests that by
relieving the nausea and vomiting often caused by the harsh drugs
used to treat hepatitis C and HIV, medical marijuana can help
patients stick to these challenging drug regimens -- and live.
Because our government has ignored science, needless suffering has
been inflicted on millions of Americans who have benefited or could
benefit from medical marijuana. In 2009, we will have a new president
and a new Congress, and they should move quickly to end this sorry
record of federal stonewalling.
Newshawk: Medical Marijuana www.drugwarfacts.org/medicalm.htm
Pubdate: Mon, 8 Sep 2008
Source: AlterNet (US Web)
Copyright: 2008 Independent Media Institute
Website: http://www.alternet.org/
Author: Rob Kampia
Note: Rob Kampia is executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project.
Administration's chief administrative law judge issued a landmark
ruling, but don't expect any celebrations or commemorations in
Washington, D.C. Our government has ignored this historic decision
since the day it was issued, inflicting needless misery on millions.
Indeed, most Americans don't know it ever happened.
In response to a petition asking that marijuana be moved from
Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act, which bars
medical use, to a lower schedule that would permit physician
prescriptions, Judge Francis Young held extensive hearings that began
in the summer of 1986. He heard from an impressive array of expert
witnesses, resulting in thousands of pages of documentation.
Young laid out his findings in a detailed, 69-page ruling, walking
readers through the scientific evidence. He concluded that the law
didn't just permit moving marijuana to Schedule II, but required it.
"Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically
active substances known to man," he wrote. "By any measure of
rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised
routine of medical care. ... The evidence in this record clearly
shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the
distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with
safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary
and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers
and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record."
Remember, this was no pot-addled "legalizer" writing. It was the
chief administrative law judge within the top federal agency
responsible for enforcing our drug laws. Unfortunately, the ruling
had no legal force. In legal terms, it was a recommendation, not an
order that had to be followed.
And the DEA chose not to follow it. Six years after top DEA officials
rejected Young's recommendation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. circuit ruled that the agency did have the right to ignore its
own administrative law judge.
Because the federal government chose to disregard the results of its
own investigation, the medical marijuana controversy continues to
rage today. Losing patience with the feds, 12 states have acted to
permit medical use of marijuana under their state laws. If Michigan
passes the medical marijuana initiative on its November ballot, that
number will increase to 13, comprising roughly 1 in 4 Americans.
But while those state laws provide considerable protection for
medical marijuana patients, states cannot provide an exemption from
federal law. Even in the 12 states that have medical marijuana laws,
patients and caregivers have been arrested, terrorized and even had
their children taken away.
Meanwhile, the medical evidence continues to mount. Another federally
commissioned study, this time by the Institute of Medicine, confirmed
in 1999 that marijuana has legitimate medical uses.
More recently, newly published clinical trials have found that
marijuana effectively relieves certain types of hard-to-treat pain,
including the nerve pain that often accompanies multiple sclerosis,
HIV/AIDS and other diseases. Other research suggests that by
relieving the nausea and vomiting often caused by the harsh drugs
used to treat hepatitis C and HIV, medical marijuana can help
patients stick to these challenging drug regimens -- and live.
Because our government has ignored science, needless suffering has
been inflicted on millions of Americans who have benefited or could
benefit from medical marijuana. In 2009, we will have a new president
and a new Congress, and they should move quickly to end this sorry
record of federal stonewalling.
Newshawk: Medical Marijuana www.drugwarfacts.org/medicalm.htm
Pubdate: Mon, 8 Sep 2008
Source: AlterNet (US Web)
Copyright: 2008 Independent Media Institute
Website: http://www.alternet.org/
Author: Rob Kampia
Note: Rob Kampia is executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
CA Patient Employment Rights Bill AB 2279 Passes Senate
Please urge Governor Schwarzenegger to sign!
NORML is pleased to announce that the California Senate has approved Assembly Bill 2279, which would declare it “unlawful for an employer to discriminate against” persons who use medical cannabis.
Under a recent California Supreme Court ruling, state-authorized medical marijuana patients may be fired for their off-the-job marijuana use. Passage of AB 2279 would correct this injustice.
Employees who possess a physician's approval to use medicinal cannabis should possess similar workplace protections, as do those workers prescribed other prescription drugs -- many of which are far more impairing than marijuana.
Please take a moment and write the Governor of California today and urge him to sign AB 2279. For your convenience, a prewritten letter will be sent to Governor Schwarzenegger.
Thank you for your support of NORML and our efforts to enact marijuana law reform in California.
NORML is pleased to announce that the California Senate has approved Assembly Bill 2279, which would declare it “unlawful for an employer to discriminate against” persons who use medical cannabis.
Under a recent California Supreme Court ruling, state-authorized medical marijuana patients may be fired for their off-the-job marijuana use. Passage of AB 2279 would correct this injustice.
Employees who possess a physician's approval to use medicinal cannabis should possess similar workplace protections, as do those workers prescribed other prescription drugs -- many of which are far more impairing than marijuana.
Please take a moment and write the Governor of California today and urge him to sign AB 2279. For your convenience, a prewritten letter will be sent to Governor Schwarzenegger.
Thank you for your support of NORML and our efforts to enact marijuana law reform in California.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Federal Court Rules U.S. Government May Not Deliberately Subvert California’s Medical Marijuana Law
SAN JOSE, CA - In a first-of-its-kind ruling, a federal court today held that the U.S. Constitution bars deliberate subversion by the federal government of state medical marijuana laws.
"Utilizing selective arrests and prosecutions, the federal government has sought to sabotage California’s reasoned approach to medical marijuana use," said Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. "For the first time, a court has recognized that a calculated plan by the federal government to undercut state medical marijuana laws is patently unconstitutional. Today’s decision forecasts an end to any organized federal effort to sabotage state medical marijuana laws."
While previous high-profile cases affirmed the federal government’s power to enforce federal drug laws against individual medical marijuana patients and providers on a case-by-case basis, today’s ruling clearly recognizes that a calculated pattern of federal enforcement can render state medical marijuana laws effectively inoperable, which would violate the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"It is obvious to anyone paying attention that federal officials have gone to great lengths to sabotage state efforts to allow for appropriate medical marijuana use," said Boyd. "The court made clear that this deliberate interference - once proved - would be unequivocally unconstitutional."
The case, County of Santa Cruz v. Mukasey, originated in 2003 when Bingham McCutchen LLP and the Drug Policy Alliance, along with private attorneys Gerald F. Uelmen and Benjamin Rice, sued the federal government for raiding a Santa Cruz-area medical marijuana cooperative, the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana.
The ACLU and others argued, and the court agreed, that the U.S. Constitution permits states to determine for themselves what is legal and what is illegal under state law, and that the federal government may not deliberately undermine this process.
"The federal government has purposely set out to systematically subvert California’s medical marijuana program," said Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. "Let us hope that this ruling leads to the merciful end of the federal government’s cruel war on sick and dying medical marijuana patients."
In today’s ruling, which rejected the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, relied on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s opinion in Conant v. Walters, which stated, in part, "Applied to our situation, this means that, much as the federal government may prefer that California keep medical marijuana illegal, it cannot force the state to do so."
In addition to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the lawsuit names as defendants U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents involved in the raid of WAMM, and administrators of the DEA and Office of National Drug Control Policy.
The court’s ruling is available online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/36494lgl20080820.html
"Utilizing selective arrests and prosecutions, the federal government has sought to sabotage California’s reasoned approach to medical marijuana use," said Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. "For the first time, a court has recognized that a calculated plan by the federal government to undercut state medical marijuana laws is patently unconstitutional. Today’s decision forecasts an end to any organized federal effort to sabotage state medical marijuana laws."
While previous high-profile cases affirmed the federal government’s power to enforce federal drug laws against individual medical marijuana patients and providers on a case-by-case basis, today’s ruling clearly recognizes that a calculated pattern of federal enforcement can render state medical marijuana laws effectively inoperable, which would violate the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"It is obvious to anyone paying attention that federal officials have gone to great lengths to sabotage state efforts to allow for appropriate medical marijuana use," said Boyd. "The court made clear that this deliberate interference - once proved - would be unequivocally unconstitutional."
The case, County of Santa Cruz v. Mukasey, originated in 2003 when Bingham McCutchen LLP and the Drug Policy Alliance, along with private attorneys Gerald F. Uelmen and Benjamin Rice, sued the federal government for raiding a Santa Cruz-area medical marijuana cooperative, the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana.
The ACLU and others argued, and the court agreed, that the U.S. Constitution permits states to determine for themselves what is legal and what is illegal under state law, and that the federal government may not deliberately undermine this process.
"The federal government has purposely set out to systematically subvert California’s medical marijuana program," said Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. "Let us hope that this ruling leads to the merciful end of the federal government’s cruel war on sick and dying medical marijuana patients."
In today’s ruling, which rejected the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, relied on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s opinion in Conant v. Walters, which stated, in part, "Applied to our situation, this means that, much as the federal government may prefer that California keep medical marijuana illegal, it cannot force the state to do so."
In addition to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the lawsuit names as defendants U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents involved in the raid of WAMM, and administrators of the DEA and Office of National Drug Control Policy.
The court’s ruling is available online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/36494lgl20080820.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)