If it's not one thing, it's another for the
beleaguered National Republican Congressional
Committee.
Three bruising special election losses to Democrats in
traditional GOP strongholds ... A Republican
congressman caught with a DWI, a mistress and love
child ... Deceived by its own treasurer, who's under
federal investigation for possible embezzlement and
bank fraud ... Severely cash strapped... .
And now?
Now, of all the thousands of local Republican
politicians out there, the NRCC has chosen a drug
offender to receive a Republican Congressional Medal
of Distinction at the committee's annual President's
Dinner fundraising gala slated for June 18.
The recipient in question is former Springboro, Ohio,
city councilman Michael Hemmert, 53, who is undergoing
drug treatment in lieu of conviction for cocaine and
marijuana charges. As the Dayton Daily News reports, a
county judge ordered Hemmert to "abstain from alcohol
and drugs, submit to random drug tests and follow
other restrictions while on probation for three
years."
The newspaper quotes an administrator of the Warren
County Common Pleas Court as saying the NRCC's Medal
of Distinction winner "shouldn't have any problems
traveling" to Washington to attend the dinner, as long
as he notifies his probation officer before leaving.
Hemmert resigned his council seat on Feb. 14 after
police "seized cocaine, marijuana and two cars" from
his home during the first of two searches, according
to the Daily News.
A GOP source tells The Sleuth that the NRCC was not
aware of Hemmert's drug background when it made the
decision to honor him. For now, though, it sounds like
the plan is still to present him with the medal at
this month's big dinner.
"There are a number of people in each state who
receive this award for their continued support for the
Republican Party and the NRCC," committee spokeswoman
Julie Shutley tells us.
UPDATE: The Sleuth followed up with e-mails and a
phone call directly asking whether Emmert will still
be honored now that the drug bust is public knowledge.
A source says as far as NRCC officials are aware,
Emmert will be attending the dinner though there will
be no formal awards ceremony at the gala.
Hemmert isn't even that big of a donor. Federal
election records show he gave a one-time donation of
$2,500 to the NRCC over the last three election
cycles.
The NRCC's Democratic counterpart, of course, is
laughing harder than anyone. "Standards at the NRCC
have been flushed down the toilet," says Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Doug
Thornell, adding, "Then again, they don't have much to
work with."
By Mary Ann Akers | June 5, 2008; 4:18 PM ET
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/06/gop_to_award_medal_of_distinct.html
Friday, June 6, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Barry Mcaffrey Sees the Light!
ST. LOUIS TODAY
American taxpayers would save more than $46 billion if drug addicts now
in prison were instead
treated, according to a study released Friday at a national convention of
drug court professionals. Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a former U.S.
drug czar, and actress Melanie Griffith joined experts in calling on
lawmakers to increase funding for such courts. "This is not a war on drugs,"
McCaffrey said. "This is a problem for our families in America. In order to
turn drugs around in this country, we're going to have to treat those 1.5
million people who are addicted.". . .
The study from the Urban Institute in Washington found that about 3 percent
of arrested addicts are referred to a drug court, which offers supervised
treatment to nonviolent offenders whose records are expunged if they
complete the program. "Most addicts need something more than being
warehoused," said Judge Charles Simmons Jr., a drug court judge in
Greenville, S.C. "Drug courts are putting families back together, and they
are decreasing crime at a tremendous savings to taxpayers."
Housing an inmate in prison can cost up to $40,000 a year while drug court
treatment costs up to $3,500 per offender a year, Simmons said. McCaffrey
said 15 years of research has yielded definitive proof that drug courts
significantly reduce crime by as much as 35 percent. He said legislators and
the public may get behind the system once they understand its cost savings.
American taxpayers would save more than $46 billion if drug addicts now
in prison were instead
treated, according to a study released Friday at a national convention of
drug court professionals. Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a former U.S.
drug czar, and actress Melanie Griffith joined experts in calling on
lawmakers to increase funding for such courts. "This is not a war on drugs,"
McCaffrey said. "This is a problem for our families in America. In order to
turn drugs around in this country, we're going to have to treat those 1.5
million people who are addicted.". . .
The study from the Urban Institute in Washington found that about 3 percent
of arrested addicts are referred to a drug court, which offers supervised
treatment to nonviolent offenders whose records are expunged if they
complete the program. "Most addicts need something more than being
warehoused," said Judge Charles Simmons Jr., a drug court judge in
Greenville, S.C. "Drug courts are putting families back together, and they
are decreasing crime at a tremendous savings to taxpayers."
Housing an inmate in prison can cost up to $40,000 a year while drug court
treatment costs up to $3,500 per offender a year, Simmons said. McCaffrey
said 15 years of research has yielded definitive proof that drug courts
significantly reduce crime by as much as 35 percent. He said legislators and
the public may get behind the system once they understand its cost savings.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
All Indicators Point to a Softening of America's Harsh Marijuana Laws
by Alexander Zaitchik, AlterNet
June 3, 2008
<>http://www.alternet.org/story/86982/
You have to hand it to the Republican National Committee: Those guys
really know how to pick the wrong fight.
John McCain, already running against the public opinion grain in
support of the Iraq War and Bush tax cuts, received no help from
headquarters last month when the RNC made medical marijuana a
campaign issue. After Barack Obama told an Oregon weekly that he
would end federal raids on medical marijuana users and providers in
states with compassionate use laws, the RNC pounced. Obama's
position, said an RNC statement, "reveals that (he) doesn't have the
experience necessary to do the job of President (and) lacks the
judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the Executive
Branch." Because the Supreme Court has ruled that federal drug laws
trump state drug laws, the RNC reasons that halting federal raids
would be tantamount to ignoring the law.
They're right. But the RNC might want to get some new pollsters. What
they and their candidates don't seem to realize is that a steadily
shrinking minority of Americans oppose the controlled medicinal use
of cannabis -- around 20 percent, according to the last Gallup poll.
It's a safe bet that an even smaller number considers paramilitary
raids on the homes of peaceful cancer patients to be among the "basic
function of the Executive Branch." During the New Hampshire primary,
every Democratic candidate recognized this political reality by
promising to end federal harassment of state-approved medical
marijuana facilities and users. Republican candidates Tom Tancredo
and Ron Paul pledged the same.
And John McCain? When pressed by activists from the group Granite
Staters for Medical Marijuana, the Arizona senator responded in
lockstep with most of his GOP peers, sounding less like a maverick
than a Reagan-era after-school special. "I do not support the use of
marijuana for medical purposes," McCain said. "I believe that
marijuana is a gateway drug. That is my view, and that's the view of
the federal drug czar and other experts."
Given current trend lines, it may not be long before it's possible to
count McCain's "other experts" on two hands. In February, the
125,000-member American College of Physicians, the second-largest
physicians group in the country, published a position paper endorsing
the merits of medical marijuana and recommending the end of
marijuana's classification as a Schedule 1 drug. "The ACP endorsement
is massive," says Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project, a
Washington, D.C.-based lobbying group. "It blows to splinters the
assertion that the medical community doesn't support medicinal
cannabis."
As goes the ACP, so may go the American Medical Association, an
endorsement from which would leave the anti-medical marijuana
position of the Food and Drug Administration very lonely indeed.
To its credit, the country has not waited for the medical
establishment before moving forward on marijuana policy reform. Over
the last decade, support for compassionate use laws and broader
decriminalization efforts has been growing, if not at weed's pace,
then fast enough for one veteran marijuana reform lobbyist to now
speak of being "within striking distance of a national tipping point."
Since California passed Proposition 215 legalizing medical marijuana
in 1996, an average of one state per year has followed suit, some
through ballot initiatives, others through legislation. Even in
states that have yet to enact reform, a flurry of bills has been
introduced. This activity hasn't been limited to usual-suspect states
like Oregon and Vermont. Recent years have seen medical marijuana
laws introduced in Ohio, Alabama, Missouri and Tennessee. In
staunchly conservative South Carolina, it was a Republican state
senator, whose wife lost a battle with brain cancer, who introduced
his state's medical marijuana bill. In Texas, the state government
last year passed a bill that is a halfway house for
decriminalization, allowing police to issue citations instead of
arresting adults who possess less than 4 ounces of marijuana.
The next big test on the horizon is the Midwestern swing state of
Michigan, where voters in November will decide on a medical marijuana
law, the first such statewide ballot initiative since South Dakotans
narrowly rejected theirs in 2006. If passed, Michigan will be the
only state with its geographical and electoral profile to pass a
medical marijuana law. According to the Inside Michigan Politics
newsletter, polls show two-thirds voter support. "Michigan looks set
to become the 13th medical marijuana state this November," says Rob
Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project.
The other big initiative in November will appear on ballots in
Massachusetts. If passed, the maximum penalty for possession of up to
an ounce of marijuana in the Bay State would drop from up to six
months in jail and a $500 fine to a $100 civil fine.
There is also still a chance that the New York state legislature will
take up medical marijuana this session, a move that would enjoy
overwhelming in-state support. Post-Giuliani New York City is the
marijuana arrest capital of the world, with nearly 40,000 arrests in
2007 alone. The situation has gotten so out of hand that the New York
Times recently urged Gov. David Paterson to take the lead in drug
policy reform. Few governors are better positioned to do this than
Paterson, who is not only on good terms with state Republican
leaders, but has the moral authority that comes from suffering from
glaucoma, a painful condition known to be alleviated by marijuana.
Before becoming governor, Paterson was a leading activist for drug
policy reform and was once arrested protesting the draconian and
racially biased Rockefeller Drug Laws, which turn a brittle 35 this
year. (Incidentally, the Drug Enforcement Agency is celebrating the
same birthday in 2008, its website proudly declaring "35 Years of
Excellence.")
But whatever happens inside Michigan, Massachusetts and New York, the
2005 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich still leaves
marijuana users open to federal prosecution under the Controlled
Substances Act. As highlighted by the RNC statement critical of
Obama's pledge, this decision will continue to undermine state- and
local-level reforms until Congress changes federal law. Although only
1 percent of marijuana cases are prosecuted at the federal level, DEA
raids on patients, caregivers and providers have been on the rise in
states that have passed medical marijuana laws. This is especially
true of California and Oregon, where in many cases individual
patients have been detained and terrorized. In Los Angeles, the DEA
has begun threatening the owners of buildings used for medical
marijuana activities with seizure of their property, a development
the Los Angeles Times has called "a deplorable new bullying tactic."
According to Mirken, "The DEA has become the single largest obstacle
to effective regulation of (medical marijuana) establishments."
At the moment there are three bills in Congress that seek to put a
stop to these raids and set a precedent for federal-level reform.
The young granddaddy of this legislation is the bipartisan
Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment, which has been introduced every year
since 2003. Essentially, the amendment would strip the Department of
Justice of funds to prosecute medical marijuana cases in states that
have medical marijuana laws on the books. Named after Rep. Maurice
Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., the legislation
wouldn't legalize marijuana at the federal level or prevent the feds
from prosecuting medical marijuana use in states without medical
marijuana laws. It would simply enforce respect for state marijuana
laws. When first introduced in 2003, Hinchey-Rohrabacher received 152
votes. Last year, that number had risen to 165. Later this summer,
Congress will tackle the amendment again when it votes on the
Department of Justice Appropriations bill. Reform advocates hope the
amendment will benefit from racking up endorsements from groups like
the right-leaning Citizens Against Government Waste, which came out
in favor of Hinchey-Rohrabacher as a way for Congress to "start
sending a signal that its priorities are in order."
But every year so far has been a 10-yard fight, and its sponsors
don't expect that to change this year. "This will continue to be a
tough battle," says Jeff Lieberson, Hinchey's spokesperson. "Many
politicians are still behind the voters on this issue." Other
analysts also warn against high expectations, pointing out that the
timing is especially unfavorable for drug policy reform at the
federal level.
"The movement on this issue in 2008 is going to be almost nonexistent
because politicians are focused on the election," says Alex Coolman,
a former attorney with the Drug Policy Alliance and author of the
Drug Law Blog. "Nobody in Washington wants to do anything that could
be perceived as controversial."
In April, Hinchey-Rohrabacher was joined by two other marijuana
policy reform bills, both co-sponsored by Barney Frank, D-Mass., and
Ron Paul, R-Texas. HR5842, the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection
Act, would deny the federal government the right to employ the
Controlled Substances Act to intervene in states that have legalized
medical marijuana; it would also remove marijuana from the list of
Schedule 1 drugs. HR5843, meanwhile, known as the Personal Use of
Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act, would effectively decriminalize
possession of up to 1 ounce. "We're in the early stages here," says
Frank spokesperson Peter Kovar. "Nothing like this ever comes quick."
But it may be coming more quickly than some people expect. "All the
indicators are prompting in the right direction," says Kampia. "Every
major new ballot initiative looks set to pass. Infrastructure is
growing: email lists, organizations, allies -- it's across the board.
Public opinion is moving steadily in favor of decriminalization.
State laws are moving forward, and none are going backward. We're
constantly picking up votes in the House. The 110th is the most
supportive Congress we've ever had."
If the RNC keeps attacking Democrats on medical marijuana, the 111th
will be that much better.
Alexander Zaitchik is a freelance journalist.
--
California NORML, 2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114
-(415) 563- 5858 - www.canorml.org
June 3, 2008
<>http://www.alternet.org/story/86982/
You have to hand it to the Republican National Committee: Those guys
really know how to pick the wrong fight.
John McCain, already running against the public opinion grain in
support of the Iraq War and Bush tax cuts, received no help from
headquarters last month when the RNC made medical marijuana a
campaign issue. After Barack Obama told an Oregon weekly that he
would end federal raids on medical marijuana users and providers in
states with compassionate use laws, the RNC pounced. Obama's
position, said an RNC statement, "reveals that (he) doesn't have the
experience necessary to do the job of President (and) lacks the
judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the Executive
Branch." Because the Supreme Court has ruled that federal drug laws
trump state drug laws, the RNC reasons that halting federal raids
would be tantamount to ignoring the law.
They're right. But the RNC might want to get some new pollsters. What
they and their candidates don't seem to realize is that a steadily
shrinking minority of Americans oppose the controlled medicinal use
of cannabis -- around 20 percent, according to the last Gallup poll.
It's a safe bet that an even smaller number considers paramilitary
raids on the homes of peaceful cancer patients to be among the "basic
function of the Executive Branch." During the New Hampshire primary,
every Democratic candidate recognized this political reality by
promising to end federal harassment of state-approved medical
marijuana facilities and users. Republican candidates Tom Tancredo
and Ron Paul pledged the same.
And John McCain? When pressed by activists from the group Granite
Staters for Medical Marijuana, the Arizona senator responded in
lockstep with most of his GOP peers, sounding less like a maverick
than a Reagan-era after-school special. "I do not support the use of
marijuana for medical purposes," McCain said. "I believe that
marijuana is a gateway drug. That is my view, and that's the view of
the federal drug czar and other experts."
Given current trend lines, it may not be long before it's possible to
count McCain's "other experts" on two hands. In February, the
125,000-member American College of Physicians, the second-largest
physicians group in the country, published a position paper endorsing
the merits of medical marijuana and recommending the end of
marijuana's classification as a Schedule 1 drug. "The ACP endorsement
is massive," says Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project, a
Washington, D.C.-based lobbying group. "It blows to splinters the
assertion that the medical community doesn't support medicinal
cannabis."
As goes the ACP, so may go the American Medical Association, an
endorsement from which would leave the anti-medical marijuana
position of the Food and Drug Administration very lonely indeed.
To its credit, the country has not waited for the medical
establishment before moving forward on marijuana policy reform. Over
the last decade, support for compassionate use laws and broader
decriminalization efforts has been growing, if not at weed's pace,
then fast enough for one veteran marijuana reform lobbyist to now
speak of being "within striking distance of a national tipping point."
Since California passed Proposition 215 legalizing medical marijuana
in 1996, an average of one state per year has followed suit, some
through ballot initiatives, others through legislation. Even in
states that have yet to enact reform, a flurry of bills has been
introduced. This activity hasn't been limited to usual-suspect states
like Oregon and Vermont. Recent years have seen medical marijuana
laws introduced in Ohio, Alabama, Missouri and Tennessee. In
staunchly conservative South Carolina, it was a Republican state
senator, whose wife lost a battle with brain cancer, who introduced
his state's medical marijuana bill. In Texas, the state government
last year passed a bill that is a halfway house for
decriminalization, allowing police to issue citations instead of
arresting adults who possess less than 4 ounces of marijuana.
The next big test on the horizon is the Midwestern swing state of
Michigan, where voters in November will decide on a medical marijuana
law, the first such statewide ballot initiative since South Dakotans
narrowly rejected theirs in 2006. If passed, Michigan will be the
only state with its geographical and electoral profile to pass a
medical marijuana law. According to the Inside Michigan Politics
newsletter, polls show two-thirds voter support. "Michigan looks set
to become the 13th medical marijuana state this November," says Rob
Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project.
The other big initiative in November will appear on ballots in
Massachusetts. If passed, the maximum penalty for possession of up to
an ounce of marijuana in the Bay State would drop from up to six
months in jail and a $500 fine to a $100 civil fine.
There is also still a chance that the New York state legislature will
take up medical marijuana this session, a move that would enjoy
overwhelming in-state support. Post-Giuliani New York City is the
marijuana arrest capital of the world, with nearly 40,000 arrests in
2007 alone. The situation has gotten so out of hand that the New York
Times recently urged Gov. David Paterson to take the lead in drug
policy reform. Few governors are better positioned to do this than
Paterson, who is not only on good terms with state Republican
leaders, but has the moral authority that comes from suffering from
glaucoma, a painful condition known to be alleviated by marijuana.
Before becoming governor, Paterson was a leading activist for drug
policy reform and was once arrested protesting the draconian and
racially biased Rockefeller Drug Laws, which turn a brittle 35 this
year. (Incidentally, the Drug Enforcement Agency is celebrating the
same birthday in 2008, its website proudly declaring "35 Years of
Excellence.")
But whatever happens inside Michigan, Massachusetts and New York, the
2005 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich still leaves
marijuana users open to federal prosecution under the Controlled
Substances Act. As highlighted by the RNC statement critical of
Obama's pledge, this decision will continue to undermine state- and
local-level reforms until Congress changes federal law. Although only
1 percent of marijuana cases are prosecuted at the federal level, DEA
raids on patients, caregivers and providers have been on the rise in
states that have passed medical marijuana laws. This is especially
true of California and Oregon, where in many cases individual
patients have been detained and terrorized. In Los Angeles, the DEA
has begun threatening the owners of buildings used for medical
marijuana activities with seizure of their property, a development
the Los Angeles Times has called "a deplorable new bullying tactic."
According to Mirken, "The DEA has become the single largest obstacle
to effective regulation of (medical marijuana) establishments."
At the moment there are three bills in Congress that seek to put a
stop to these raids and set a precedent for federal-level reform.
The young granddaddy of this legislation is the bipartisan
Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment, which has been introduced every year
since 2003. Essentially, the amendment would strip the Department of
Justice of funds to prosecute medical marijuana cases in states that
have medical marijuana laws on the books. Named after Rep. Maurice
Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., the legislation
wouldn't legalize marijuana at the federal level or prevent the feds
from prosecuting medical marijuana use in states without medical
marijuana laws. It would simply enforce respect for state marijuana
laws. When first introduced in 2003, Hinchey-Rohrabacher received 152
votes. Last year, that number had risen to 165. Later this summer,
Congress will tackle the amendment again when it votes on the
Department of Justice Appropriations bill. Reform advocates hope the
amendment will benefit from racking up endorsements from groups like
the right-leaning Citizens Against Government Waste, which came out
in favor of Hinchey-Rohrabacher as a way for Congress to "start
sending a signal that its priorities are in order."
But every year so far has been a 10-yard fight, and its sponsors
don't expect that to change this year. "This will continue to be a
tough battle," says Jeff Lieberson, Hinchey's spokesperson. "Many
politicians are still behind the voters on this issue." Other
analysts also warn against high expectations, pointing out that the
timing is especially unfavorable for drug policy reform at the
federal level.
"The movement on this issue in 2008 is going to be almost nonexistent
because politicians are focused on the election," says Alex Coolman,
a former attorney with the Drug Policy Alliance and author of the
Drug Law Blog. "Nobody in Washington wants to do anything that could
be perceived as controversial."
In April, Hinchey-Rohrabacher was joined by two other marijuana
policy reform bills, both co-sponsored by Barney Frank, D-Mass., and
Ron Paul, R-Texas. HR5842, the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection
Act, would deny the federal government the right to employ the
Controlled Substances Act to intervene in states that have legalized
medical marijuana; it would also remove marijuana from the list of
Schedule 1 drugs. HR5843, meanwhile, known as the Personal Use of
Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act, would effectively decriminalize
possession of up to 1 ounce. "We're in the early stages here," says
Frank spokesperson Peter Kovar. "Nothing like this ever comes quick."
But it may be coming more quickly than some people expect. "All the
indicators are prompting in the right direction," says Kampia. "Every
major new ballot initiative looks set to pass. Infrastructure is
growing: email lists, organizations, allies -- it's across the board.
Public opinion is moving steadily in favor of decriminalization.
State laws are moving forward, and none are going backward. We're
constantly picking up votes in the House. The 110th is the most
supportive Congress we've ever had."
If the RNC keeps attacking Democrats on medical marijuana, the 111th
will be that much better.
Alexander Zaitchik is a freelance journalist.
--
California NORML, 2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114
-(415) 563- 5858 - www.canorml.org
Friday, May 30, 2008
MA: PRISON--FOR POT?
Massachusetts voters can Just Say No to bad drug policy.
I call Dick Evans to interview him. But he has his own question-or, more specifically, an assignment-for me: "I challenge you to find anyone who believes adults who choose to use marijuana responsibly deserve to be arrested, prosecuted and locked up."
Evans is pretty sure I'll come up empty; he's even willing to bet a lunch on it. A Northampton attorney and former member of the Board of Directors of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML, Evans spent decades advocating for the reform of drug laws, and while officially "retired" from the cause, he still tracks it closely.
These days, there's a lot to track. In November, Massachusetts voters could have the chance to decriminalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, making it a civil, not criminal, infraction. On the federal level, U.S. Reps. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Ron Paul, a Texas Republican ( and renegade presidential candidate ), are co-sponsoring legislation that would remove federal penalties for the possession of small amounts of marijuana. ( "The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly," Frank said as he announced the bill on Bill Maher's HBO show "Real Time." That's one for Dick Evans. )
Add to that the increasing public debate about who ends up behind bars for drug crimes, and how much we as a society pay to prosecute and imprison them, and it's tempting to say there's a groundswell of interest, from across the political spectrum, in re-examining our drug laws. But as Evans and other long-time activists will tell you, when it comes to drug policy, change is slow in coming. Progress is made in small, incremental steps, which sometimes fall far short of what reformers would like to see.
"I think we can get lost in the increments," says Evans. While small changes can be important, he urges that focus be kept on what, in an email to the Advocate, he called "the 900-pound gorilla that terrifies so many people, and that is the broad question of whether, in 2008, the responsible use of marijuana by adults with no visible harm to themselves or anyone else ought to remain a crime, wrecking people's lives and diverting public revenues from urgent needs."
Plenty of Massachusetts voters share Evans' view, at least according to a series of questions that have appeared on local ballots in recent years.
Since 2000, activists-most notably, the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, or MASS CANN ( the state affiliate of NORML )-have worked to get non-binding public policy questions on marijuana reform on the ballots in four state Senate districts and 33 Representative districts. All were approved by a majority of voters.
A handful of the ballot questions addressed the legalization of medical marijuana; there was also one that would allow the growing of industrial hemp, and another to allow the state-regulated-and state-taxed-sale of marijuana to adults.
But the vast majority of the questions-28 of the total 37-went directly to the issue of decriminalization, asking voters whether possession of a small amount of pot should be a civil violation. Voters in every district approved the question, by majorities ranging from 59 to 76 percent.
While public policy questions are non-binding, they do serve as an important way of demonstrating to legislators the priorities of their constituents. Whether or not legislators heed those messages is, of course, another matter.
At the very least, the message was heard by activists, who saw Massachusetts presenting a prime opportunity for reforming marijuana laws. That led to the creation of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, or CSMP, the group behind the proposed November ballot question.
Under current Massachusetts law, marijuana possession can lead to jail, probation or a fine; a conviction can also result in the suspension of your driver's license, the loss of your right to possess firearms and the denial of student loans. While first offenses without mitigating circumstances are typically continued without a finding and dropped after one year if the defendant has no further legal problems, critics of the system say there are a number of ways prosecutors can pursue a tougher penalty-if, for instance, the arrest happened near a school zone. They also contend that the defendant's race and class can affect how aggressively a drug charge is pursued, a contention borne out by several recent studies.
Even if a defendant's charges are continued and then dropped, she still has to go through the costly and onerous legal system; as MASS CANN puts it, "Prosecution itself is used as a form of punishment."
If approved, the November ballot question would amend state law so that adults found guilty of possessing one ounce or less would face a $100 fine; those under 18 would also have to complete a "drug awareness program" and perform community service. The initiative has been endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union as well as NORML and MASS CANN.
Last fall, CSMP cleared the first hurdle for getting the question on the ballot, collecting about 81,000 valid petition signatures ( 15,000 more than needed ) in support. Now the group is conducting a second required signature drive, and needs to collect another 11,000 valid signatures by June 18.
At the same time, the Legislature is considering similar legislation that would create civil penalties for personal possession by adults. Given the historically slow progress of such bills, though, reformers see the ballot question as a way to put the issue directly in the hands of voters. "On this issue, the public is ahead of the politicians," says Whitney Taylor, manager of the ballot question committee.
To Taylor, existing laws regarding marijuana are too harsh. A person convicted of possessing a relatively small amount of pot could end up with a criminal record that would haunt him for years, standing as a barrier every time he applies for a job, a loan, an apartment. According to CSMP, 7,500 new criminal records are created each year in Massachusetts for people found guilty of possessing one ounce or less of pot.
The criminal record issue has a lot of traction on college campuses. "Historically, the war on drugs has been waged to protect young people. After decades of failed punitive prohibitionist policies, we as young people are here to say this war is actually hurting us," says Tom Angell, government relations director for Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a national group with chapters at about 125 high schools and colleges.
SSDP focuses on drug policies that affect young people, such as student drug testing. One particularly hot issue has been the 2000 Higher Education Act, which denied federal financial aid to students convicted of any drug offense, even if it happened before they were in college. While the law was amended in 2006 to apply only to students convicted at the time they are receiving aid, blocking anyone's access to education is wrong-headed, Angell says. Students forced to drop out of college for financial reasons will feel the repercussions for a lifetime; some may even be more likely to turn to drugs when other opportunities are denied. "We think that's an incredibly counter-productive policy," Angell says.
And in these days of municipal shortfalls, reformers have in their arsenal an especially persuasive argument: cost savings. Whitney points to a 2007 study by Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, that found that Massachusetts police departments spend a total of $29.5 million a year to arrest and process suspects for possession of an ounce or less of pot.
"Let's let that $29.5 million stay in police coffers," Taylor says. "Let's let it stay in local communities and fight violent crimes."
Several studies have found that in the 11 states that already have similar laws in place-some going back as far as the 1970s-marijuana use and crime rates have not increased. "'Use is going to go through the roof; addiction is going to go through the roof'-all the Chicken-Little arguments the opponents will make did not come to fruition," Taylor says.
In making the case for the ballot question, advocates tread carefully. They emphasize the cost-saving aspect of decriminalization, and point to the backing of sober-minded economists, including the 500 who endorsed a 2005 study by Miron that estimated that federal, state and local governments could save $7.7 billion a year if pot were legalized.
And, no doubt aware of the risk of being dismissed as leftover hippies or punky college kids, reformers enjoy pointing to the surprising array of people who have supported decriminalization: George Shultz, secretary of state during the Reagan administration; Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman; conservative columnist William F. Buckley, whose recent death was mourned by anti-prohibitionists around the country. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, or LEAP, a Medford-based nonprofit, counts current and former cops, judges and legislators among its members.
"This is a reform that liberals and conservatives support, that people from all walks of life can support," Taylor says.
Not everyone, of course, supports the reform. LEAP notwithstanding, strong opposition is expected from within the ranks of law enforcement. The Massachusetts District Attorneys Association has condemned the CSMP ballot question, contending it will increase marijuana use and reverse recent trends of declining pot use among teens. "The District Attorneys ask Massachusetts parents, 'Do you really want to encourage your kids to smoke dope?'" the association asks in its official statement on the question.
The DAs also argue that there's a "direct link between marijuana use and public safety and public health." The group points, by way of example, to a study showing that 41 percent of men arrested in Chicago tested positive for marijuana; what it fails to report is what charges these men faced, and if, in fact, they were arrested solely for pot possession.
Similarly sketchy is the assertion that "the criminal justice system is the largest single source of referral to drug [not just marijuana] treatment programs"; left out is the question of whether these referrals were made, as a condition of law, to people arrested solely for possession of a small amount of pot.
More persuasive are statistics linking marijuana use to impaired driving, although, as the report notes, more impaired drivers have alcohol-a legalized drug-in their systems than pot. Likewise, the DAs point out the health risks of inhaling tar and carbon monoxide from pot, but sidestep the question of why cigarettes, which contain the same substances, are legal.
That line of reasoning also raises a sticky question: most reasonable people can agree that alcohol, cigarettes and marijuana all pose personal and public health risks; why, then, are two of them legal, and one illegal?
It's not surprising the DAs oppose decriminalization, Taylor says: "They want all the tools to convict people. That's their job."
Indeed, lots of jobs are directly tied to drugs remaining illegal, from those of prosecutors, police and jailers to business that goes to ad agencies contracted by the government to produce anti-drug campaigns, and to community groups that receive government funding for anti-drug work, notes Bill Downing, president of MASS CANN. "Their income depends in part on this 'war [on drugs],'" he says.
Backers of the ballot question are mindful of the public safety arguments that will be used against their cause. They point out that the question is narrowly defined, applying only to people carrying what's considered a "personal" amount of pot; it would have no effect on laws applying to the sale, trafficking or cultivation of marijuana, or to crimes like driving under the influence.
More to the point, the question would not legalize pot, but rather decriminalize it-an important distinction. If it passes, Taylor points out, "marijuana remains illegal. We're just creating a different type of penalty system. It deals with the fact that the law is broken, but it allows people to move on with their lives."
As November gets nearer, opposition to the ballot question will likely intensify. The district attorneys have already signaled one likely line of attack: questioning the political and financial support behind CSMP.
According to its most recent finance report, filed with the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance, CSMP's money comes largely from one source: George Soros, who donated $400,000 of the almost $430,000 raised in 2007. ( Most of the money-$316,000-was used to hire a Worcester-based firm that runs petition signature campaigns. )
On the finance reports, Soros is listed as a self-employed "entrepreneur" and Manhattan resident. To the DAs and others in favor of prohibition, Soros is the bane of their existence. A 77-year-old native of Hungary, Soros is a self-made billionaire investor who's used his fortune to fund numerous philanthropic and political causes, including Democratic campaigns. Soros also sits on the board of the Drug Policy Alliance, an anti-prohibition group that calls for, among other things, the decriminalization of marijuana, the legalization of medical marijuana and an end to discriminatory drug laws.
The Drug Policy Alliance is hardly a crackpot group; its board includes business executives, mental health experts and religious leaders, with "honorary" members including George Shultz, past Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders. Still, as Allen St. Pierre, NORML's executive director, notes, when it comes to the heated debate over drug policy, "there's probably not a more polarizing figure" than Soros. He predicts the proponents of the ballot question will be painted by opponents as out-of-state "fringe drug legalizers."
Ironically, while drug law reform might still be cast as a "fringe" movement, drug use-specifically, pot smoking-has become increasingly mainstream. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the government's chief anti-drug agency, a 2006 federal study found 40 percent of Americans over the age of 12 have smoked pot, 10 percent in the last year ( and some suspect those figures are low, given respondents' reluctance to admit to committing a crime ). A 2000 survey by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services found that 20 million Americans smoke pot every year, 2 million on a daily basis.
Perhaps those figures explain the easy acceptance of pot smoking in popular movies and TV shows ( like Showtime's Weeds, about a suburban widow who makes ends meet by selling marijuana, and CBS' How I Met Your Mother, with its unapologetic references to its characters getting high ). We've got a sitting president who has indicated, although never directly admitted, that he has smoked pot, and is rumored to have dabbled in considerably harder stuff, and one contender for that job, Barack Obama, who is more forthcoming about his history of pot and cocaine use.
Of course, Bush and Obama speak of their past use with an air of repentance, and neither favors ending the prohibition on drugs ( although Obama does criticize the Justice Department for raiding and prosecuting medical marijuana users ). The other two major presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, also oppose decriminalizing marijuana. Other presidential candidates have supported decriminalization, including Ron Paul; Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio congressman who dropped out of the race months ago; and Mike Gravel, a Springfield native and former senator from Alaska, who promised at one debate that, if elected, he would "do away with the 'war on drugs,' which does nothing but savage our inner cities and put our children at risk."
Gravel, however, will never be president; neither will Paul or Kucinich. They have devoted supporters and well-honed positions, but they garner minimal coverage from the media. Much of that coverage is dismissive, in large part due to their outside-the-mainstream positions on issues like drug policy. Polls and public policy questions might signal that the public's view of drug use-particularly marijuana-is softening, but most establishment politicians are too wary to follow their lead.
That's why reformers are excited to put the decriminalization question before Massachusetts voters. "Any issue that comes with any amount of controversy at all, politicians are not ready to take a stand on if they don't have to," notes MASS CANN's Downing. "The Legislature wants to avoid the issue completely because they can only lose by addressing this."
Reformers could find some support from Gov. Deval Patrick, who's spoken out about inequities in the justice system, including the undue hurdles created for many under the existing criminal records system. "He's made the kinds of noises of someone who'd be amenable [to drug reform]," St. Pierre says. "At his core, he's got to be keen on some reform. It's a waste of money."
Still, Patrick is a politician, and with that comes a degree of caution. "Clearly, from a political, pragmatic view, he'd be very happy to never have to say the word 'marijuana,'" St. Pierre says.
It's getting harder for politicians to avoid drug policy issues, though, in light of a mounting pile of evidence about inequities in how those policies are executed. In May, the Sentencing Project, a justice reform group based in Washington, D.C., and Human Rights Watch, which tracks global human rights issues, released reports showing deep racial disparities in how drug laws are enforced. In large part, the problem stems from the intense focus on poor urban minority communities.
In 2006, 1.89 million people were arrested for drug violations in the U.S. More than 80 percent of the arrests were for possession; about 40 percent were for marijuana possession.
While the rate of drug use among whites and blacks is roughly equal, and blacks make up about 13 percent of the total population, they accounted for two-thirds of the drug arrests. And black men are nearly 12 times as likely to be sent to prison for drug convictions as white men, according to the HRW report. ( The reports do not indicate rates for Hispanics, since they used FBI data that collects stats by race but not ethnicity. )
"The race question is so entangled in the way the drug war was conceived," Jamie Fellner, author of the HRW report, told the New York Times. "If the drug issue is still seen as primarily a problem of the black inner city, then we'll continue to see this enormously disparate impact."
Indeed, race has shaped U.S. drug policy from the start. In his 2003 book, Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market, journalist Eric Schlosser traces drug prohibition back to the influx of Mexican immigrants in the early 20th century. The new arrivals were not, generally, warmly greeted, and that anti-immigrant sentiment extended to what Schlosser calls "their traditional means of intoxication: smoking marijuana."
Meanwhile, the association of marijuana with African-Americans, and particularly with the jazz scene in cities like New Orleans, added more racial fuel to the fire. Before long, government officials were warning of the alleged dangers of pot smoking. Users were described as extremely violent, possessing superhuman strength when under the influence, and prone to insanity-all depicted, to unintentionally comic effect, in the now-cult classic 1936 film Reefer Madness. By 1931, 29 states had banned pot; in 1937, Congress passed a federal ban.
Attitudes toward pot smoking softened somewhat in the 1960s, when it became the drug of choice of white, middle-class kids. In 1970, federal law was amended to differentiate marijuana from other narcotics and lessen penalties for possession of small amounts. At the time, NORML's St. Pierre recalls, marijuana reform "appeared to be on greased tracks."
Then came the conservative '80s, and Ronald Reagan's "Just Say No" anti-drug agenda. Marijuana was again vilified as a highly dangerous "gateway" drug that would lead to use of harder substances. Drug laws were toughened; the laws regarding pot now vary widely from state to state, and, critics say, are open to varying interpretation that can lead to harsher results for, say, a black kid from a distressed urban area than a white kid with a suburban address and parents who can afford a lawyer.
"It's because black folks used it-that's why marijuana and cocaine and heroin are illegal, and that's why tobacco and alcohol are legal and receive government subsidies. They're white folks' drugs," Evans says. The recent reports about racial disparities in the enforcement of drug laws, he adds, demonstrate "that marijuana prohibition laws have been very effective in achieving their original purpose, which was to repress minority communities."
It's not drugs that have devastated America's inner cities, critics say-it's the government-sponsored, publicly funded "war on drugs." In the same way that alcohol prohibition created a thriving black market for bootleggers and speakeasies-planting the seeds for modern-day organized crime in the process-the prohibition on drugs has created a black market that is thriving despite the billions spent in the quest to end it.
"Certainly, there is a dangerous level of violence and crime associated with the drug trade, but that's only because drugs are illegal," argues Tom Angell of SSDP. "Drug abuse is a serious issue. & But there's no drug known to man that gets safer when its production is handed over to violent drug cartels."
Which is why, reformers say, it's time to consider withdrawing the troops and declaring an end to the drug war. That doesn't mean that crimes associated with drug selling or use-violence, theft-wouldn't continue to be prosecuted; rather, anti-prohibitionists say, eliminating the black market for drugs would significantly reduce those related crimes. "In terms of the big picture, we can keep chasing our tail and busting a drug gang here or there, or we can put it all out of business by making it legal," Angell says.
And this is where drug law reformers will lose some of their base of support; plenty of mainstream Americans might see smoking the occasional joint as no big deal, but are they ready for a wholesale lifting of the ban on harder drugs?
They might, Evans says, if they consider just how little the prohibitionist agenda has accomplished. "What is your definition of victory in the war on drugs?" he wonders. "And when we achieve that victory, how many people will be in prison, and how much will it cost?"
Decriminalizing marijuana could be an important, and generally palatable, first step toward rethinking how we as a society view drugs. "It's 2008-it's two generations, almost, since the cultural revolution-and we still lock people up for pot," Evans notes. "What have we accomplished by wrecking millions of lives and spending jillions of dollars? What have we accomplished?"
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n539/a01.html
Newshawk: Jane Marcus and Herb.
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Wed, 28 May 2008
Source: Valley Advocate (Easthampton, MA)
Copyright: 2008 New Mass Media
Contact: tvannah@valleyadvocate.com
Website: http://www.valleyadvocate.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1520
Author: Maureen Turner
Cited: National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
http://www.norml.org/
Cited: Jeffrey Miron's Report http://www.prohibitioncosts.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?219 (Students for Sensible Drug Policy)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/soros.htm (Soros, George)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?233 (Law Enforcement Against
Prohibition)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/racial.htm (Racial Issues)
I call Dick Evans to interview him. But he has his own question-or, more specifically, an assignment-for me: "I challenge you to find anyone who believes adults who choose to use marijuana responsibly deserve to be arrested, prosecuted and locked up."
Evans is pretty sure I'll come up empty; he's even willing to bet a lunch on it. A Northampton attorney and former member of the Board of Directors of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML, Evans spent decades advocating for the reform of drug laws, and while officially "retired" from the cause, he still tracks it closely.
These days, there's a lot to track. In November, Massachusetts voters could have the chance to decriminalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, making it a civil, not criminal, infraction. On the federal level, U.S. Reps. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Ron Paul, a Texas Republican ( and renegade presidential candidate ), are co-sponsoring legislation that would remove federal penalties for the possession of small amounts of marijuana. ( "The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly," Frank said as he announced the bill on Bill Maher's HBO show "Real Time." That's one for Dick Evans. )
Add to that the increasing public debate about who ends up behind bars for drug crimes, and how much we as a society pay to prosecute and imprison them, and it's tempting to say there's a groundswell of interest, from across the political spectrum, in re-examining our drug laws. But as Evans and other long-time activists will tell you, when it comes to drug policy, change is slow in coming. Progress is made in small, incremental steps, which sometimes fall far short of what reformers would like to see.
"I think we can get lost in the increments," says Evans. While small changes can be important, he urges that focus be kept on what, in an email to the Advocate, he called "the 900-pound gorilla that terrifies so many people, and that is the broad question of whether, in 2008, the responsible use of marijuana by adults with no visible harm to themselves or anyone else ought to remain a crime, wrecking people's lives and diverting public revenues from urgent needs."
Plenty of Massachusetts voters share Evans' view, at least according to a series of questions that have appeared on local ballots in recent years.
Since 2000, activists-most notably, the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, or MASS CANN ( the state affiliate of NORML )-have worked to get non-binding public policy questions on marijuana reform on the ballots in four state Senate districts and 33 Representative districts. All were approved by a majority of voters.
A handful of the ballot questions addressed the legalization of medical marijuana; there was also one that would allow the growing of industrial hemp, and another to allow the state-regulated-and state-taxed-sale of marijuana to adults.
But the vast majority of the questions-28 of the total 37-went directly to the issue of decriminalization, asking voters whether possession of a small amount of pot should be a civil violation. Voters in every district approved the question, by majorities ranging from 59 to 76 percent.
While public policy questions are non-binding, they do serve as an important way of demonstrating to legislators the priorities of their constituents. Whether or not legislators heed those messages is, of course, another matter.
At the very least, the message was heard by activists, who saw Massachusetts presenting a prime opportunity for reforming marijuana laws. That led to the creation of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, or CSMP, the group behind the proposed November ballot question.
Under current Massachusetts law, marijuana possession can lead to jail, probation or a fine; a conviction can also result in the suspension of your driver's license, the loss of your right to possess firearms and the denial of student loans. While first offenses without mitigating circumstances are typically continued without a finding and dropped after one year if the defendant has no further legal problems, critics of the system say there are a number of ways prosecutors can pursue a tougher penalty-if, for instance, the arrest happened near a school zone. They also contend that the defendant's race and class can affect how aggressively a drug charge is pursued, a contention borne out by several recent studies.
Even if a defendant's charges are continued and then dropped, she still has to go through the costly and onerous legal system; as MASS CANN puts it, "Prosecution itself is used as a form of punishment."
If approved, the November ballot question would amend state law so that adults found guilty of possessing one ounce or less would face a $100 fine; those under 18 would also have to complete a "drug awareness program" and perform community service. The initiative has been endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union as well as NORML and MASS CANN.
Last fall, CSMP cleared the first hurdle for getting the question on the ballot, collecting about 81,000 valid petition signatures ( 15,000 more than needed ) in support. Now the group is conducting a second required signature drive, and needs to collect another 11,000 valid signatures by June 18.
At the same time, the Legislature is considering similar legislation that would create civil penalties for personal possession by adults. Given the historically slow progress of such bills, though, reformers see the ballot question as a way to put the issue directly in the hands of voters. "On this issue, the public is ahead of the politicians," says Whitney Taylor, manager of the ballot question committee.
To Taylor, existing laws regarding marijuana are too harsh. A person convicted of possessing a relatively small amount of pot could end up with a criminal record that would haunt him for years, standing as a barrier every time he applies for a job, a loan, an apartment. According to CSMP, 7,500 new criminal records are created each year in Massachusetts for people found guilty of possessing one ounce or less of pot.
The criminal record issue has a lot of traction on college campuses. "Historically, the war on drugs has been waged to protect young people. After decades of failed punitive prohibitionist policies, we as young people are here to say this war is actually hurting us," says Tom Angell, government relations director for Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a national group with chapters at about 125 high schools and colleges.
SSDP focuses on drug policies that affect young people, such as student drug testing. One particularly hot issue has been the 2000 Higher Education Act, which denied federal financial aid to students convicted of any drug offense, even if it happened before they were in college. While the law was amended in 2006 to apply only to students convicted at the time they are receiving aid, blocking anyone's access to education is wrong-headed, Angell says. Students forced to drop out of college for financial reasons will feel the repercussions for a lifetime; some may even be more likely to turn to drugs when other opportunities are denied. "We think that's an incredibly counter-productive policy," Angell says.
And in these days of municipal shortfalls, reformers have in their arsenal an especially persuasive argument: cost savings. Whitney points to a 2007 study by Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, that found that Massachusetts police departments spend a total of $29.5 million a year to arrest and process suspects for possession of an ounce or less of pot.
"Let's let that $29.5 million stay in police coffers," Taylor says. "Let's let it stay in local communities and fight violent crimes."
Several studies have found that in the 11 states that already have similar laws in place-some going back as far as the 1970s-marijuana use and crime rates have not increased. "'Use is going to go through the roof; addiction is going to go through the roof'-all the Chicken-Little arguments the opponents will make did not come to fruition," Taylor says.
In making the case for the ballot question, advocates tread carefully. They emphasize the cost-saving aspect of decriminalization, and point to the backing of sober-minded economists, including the 500 who endorsed a 2005 study by Miron that estimated that federal, state and local governments could save $7.7 billion a year if pot were legalized.
And, no doubt aware of the risk of being dismissed as leftover hippies or punky college kids, reformers enjoy pointing to the surprising array of people who have supported decriminalization: George Shultz, secretary of state during the Reagan administration; Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman; conservative columnist William F. Buckley, whose recent death was mourned by anti-prohibitionists around the country. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, or LEAP, a Medford-based nonprofit, counts current and former cops, judges and legislators among its members.
"This is a reform that liberals and conservatives support, that people from all walks of life can support," Taylor says.
Not everyone, of course, supports the reform. LEAP notwithstanding, strong opposition is expected from within the ranks of law enforcement. The Massachusetts District Attorneys Association has condemned the CSMP ballot question, contending it will increase marijuana use and reverse recent trends of declining pot use among teens. "The District Attorneys ask Massachusetts parents, 'Do you really want to encourage your kids to smoke dope?'" the association asks in its official statement on the question.
The DAs also argue that there's a "direct link between marijuana use and public safety and public health." The group points, by way of example, to a study showing that 41 percent of men arrested in Chicago tested positive for marijuana; what it fails to report is what charges these men faced, and if, in fact, they were arrested solely for pot possession.
Similarly sketchy is the assertion that "the criminal justice system is the largest single source of referral to drug [not just marijuana] treatment programs"; left out is the question of whether these referrals were made, as a condition of law, to people arrested solely for possession of a small amount of pot.
More persuasive are statistics linking marijuana use to impaired driving, although, as the report notes, more impaired drivers have alcohol-a legalized drug-in their systems than pot. Likewise, the DAs point out the health risks of inhaling tar and carbon monoxide from pot, but sidestep the question of why cigarettes, which contain the same substances, are legal.
That line of reasoning also raises a sticky question: most reasonable people can agree that alcohol, cigarettes and marijuana all pose personal and public health risks; why, then, are two of them legal, and one illegal?
It's not surprising the DAs oppose decriminalization, Taylor says: "They want all the tools to convict people. That's their job."
Indeed, lots of jobs are directly tied to drugs remaining illegal, from those of prosecutors, police and jailers to business that goes to ad agencies contracted by the government to produce anti-drug campaigns, and to community groups that receive government funding for anti-drug work, notes Bill Downing, president of MASS CANN. "Their income depends in part on this 'war [on drugs],'" he says.
Backers of the ballot question are mindful of the public safety arguments that will be used against their cause. They point out that the question is narrowly defined, applying only to people carrying what's considered a "personal" amount of pot; it would have no effect on laws applying to the sale, trafficking or cultivation of marijuana, or to crimes like driving under the influence.
More to the point, the question would not legalize pot, but rather decriminalize it-an important distinction. If it passes, Taylor points out, "marijuana remains illegal. We're just creating a different type of penalty system. It deals with the fact that the law is broken, but it allows people to move on with their lives."
As November gets nearer, opposition to the ballot question will likely intensify. The district attorneys have already signaled one likely line of attack: questioning the political and financial support behind CSMP.
According to its most recent finance report, filed with the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance, CSMP's money comes largely from one source: George Soros, who donated $400,000 of the almost $430,000 raised in 2007. ( Most of the money-$316,000-was used to hire a Worcester-based firm that runs petition signature campaigns. )
On the finance reports, Soros is listed as a self-employed "entrepreneur" and Manhattan resident. To the DAs and others in favor of prohibition, Soros is the bane of their existence. A 77-year-old native of Hungary, Soros is a self-made billionaire investor who's used his fortune to fund numerous philanthropic and political causes, including Democratic campaigns. Soros also sits on the board of the Drug Policy Alliance, an anti-prohibition group that calls for, among other things, the decriminalization of marijuana, the legalization of medical marijuana and an end to discriminatory drug laws.
The Drug Policy Alliance is hardly a crackpot group; its board includes business executives, mental health experts and religious leaders, with "honorary" members including George Shultz, past Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders. Still, as Allen St. Pierre, NORML's executive director, notes, when it comes to the heated debate over drug policy, "there's probably not a more polarizing figure" than Soros. He predicts the proponents of the ballot question will be painted by opponents as out-of-state "fringe drug legalizers."
Ironically, while drug law reform might still be cast as a "fringe" movement, drug use-specifically, pot smoking-has become increasingly mainstream. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the government's chief anti-drug agency, a 2006 federal study found 40 percent of Americans over the age of 12 have smoked pot, 10 percent in the last year ( and some suspect those figures are low, given respondents' reluctance to admit to committing a crime ). A 2000 survey by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services found that 20 million Americans smoke pot every year, 2 million on a daily basis.
Perhaps those figures explain the easy acceptance of pot smoking in popular movies and TV shows ( like Showtime's Weeds, about a suburban widow who makes ends meet by selling marijuana, and CBS' How I Met Your Mother, with its unapologetic references to its characters getting high ). We've got a sitting president who has indicated, although never directly admitted, that he has smoked pot, and is rumored to have dabbled in considerably harder stuff, and one contender for that job, Barack Obama, who is more forthcoming about his history of pot and cocaine use.
Of course, Bush and Obama speak of their past use with an air of repentance, and neither favors ending the prohibition on drugs ( although Obama does criticize the Justice Department for raiding and prosecuting medical marijuana users ). The other two major presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, also oppose decriminalizing marijuana. Other presidential candidates have supported decriminalization, including Ron Paul; Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio congressman who dropped out of the race months ago; and Mike Gravel, a Springfield native and former senator from Alaska, who promised at one debate that, if elected, he would "do away with the 'war on drugs,' which does nothing but savage our inner cities and put our children at risk."
Gravel, however, will never be president; neither will Paul or Kucinich. They have devoted supporters and well-honed positions, but they garner minimal coverage from the media. Much of that coverage is dismissive, in large part due to their outside-the-mainstream positions on issues like drug policy. Polls and public policy questions might signal that the public's view of drug use-particularly marijuana-is softening, but most establishment politicians are too wary to follow their lead.
That's why reformers are excited to put the decriminalization question before Massachusetts voters. "Any issue that comes with any amount of controversy at all, politicians are not ready to take a stand on if they don't have to," notes MASS CANN's Downing. "The Legislature wants to avoid the issue completely because they can only lose by addressing this."
Reformers could find some support from Gov. Deval Patrick, who's spoken out about inequities in the justice system, including the undue hurdles created for many under the existing criminal records system. "He's made the kinds of noises of someone who'd be amenable [to drug reform]," St. Pierre says. "At his core, he's got to be keen on some reform. It's a waste of money."
Still, Patrick is a politician, and with that comes a degree of caution. "Clearly, from a political, pragmatic view, he'd be very happy to never have to say the word 'marijuana,'" St. Pierre says.
It's getting harder for politicians to avoid drug policy issues, though, in light of a mounting pile of evidence about inequities in how those policies are executed. In May, the Sentencing Project, a justice reform group based in Washington, D.C., and Human Rights Watch, which tracks global human rights issues, released reports showing deep racial disparities in how drug laws are enforced. In large part, the problem stems from the intense focus on poor urban minority communities.
In 2006, 1.89 million people were arrested for drug violations in the U.S. More than 80 percent of the arrests were for possession; about 40 percent were for marijuana possession.
While the rate of drug use among whites and blacks is roughly equal, and blacks make up about 13 percent of the total population, they accounted for two-thirds of the drug arrests. And black men are nearly 12 times as likely to be sent to prison for drug convictions as white men, according to the HRW report. ( The reports do not indicate rates for Hispanics, since they used FBI data that collects stats by race but not ethnicity. )
"The race question is so entangled in the way the drug war was conceived," Jamie Fellner, author of the HRW report, told the New York Times. "If the drug issue is still seen as primarily a problem of the black inner city, then we'll continue to see this enormously disparate impact."
Indeed, race has shaped U.S. drug policy from the start. In his 2003 book, Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market, journalist Eric Schlosser traces drug prohibition back to the influx of Mexican immigrants in the early 20th century. The new arrivals were not, generally, warmly greeted, and that anti-immigrant sentiment extended to what Schlosser calls "their traditional means of intoxication: smoking marijuana."
Meanwhile, the association of marijuana with African-Americans, and particularly with the jazz scene in cities like New Orleans, added more racial fuel to the fire. Before long, government officials were warning of the alleged dangers of pot smoking. Users were described as extremely violent, possessing superhuman strength when under the influence, and prone to insanity-all depicted, to unintentionally comic effect, in the now-cult classic 1936 film Reefer Madness. By 1931, 29 states had banned pot; in 1937, Congress passed a federal ban.
Attitudes toward pot smoking softened somewhat in the 1960s, when it became the drug of choice of white, middle-class kids. In 1970, federal law was amended to differentiate marijuana from other narcotics and lessen penalties for possession of small amounts. At the time, NORML's St. Pierre recalls, marijuana reform "appeared to be on greased tracks."
Then came the conservative '80s, and Ronald Reagan's "Just Say No" anti-drug agenda. Marijuana was again vilified as a highly dangerous "gateway" drug that would lead to use of harder substances. Drug laws were toughened; the laws regarding pot now vary widely from state to state, and, critics say, are open to varying interpretation that can lead to harsher results for, say, a black kid from a distressed urban area than a white kid with a suburban address and parents who can afford a lawyer.
"It's because black folks used it-that's why marijuana and cocaine and heroin are illegal, and that's why tobacco and alcohol are legal and receive government subsidies. They're white folks' drugs," Evans says. The recent reports about racial disparities in the enforcement of drug laws, he adds, demonstrate "that marijuana prohibition laws have been very effective in achieving their original purpose, which was to repress minority communities."
It's not drugs that have devastated America's inner cities, critics say-it's the government-sponsored, publicly funded "war on drugs." In the same way that alcohol prohibition created a thriving black market for bootleggers and speakeasies-planting the seeds for modern-day organized crime in the process-the prohibition on drugs has created a black market that is thriving despite the billions spent in the quest to end it.
"Certainly, there is a dangerous level of violence and crime associated with the drug trade, but that's only because drugs are illegal," argues Tom Angell of SSDP. "Drug abuse is a serious issue. & But there's no drug known to man that gets safer when its production is handed over to violent drug cartels."
Which is why, reformers say, it's time to consider withdrawing the troops and declaring an end to the drug war. That doesn't mean that crimes associated with drug selling or use-violence, theft-wouldn't continue to be prosecuted; rather, anti-prohibitionists say, eliminating the black market for drugs would significantly reduce those related crimes. "In terms of the big picture, we can keep chasing our tail and busting a drug gang here or there, or we can put it all out of business by making it legal," Angell says.
And this is where drug law reformers will lose some of their base of support; plenty of mainstream Americans might see smoking the occasional joint as no big deal, but are they ready for a wholesale lifting of the ban on harder drugs?
They might, Evans says, if they consider just how little the prohibitionist agenda has accomplished. "What is your definition of victory in the war on drugs?" he wonders. "And when we achieve that victory, how many people will be in prison, and how much will it cost?"
Decriminalizing marijuana could be an important, and generally palatable, first step toward rethinking how we as a society view drugs. "It's 2008-it's two generations, almost, since the cultural revolution-and we still lock people up for pot," Evans notes. "What have we accomplished by wrecking millions of lives and spending jillions of dollars? What have we accomplished?"
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n539/a01.html
Newshawk: Jane Marcus and Herb.
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Wed, 28 May 2008
Source: Valley Advocate (Easthampton, MA)
Copyright: 2008 New Mass Media
Contact: tvannah@valleyadvocate.com
Website: http://www.valleyadvocate.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1520
Author: Maureen Turner
Cited: National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
http://www.norml.org/
Cited: Jeffrey Miron's Report http://www.prohibitioncosts.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?219 (Students for Sensible Drug Policy)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/soros.htm (Soros, George)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?233 (Law Enforcement Against
Prohibition)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/racial.htm (Racial Issues)
MT: PAROLEES OK TO USE MEDICAL MARIJUANA
HELENA - The state Department of Corrections has backed off from a proposed rule that would bar anyone on parole or probation from obtaining medical marijuana without a judge's approval.
Proponents of the medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 2004, argued during a March hearing that the law does not allow any penalty for using medical marijuana, regardless of a person's criminal history.
"Our hands are tied by the way the initiative-passed law was written," Diana Koch, chief legal counsel for the department, said in a statement Thursday. "As a result, those who have broken the law cannot be subject to this reasonable restriction."
Tom Daubert of Patients and Families United, a medical marijuana advocacy group, said the decision "recognizes that medical marijuana is entirely legal for any Montanan suffering from a qualifying medical condition whose doctor recommends it."
"I think this decision only affects a tiny number of Montanans, but it's hugely important to their quality of life and their ability to alleviate their pain and suffering," Daubert said.
Koch said she isn't sure Montana voters "understood that the medical marijuana act was going to go this far. There is the very real possibility that a person convicted of drug distribution can get a medical marijuana card and there is nothing probation and parole officers can do about it."
Daubert said it was the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes that got some of them in trouble with the law in the first place.
"All the people on probation whom I know who were convicted of a drug offense are actually legitimately suffering patients whose use of marijuana either predated our state law or who didn't understand the law as an affirmative defense and pled guilty to a crime they didn't actually commit," he said.
Koch stressed that the decision to exclude the marijuana provision from probation and parole rules does not mean the department endorses the use of marijuana.
"The use of marijuana is not in the best interest of the public or of offenders, who are responsible for rehabilitating themselves while under supervision in the community," Koch said.
The issue came up as the Department of Corrections was developing standard conditions for offenders on parole or probation.
The agency had proposed prohibiting the use of medical marijuana unless the offenders obtained a judge's exemption.
The probation and parole rules, scheduled to take effect June 13, include a prohibition on gambling, firearms and alcohol use; allowing searches of an offender's home and random testing for alcohol or illegal drug use; and offenders' payment of court-ordered fines and restitution.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n539/a02.html
Newshawk: Richard Lake
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Fri, 30 May 2008
Source: Missoulian (MT)
Copyright: 2008 Missoulian
Contact: oped@missoulian.com
Website: http://www.missoulian.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/720
Note: Only prints letters from within its print circulation area
Author: Amy Beth Hanson, Associated Press
Cited: Patients and Families United http://www.mtmjpatients.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
Proponents of the medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 2004, argued during a March hearing that the law does not allow any penalty for using medical marijuana, regardless of a person's criminal history.
"Our hands are tied by the way the initiative-passed law was written," Diana Koch, chief legal counsel for the department, said in a statement Thursday. "As a result, those who have broken the law cannot be subject to this reasonable restriction."
Tom Daubert of Patients and Families United, a medical marijuana advocacy group, said the decision "recognizes that medical marijuana is entirely legal for any Montanan suffering from a qualifying medical condition whose doctor recommends it."
"I think this decision only affects a tiny number of Montanans, but it's hugely important to their quality of life and their ability to alleviate their pain and suffering," Daubert said.
Koch said she isn't sure Montana voters "understood that the medical marijuana act was going to go this far. There is the very real possibility that a person convicted of drug distribution can get a medical marijuana card and there is nothing probation and parole officers can do about it."
Daubert said it was the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes that got some of them in trouble with the law in the first place.
"All the people on probation whom I know who were convicted of a drug offense are actually legitimately suffering patients whose use of marijuana either predated our state law or who didn't understand the law as an affirmative defense and pled guilty to a crime they didn't actually commit," he said.
Koch stressed that the decision to exclude the marijuana provision from probation and parole rules does not mean the department endorses the use of marijuana.
"The use of marijuana is not in the best interest of the public or of offenders, who are responsible for rehabilitating themselves while under supervision in the community," Koch said.
The issue came up as the Department of Corrections was developing standard conditions for offenders on parole or probation.
The agency had proposed prohibiting the use of medical marijuana unless the offenders obtained a judge's exemption.
The probation and parole rules, scheduled to take effect June 13, include a prohibition on gambling, firearms and alcohol use; allowing searches of an offender's home and random testing for alcohol or illegal drug use; and offenders' payment of court-ordered fines and restitution.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n539/a02.html
Newshawk: Richard Lake
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Fri, 30 May 2008
Source: Missoulian (MT)
Copyright: 2008 Missoulian
Contact: oped@missoulian.com
Website: http://www.missoulian.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/720
Note: Only prints letters from within its print circulation area
Author: Amy Beth Hanson, Associated Press
Cited: Patients and Families United http://www.mtmjpatients.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
VT: DOUGLAS WON'T VETO NEW HEMP LAW
MONTPELIER - Gov. James Douglas will allow a bill legalizing hemp to become law despite concerns from the law enforcement community about its impact on marijuana eradication efforts in the state.
The legislation, which legalizes the cultivation of industrial hemp in Vermont, won nearly unanimous support in the both the House and Senate this session. Though Douglas doesn't support the bill, and has refused to attach his signature to it, he will nonetheless forward the legislation to the Secretary of State, which will effectively enact the law.
"It's a do-nothing bill," Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs said Thursday. "The federal law still prohibits the cultivation of industrial hemp, and so the practical impact of this legislation is virtually nothing."
Douglas could have vetoed the legislation, an option he considered after law enforcement officials raised concerns. But Gibbs said Douglas does not "exercise his veto authority lightly," and that the bill is too insignificant to warrant such an extreme action.
"The consequence of this bill is so low, so insignificant, that it doesn't rise to the level of a gubernatorial veto," Gibbs said.
Farmers won't be able to grow hemp crops just yet. Federal statute, which supercedes state law, draws no distinction between hemp and marijuana, and anyone growing either is subject to prosecution.
But Tom Tremblay, commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, said he worries about what the legislation means for law enforcement officers in Vermont if the federal law does change.
"The plants are really difficult to differentiate," Tremblay said. "The legalization of industrial hemp could increase production of marijuana."
Hemp and marijuana are in the same species of flora. THC, the intoxicating compound in marijuana, exists in hemp but at much lower levels. Vermont's law classifies hemp as a cannabis sativa plant with less than .2 percent THC. Marijuana generally has a THC content of at least 5 percent.
Tremblay, though, said that proving in a criminal court that the marijuana they seized isn't actually hemp means an expensive and laborious testing protocol that the state's crime labs are ill-equipped to take on.
"It would require the crime lab to basically develop some kind of chemical analysis, so we'd have to purchase special equipment and conduct special training, which would be expensive and time consuming," Tremblay said. "I, for one, would rather have the crime lab focusing on the very serious cases we're dealing with now."
Lawmakers this session heard testimony from authorities in Canada - where hemp cultivation is legal - who said they have no trouble distinguishing the plants. That testimony was compelling enough for Rep. Jim McNeil, a Rutland Town Republican on the House Agriculture Committee that drafted the original bill.
"You can smoke as much hemp as you want and you just get a massive headache," McNeil said. "And you can tell the difference between the crops from a distance you don't have to be right up on top of it."
McNeil said he supports the legislation because of the potential impact it could have on agriculture in the state.
"It could be a viable rotation crop for farmers, and I think it could spur a lot of small businesses," he said.
Hemp, grown legally in every industrialized country except the United States, reaps attractive profit margins for some farmers. Hemp oil, derived from seeds, is used in food and beauty products. Hemp's long stalks contain fiber and cellulose that can be made into textiles, building materials and fuel.
Amy Shollenberger, director of Rural Vermont, said the law positions Vermont farmers to capitalize on the hemp boon when the federal statute finally does change.
"I think Vermont's best hope is to do as much as it can to build local economies, and I think hemp can be a big factor in building that economy," Shollenberger said.
Vermont businesses already selling hemp products, she said, are clamoring for locally sourced hemp.
Anna Barrett, marketing director for Way Out Wax in Morrisville, said her company, which sells candles and other natural products, would prefer to purchase its hemp ingredients from local farmers.
"It's an amazing crop that has so many applications," Barrett said. "We could make hemp wax candles. People are always looking for hemp oils because they're so healthy and good for you. I really think there's a market here."
Andrew Meyer, co-owner of Vermont Soy in Hardwick, said the hemp industry might also spur in-state processing facilities that could strengthen the manufacturing sector in Vermont.
"If you have a source of hemp, and a demand for its products, you could potentially see processing facilities around the state," he said.
Gibbs said Vermonters would have been better served had their Legislature focused on issues other than hemp.
"The time the Legislature spent on this issue would have been better spent addressing property taxes or health care costs or reducing regulatory barriers to job creation," Gibbs said.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n539/a05.html
Newshawk: Richard Lake
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Fri, 30 May 2008
Source: Times Argus (Barre, VT)
Copyright: 2008 Times Argus
Contact: letters@timesargus.com
Website: http://www.timesargus.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/893
Author: Peter Hirschfeld, Vermont Press Bureau
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/industrial+hemp
The legislation, which legalizes the cultivation of industrial hemp in Vermont, won nearly unanimous support in the both the House and Senate this session. Though Douglas doesn't support the bill, and has refused to attach his signature to it, he will nonetheless forward the legislation to the Secretary of State, which will effectively enact the law.
"It's a do-nothing bill," Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs said Thursday. "The federal law still prohibits the cultivation of industrial hemp, and so the practical impact of this legislation is virtually nothing."
Douglas could have vetoed the legislation, an option he considered after law enforcement officials raised concerns. But Gibbs said Douglas does not "exercise his veto authority lightly," and that the bill is too insignificant to warrant such an extreme action.
"The consequence of this bill is so low, so insignificant, that it doesn't rise to the level of a gubernatorial veto," Gibbs said.
Farmers won't be able to grow hemp crops just yet. Federal statute, which supercedes state law, draws no distinction between hemp and marijuana, and anyone growing either is subject to prosecution.
But Tom Tremblay, commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, said he worries about what the legislation means for law enforcement officers in Vermont if the federal law does change.
"The plants are really difficult to differentiate," Tremblay said. "The legalization of industrial hemp could increase production of marijuana."
Hemp and marijuana are in the same species of flora. THC, the intoxicating compound in marijuana, exists in hemp but at much lower levels. Vermont's law classifies hemp as a cannabis sativa plant with less than .2 percent THC. Marijuana generally has a THC content of at least 5 percent.
Tremblay, though, said that proving in a criminal court that the marijuana they seized isn't actually hemp means an expensive and laborious testing protocol that the state's crime labs are ill-equipped to take on.
"It would require the crime lab to basically develop some kind of chemical analysis, so we'd have to purchase special equipment and conduct special training, which would be expensive and time consuming," Tremblay said. "I, for one, would rather have the crime lab focusing on the very serious cases we're dealing with now."
Lawmakers this session heard testimony from authorities in Canada - where hemp cultivation is legal - who said they have no trouble distinguishing the plants. That testimony was compelling enough for Rep. Jim McNeil, a Rutland Town Republican on the House Agriculture Committee that drafted the original bill.
"You can smoke as much hemp as you want and you just get a massive headache," McNeil said. "And you can tell the difference between the crops from a distance you don't have to be right up on top of it."
McNeil said he supports the legislation because of the potential impact it could have on agriculture in the state.
"It could be a viable rotation crop for farmers, and I think it could spur a lot of small businesses," he said.
Hemp, grown legally in every industrialized country except the United States, reaps attractive profit margins for some farmers. Hemp oil, derived from seeds, is used in food and beauty products. Hemp's long stalks contain fiber and cellulose that can be made into textiles, building materials and fuel.
Amy Shollenberger, director of Rural Vermont, said the law positions Vermont farmers to capitalize on the hemp boon when the federal statute finally does change.
"I think Vermont's best hope is to do as much as it can to build local economies, and I think hemp can be a big factor in building that economy," Shollenberger said.
Vermont businesses already selling hemp products, she said, are clamoring for locally sourced hemp.
Anna Barrett, marketing director for Way Out Wax in Morrisville, said her company, which sells candles and other natural products, would prefer to purchase its hemp ingredients from local farmers.
"It's an amazing crop that has so many applications," Barrett said. "We could make hemp wax candles. People are always looking for hemp oils because they're so healthy and good for you. I really think there's a market here."
Andrew Meyer, co-owner of Vermont Soy in Hardwick, said the hemp industry might also spur in-state processing facilities that could strengthen the manufacturing sector in Vermont.
"If you have a source of hemp, and a demand for its products, you could potentially see processing facilities around the state," he said.
Gibbs said Vermonters would have been better served had their Legislature focused on issues other than hemp.
"The time the Legislature spent on this issue would have been better spent addressing property taxes or health care costs or reducing regulatory barriers to job creation," Gibbs said.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n539/a05.html
Newshawk: Richard Lake
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Fri, 30 May 2008
Source: Times Argus (Barre, VT)
Copyright: 2008 Times Argus
Contact: letters@timesargus.com
Website: http://www.timesargus.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/893
Author: Peter Hirschfeld, Vermont Press Bureau
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/industrial+hemp
CO: MARIJUANA-FINE PROCESS EASED FOR ADULTS
Adults cited for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana in Denver will no longer have to appear in court under a rule adopted by the city attorney.
Now citations may be paid through the mail, Denver Assistant City Attorney Vincent DiCroce announced during the Denver Marijuana Policy Review Panel meeting Wednesday.
Also, the panel voted 5-4 to recommend in its first report to the City Council that the city attorney stop prosecuting the simple adult marijuana-possession cases altogether.
The panel was created when Denver voters approved a measure to make adult marijuana possession the city's "lowest law-enforcement priority." It is made of up representatives from law enforcement, city officials, marijuana proponents and members of the legal community.
Denver panelist Mason Tvert said the move to allow mailing the fines was a step in the right direction but does not go far enough.
"Denver voters have made it clear on multiple occasions that they do not want adults to be cited, fined or punished in any way for using a less harmful drug than alcohol," Tvert said.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n539/a03.html
Newshawk: Richard Lake
Votes: 0
Webpage: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9420271
Pubdate: Fri, 30 May 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: Felisa Cardona, The Denver Post
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Mason+Tvert
Now citations may be paid through the mail, Denver Assistant City Attorney Vincent DiCroce announced during the Denver Marijuana Policy Review Panel meeting Wednesday.
Also, the panel voted 5-4 to recommend in its first report to the City Council that the city attorney stop prosecuting the simple adult marijuana-possession cases altogether.
The panel was created when Denver voters approved a measure to make adult marijuana possession the city's "lowest law-enforcement priority." It is made of up representatives from law enforcement, city officials, marijuana proponents and members of the legal community.
Denver panelist Mason Tvert said the move to allow mailing the fines was a step in the right direction but does not go far enough.
"Denver voters have made it clear on multiple occasions that they do not want adults to be cited, fined or punished in any way for using a less harmful drug than alcohol," Tvert said.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n539/a03.html
Newshawk: Richard Lake
Votes: 0
Webpage: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9420271
Pubdate: Fri, 30 May 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: Felisa Cardona, The Denver Post
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Mason+Tvert
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
AB 2279 Passed!
The CA Assembly just voted on AB 2279, and it passed. Introduced by
Assemblymember Mark Leno, 2279 is the ASA-sponsored legislation to
protect medical marijuana patients' rights to work. You can find out
more about the bill at www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/AB2279
Thanks to everyone who contacted their assembly members to encourage
them to vote for the bill! The next stop is the State Senate.
- Rebecca
--
Rebecca Saltzman
Chief of Staff
Americans for Safe Access
AmericansForSafeAccess.org
Assemblymember Mark Leno, 2279 is the ASA-sponsored legislation to
protect medical marijuana patients' rights to work. You can find out
more about the bill at www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/AB2279
Thanks to everyone who contacted their assembly members to encourage
them to vote for the bill! The next stop is the State Senate.
- Rebecca
--
Rebecca Saltzman
Chief of Staff
Americans for Safe Access
AmericansForSafeAccess.org
AB 2279 Passed!
The CA Assembly just voted on AB 2279, and it passed. Introduced by
Assemblymember Mark Leno, 2279 is the ASA-sponsored legislation to
protect medical marijuana patients' rights to work. You can find out
more about the bill at www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/AB2279
Thanks to everyone who contacted their assembly members to encourage
them to vote for the bill! The next stop is the State Senate.
- Rebecca
--
Rebecca Saltzman
Chief of Staff
Americans for Safe Access
AmericansForSafeAccess.org
Assemblymember Mark Leno, 2279 is the ASA-sponsored legislation to
protect medical marijuana patients' rights to work. You can find out
more about the bill at www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/AB2279
Thanks to everyone who contacted their assembly members to encourage
them to vote for the bill! The next stop is the State Senate.
- Rebecca
--
Rebecca Saltzman
Chief of Staff
Americans for Safe Access
AmericansForSafeAccess.org
DEA RAID! again
May 28th - The DEA raided three dispensaries operated by Ken Estes
this morning. Known as Holistic Solutions, they were located in San
Mateo, Richmond, and Clearlake. The DEA also raided Ken's home and
the homes of three of his managers, plus three affiliated grow sites
in Oakland, San Leandro, and Humboldt. The raids appear to have
been a "smash and grab" operation; agents took cash and product, but
didn't arrest anyone. Ken believes that the raids were initiated on
the tip of a former associate who was facing a lengthy federal
sentence on cultivation charges. KTVU News is investigating.
- D. Gieringer, Cal NORML
this morning. Known as Holistic Solutions, they were located in San
Mateo, Richmond, and Clearlake. The DEA also raided Ken's home and
the homes of three of his managers, plus three affiliated grow sites
in Oakland, San Leandro, and Humboldt. The raids appear to have
been a "smash and grab" operation; agents took cash and product, but
didn't arrest anyone. Ken believes that the raids were initiated on
the tip of a former associate who was facing a lengthy federal
sentence on cultivation charges. KTVU News is investigating.
- D. Gieringer, Cal NORML
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
RAID!
Medical Cannabis Patient Advocates -
There are raids in LA right now. Virgil Grant, who had his dispensaries
raided in March, was arrested today along with his wife. His attorneys
are learning more as we speak. Their children are fine and with family!!
441 1/2 E. 16th St. at San Pedro is being raided. It is expected that his
other locations will also be hit. All locations are closed for the day
and staff is gone.
There are raids in LA right now. Virgil Grant, who had his dispensaries
raided in March, was arrested today along with his wife. His attorneys
are learning more as we speak. Their children are fine and with family!!
441 1/2 E. 16th St. at San Pedro is being raided. It is expected that his
other locations will also be hit. All locations are closed for the day
and staff is gone.
UNDS FOR MARIJUANA REMOVAL REJECTED : HI
FUNDS FOR MARIJUANA REMOVAL REJECTED
Big Island Police Say Council Vote May Limit Other Law Enforcement
HILO, Hawai'i -- For the second time in eight years, the Big Island County Council has refused to accept grant money to finance county marijuana eradication programs, and Big Island police say that move may hamper other law enforcement work, including efforts to crack down on harder drugs.
The council last week deadlocked in a 4-4 vote over whether to accept $282,000 in federal money and $159,000 in state funds to target marijuana-growing operations. The tie means the council will not accept the money, and East Hawai'i Vice Commander Lt. Samuel Jelsma said he is not aware of any plan by police to resubmit the measures to the council for reconsideration.
Danielle Ciccone, who submitted testimony to the council opposed to eradication, said she hopes the vote will increase public awareness of the problems with the overflights. She sees the eradication efforts as violations of residents' constitutional right to be free of illegal searches and seizures of their property.
"I think they should respect the people and respect the council and cease these overflights immediately for good of the land and the good of the people," she said.
Ciccone is a supporter of Project Peaceful Sky, an initiative organizers say has collected 3,000 signatures on a petition urging the county to make marijuana eradication "the lowest police priority."
Previously, grant funds have covered the costs tied to renting private helicopters for flights to spot marijuana patches and transport officers to remote locations to yank out plants. Jelsma said that work will continue, although "we will have to adapt our operations around this decision."
"It is our sworn duty to enforce all state laws, and the illegal cultivation of marijuana will continue to be one of our department's priorities," Jelsma said. "We will not turn a blind eye to its proliferation simply because a vocal minority may feel that it is acceptable."
Jelsma said eradication grant money was also tapped to train officers locally or on the Mainland for drug enforcement operations of all types, including efforts to curb distribution of methamphetamine and cocaine.
"We don't have that option now," he said. Training for ice and cocaine enforcement will have to come from more limited grant money the department has received to target hard drugs, he said.
In addition, the marijuana grant money was to pay overtime for officers involved in eradication programs, and that overtime pay will now have to come from the overall police budget, Jelsma said.
Big Island police now plan to rely more heavily on the Hawai'i Army National Guard and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration for helicopters for observation flights. He said the department is also in discussions with "other agencies" to obtain additional helicopter access.
If that access isn't available, police plan to fly helicopters to spot marijuana plants, and then dispatch officers on the ground to serve search warrants and remove plants.
"Our goal is to prevent the opening of the Pandora's box on illegal growing of marijuana to the point where it reverts back to the 1970s when it was out of control and the public was demanding the police take action against it."
The council refused to accept grant money in late 2000, but later voted to accept eradication grant money in 2001 with a condition that police would follow new administrative rules.
Those rules required that spotting helicopters stay at least 1,000 feet away from homes in rural subdivisions, and that officers recognize licensed users of marijuana under the state medical marijuana law.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n531/a04.html
Newshawk: An Injury to One is an Injury to All
Votes: 0
Webpage: http://drugsense.org/url/SXbqkEcd
Pubdate: Mon, 26 May 2008
Source: Honolulu Advertiser (HI)
Copyright: 2008 The Honolulu Advertiser
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/uXtrz8Lm
Website: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/195
Author: Kevin Dayton, Advertiser Big Island Bureau
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana)
Big Island Police Say Council Vote May Limit Other Law Enforcement
HILO, Hawai'i -- For the second time in eight years, the Big Island County Council has refused to accept grant money to finance county marijuana eradication programs, and Big Island police say that move may hamper other law enforcement work, including efforts to crack down on harder drugs.
The council last week deadlocked in a 4-4 vote over whether to accept $282,000 in federal money and $159,000 in state funds to target marijuana-growing operations. The tie means the council will not accept the money, and East Hawai'i Vice Commander Lt. Samuel Jelsma said he is not aware of any plan by police to resubmit the measures to the council for reconsideration.
Danielle Ciccone, who submitted testimony to the council opposed to eradication, said she hopes the vote will increase public awareness of the problems with the overflights. She sees the eradication efforts as violations of residents' constitutional right to be free of illegal searches and seizures of their property.
"I think they should respect the people and respect the council and cease these overflights immediately for good of the land and the good of the people," she said.
Ciccone is a supporter of Project Peaceful Sky, an initiative organizers say has collected 3,000 signatures on a petition urging the county to make marijuana eradication "the lowest police priority."
Previously, grant funds have covered the costs tied to renting private helicopters for flights to spot marijuana patches and transport officers to remote locations to yank out plants. Jelsma said that work will continue, although "we will have to adapt our operations around this decision."
"It is our sworn duty to enforce all state laws, and the illegal cultivation of marijuana will continue to be one of our department's priorities," Jelsma said. "We will not turn a blind eye to its proliferation simply because a vocal minority may feel that it is acceptable."
Jelsma said eradication grant money was also tapped to train officers locally or on the Mainland for drug enforcement operations of all types, including efforts to curb distribution of methamphetamine and cocaine.
"We don't have that option now," he said. Training for ice and cocaine enforcement will have to come from more limited grant money the department has received to target hard drugs, he said.
In addition, the marijuana grant money was to pay overtime for officers involved in eradication programs, and that overtime pay will now have to come from the overall police budget, Jelsma said.
Big Island police now plan to rely more heavily on the Hawai'i Army National Guard and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration for helicopters for observation flights. He said the department is also in discussions with "other agencies" to obtain additional helicopter access.
If that access isn't available, police plan to fly helicopters to spot marijuana plants, and then dispatch officers on the ground to serve search warrants and remove plants.
"Our goal is to prevent the opening of the Pandora's box on illegal growing of marijuana to the point where it reverts back to the 1970s when it was out of control and the public was demanding the police take action against it."
The council refused to accept grant money in late 2000, but later voted to accept eradication grant money in 2001 with a condition that police would follow new administrative rules.
Those rules required that spotting helicopters stay at least 1,000 feet away from homes in rural subdivisions, and that officers recognize licensed users of marijuana under the state medical marijuana law.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n531/a04.html
Newshawk: An Injury to One is an Injury to All
Votes: 0
Webpage: http://drugsense.org/url/SXbqkEcd
Pubdate: Mon, 26 May 2008
Source: Honolulu Advertiser (HI)
Copyright: 2008 The Honolulu Advertiser
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/uXtrz8Lm
Website: http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/195
Author: Kevin Dayton, Advertiser Big Island Bureau
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana)
Monday, May 26, 2008
THE NEW DRUG OF CHOICE: PRESCRIPTION MEDS
Robert and Carmen Pack play with their daughter, Noelle. Their daughter Alana, 7, and son Troy, 10, were killed in 2003 by a driver who had taken at least eight Vicodins and muscle relaxants. ( Los Angeles Times photo )
A Riverside County, Calif., psychiatrist who drove a Corvette and lived in a gated community allegedly wrote prescriptions in the lobby of his fitness club and outside restaurants for $100 each.
More than $1 million was stashed in luggage at the house of an Orange County, Calif., physician who sold black plastic bags of narcotic painkillers.
And at one Los Angeles pharmacy, people peddled medications out front while others squeezed inside to buy more drugs.
Health professionals and dishonest patients are diverting powerful and potentially addictive prescription drugs from legitimate medical channels, helping to fuel a shift toward pharmaceuticals as drugs of choice, authorities say.
Pharmacy thefts, robberies and burglaries are also contributing to the problem, investigators say, along with prescription forgeries and Internet pharmacies that require little information before shipping drugs. Nationwide, 25 million doses of commonly abused drugs were reported stolen last year.
In California, where almost 34 million prescriptions for narcotics and other controlled substances were issued last year, the drug diversion problem has caught the attention of state Attorney General Jerry Brown. He says he plans to upgrade the state's monitoring system to allow health practitioners to check patients' histories before prescribing potentially dangerous medications.
"Doctors and pharmacies can instantly check out if the patient before them is legitimate or an abuser," Brown said. "We will be in a better position to control illegal diversion."
Law enforcement officials say high-profile accidental overdoses, such as that of former Playboy Playmate Anna Nicole Smith, are symptomatic of entrenched abuse and misuse of prescription drugs. The federal government's most recent survey reported that 7 million Americans engaged in non-medical use of pharmaceuticals in 2006 a=80" up from 6 million two years earlier. And that usage was higher than for any illicit drug except marijuana.
"Unlike illicit drug use, which shows a continuing downward trend, prescription drug abuse ... has seen a continual rise through the 1990s and has remained stubbornly steady ... during recent years," Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, told a congressional hearing in March.
And local law enforcement officials cite a surge in the use of prescription drugs as street narcotics.
"What we are seeing is that prescription drugs ... are quickly becoming the drug of choice and abuse," said Murrieta, Calif., Police Lt. Dennis Vrooman.
In late 2006 and early 2007, Murrieta police were hearing complaints that psychiatrist Joel Stanley Dreyer a=80" a cowboy boot-wearing, extreme-fighting aficionado whose personalized license plates read FREUDMD a=80" was prescribing highly addictive drugs to apparently healthy young people.
Then an Orange County businessman showed up with a sad story that dovetailed with that information. On Christmas Day of 2005, he and his mother had found the body of his 35-year-old sister, Jessica Silva, in her condo.
Silva seemed an unlikely overdose victim. The divorced saleswoman had about $900,000 in assets. But she had been arrested for drug possession years earlier and gone through rehab a=80" and the coroner found many drugs in her system. Her last prescription was for OxyContin, a painkiller Dreyer had prescribed a few weeks earlier.
Her brother conducted his own investigation. Posing as a new patient at Dreyer's office, he complained of pain and difficulty sleeping, the brother later told police. Without conducting an examination, Dreyer prescribed three drugs and charged $100, according to an FBI court affidavit.
In 2007, three undercover officers also obtained prescriptions for $100 each during tape-recorded visits, the affidavit says. "And that, my love," Dreyer quipped to a female Drug Enforcement Administration agent, "is the game."
Now Dreyer, whose medical license was suspended last summer, faces a 19-count federal indictment alleging illegal drug dispensing. His attorney, Wayne Gross, declined to comment. Dreyer has pleaded not guilty.
Records show the California state medical board disciplines several dozen doctors a year for inappropriate prescribing and for abusing drugs and alcohol themselves, but drug diversion cases are not tallied separately.
Drug diversion investigations can be complex and take many months.
Several years ago, a multi-agency task force in Los Angeles began looking at SNG Pharmacy after complaints of open drug dealing outside.
"We ... have video of people crushing pills and mixing them with cough syrup on the sidewalk," said Sheriff's Sgt. Steve Opferman. "It was a mill for street addicts."
In 2005, an undercover deputy encountered about 30 people inside, calling out drug orders. After writing his name, address, birth date and phone number on a piece of paper, the deputy said, he bought an unlabeled bottle of Soma, a painkilling muscle relaxant.
The owner, Siamak Davoodi, pleaded no contest to misdemeanor dispensing of medication without the proper labeling or container. His pharmacy board licenses were revoked in 2006, and he was ordered to pay nearly $100,000 in investigative costs. Davoodi's attorney, Herb Weinberg, declined to comment on the case.
Other avenues for prescription diversion are forgery and fraud. In San Diego, for example, a nurse admitted in 2006 that she obtained narcotics using forms stolen from a doctor, according to the attorney general's office.
Last year, another woman was caught four times phoning bogus prescriptions to pharmacies.
At White Memorial Medical Center in East L.A., Dr. Brian Johnston said prescription fraud is increasingly common. The emergency room chief said people used his prescriber identification to try to get at least six Vicodin prescriptions last year and one recently.
They call a pharmacy "and say, 'I am Suzie and I work for Dr. Johnston, and he wants a refill on this prescription,' " Johnston said.
To detect fraud and abuse, pharmacists and doctors can fax or mail requests for a patient's prescription history from the database maintained by the attorney general's office, but the process can take weeks.
Robert Pack, who owns an East Bay computer company, wants to speed up the system a=80" for personal reasons.
In 2003, his 10-year-old son Troy and 7-year-old daughter Alana were heading out for ice cream when a car jumped the curb, killing them. The driver, a nanny who recently had received multiple prescriptions from doctors, told police she had taken at least eight Vicodins and muscle relaxants. She is now serving a second-degree murder sentence of 30 years to life in state prison.
After helping to fund a feasibility study, Pack is offering to raise $3 million to build and support a computer system for three years that would allow almost instantaneous checks of patient prescription records.
"It might have saved my children's lives and might save lives in the future," he said, adding that he would donate the system to the state.
Not everyone applauds such efforts. Tracking systems and prosecutions of doctors can have a chilling effect that deprives legitimate patients of medicines they need because they are hurting, said Siobhan Reynolds, founder of the nonprofit Pain Relief Network.
"People who, through no fault of their own, need medications are being spied on by the government," Reynolds said. As for doctors, she said: "If you treat those illnesses, you are more likely to be targeted."
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n529/a09.html
Newshawk: http://www.novembercoalition.org
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Sat, 24 May 2008
Source: Wenatchee World, The (WA)
Copyright: 2008 World Publishing Company
Contact: jasinek@wenworld.com
Website: http://www.wenworld.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/494
Author: Tim Reiterman, Los Angeles Times
A Riverside County, Calif., psychiatrist who drove a Corvette and lived in a gated community allegedly wrote prescriptions in the lobby of his fitness club and outside restaurants for $100 each.
More than $1 million was stashed in luggage at the house of an Orange County, Calif., physician who sold black plastic bags of narcotic painkillers.
And at one Los Angeles pharmacy, people peddled medications out front while others squeezed inside to buy more drugs.
Health professionals and dishonest patients are diverting powerful and potentially addictive prescription drugs from legitimate medical channels, helping to fuel a shift toward pharmaceuticals as drugs of choice, authorities say.
Pharmacy thefts, robberies and burglaries are also contributing to the problem, investigators say, along with prescription forgeries and Internet pharmacies that require little information before shipping drugs. Nationwide, 25 million doses of commonly abused drugs were reported stolen last year.
In California, where almost 34 million prescriptions for narcotics and other controlled substances were issued last year, the drug diversion problem has caught the attention of state Attorney General Jerry Brown. He says he plans to upgrade the state's monitoring system to allow health practitioners to check patients' histories before prescribing potentially dangerous medications.
"Doctors and pharmacies can instantly check out if the patient before them is legitimate or an abuser," Brown said. "We will be in a better position to control illegal diversion."
Law enforcement officials say high-profile accidental overdoses, such as that of former Playboy Playmate Anna Nicole Smith, are symptomatic of entrenched abuse and misuse of prescription drugs. The federal government's most recent survey reported that 7 million Americans engaged in non-medical use of pharmaceuticals in 2006 a=80" up from 6 million two years earlier. And that usage was higher than for any illicit drug except marijuana.
"Unlike illicit drug use, which shows a continuing downward trend, prescription drug abuse ... has seen a continual rise through the 1990s and has remained stubbornly steady ... during recent years," Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, told a congressional hearing in March.
And local law enforcement officials cite a surge in the use of prescription drugs as street narcotics.
"What we are seeing is that prescription drugs ... are quickly becoming the drug of choice and abuse," said Murrieta, Calif., Police Lt. Dennis Vrooman.
In late 2006 and early 2007, Murrieta police were hearing complaints that psychiatrist Joel Stanley Dreyer a=80" a cowboy boot-wearing, extreme-fighting aficionado whose personalized license plates read FREUDMD a=80" was prescribing highly addictive drugs to apparently healthy young people.
Then an Orange County businessman showed up with a sad story that dovetailed with that information. On Christmas Day of 2005, he and his mother had found the body of his 35-year-old sister, Jessica Silva, in her condo.
Silva seemed an unlikely overdose victim. The divorced saleswoman had about $900,000 in assets. But she had been arrested for drug possession years earlier and gone through rehab a=80" and the coroner found many drugs in her system. Her last prescription was for OxyContin, a painkiller Dreyer had prescribed a few weeks earlier.
Her brother conducted his own investigation. Posing as a new patient at Dreyer's office, he complained of pain and difficulty sleeping, the brother later told police. Without conducting an examination, Dreyer prescribed three drugs and charged $100, according to an FBI court affidavit.
In 2007, three undercover officers also obtained prescriptions for $100 each during tape-recorded visits, the affidavit says. "And that, my love," Dreyer quipped to a female Drug Enforcement Administration agent, "is the game."
Now Dreyer, whose medical license was suspended last summer, faces a 19-count federal indictment alleging illegal drug dispensing. His attorney, Wayne Gross, declined to comment. Dreyer has pleaded not guilty.
Records show the California state medical board disciplines several dozen doctors a year for inappropriate prescribing and for abusing drugs and alcohol themselves, but drug diversion cases are not tallied separately.
Drug diversion investigations can be complex and take many months.
Several years ago, a multi-agency task force in Los Angeles began looking at SNG Pharmacy after complaints of open drug dealing outside.
"We ... have video of people crushing pills and mixing them with cough syrup on the sidewalk," said Sheriff's Sgt. Steve Opferman. "It was a mill for street addicts."
In 2005, an undercover deputy encountered about 30 people inside, calling out drug orders. After writing his name, address, birth date and phone number on a piece of paper, the deputy said, he bought an unlabeled bottle of Soma, a painkilling muscle relaxant.
The owner, Siamak Davoodi, pleaded no contest to misdemeanor dispensing of medication without the proper labeling or container. His pharmacy board licenses were revoked in 2006, and he was ordered to pay nearly $100,000 in investigative costs. Davoodi's attorney, Herb Weinberg, declined to comment on the case.
Other avenues for prescription diversion are forgery and fraud. In San Diego, for example, a nurse admitted in 2006 that she obtained narcotics using forms stolen from a doctor, according to the attorney general's office.
Last year, another woman was caught four times phoning bogus prescriptions to pharmacies.
At White Memorial Medical Center in East L.A., Dr. Brian Johnston said prescription fraud is increasingly common. The emergency room chief said people used his prescriber identification to try to get at least six Vicodin prescriptions last year and one recently.
They call a pharmacy "and say, 'I am Suzie and I work for Dr. Johnston, and he wants a refill on this prescription,' " Johnston said.
To detect fraud and abuse, pharmacists and doctors can fax or mail requests for a patient's prescription history from the database maintained by the attorney general's office, but the process can take weeks.
Robert Pack, who owns an East Bay computer company, wants to speed up the system a=80" for personal reasons.
In 2003, his 10-year-old son Troy and 7-year-old daughter Alana were heading out for ice cream when a car jumped the curb, killing them. The driver, a nanny who recently had received multiple prescriptions from doctors, told police she had taken at least eight Vicodins and muscle relaxants. She is now serving a second-degree murder sentence of 30 years to life in state prison.
After helping to fund a feasibility study, Pack is offering to raise $3 million to build and support a computer system for three years that would allow almost instantaneous checks of patient prescription records.
"It might have saved my children's lives and might save lives in the future," he said, adding that he would donate the system to the state.
Not everyone applauds such efforts. Tracking systems and prosecutions of doctors can have a chilling effect that deprives legitimate patients of medicines they need because they are hurting, said Siobhan Reynolds, founder of the nonprofit Pain Relief Network.
"People who, through no fault of their own, need medications are being spied on by the government," Reynolds said. As for doctors, she said: "If you treat those illnesses, you are more likely to be targeted."
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n529/a09.html
Newshawk: http://www.novembercoalition.org
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Sat, 24 May 2008
Source: Wenatchee World, The (WA)
Copyright: 2008 World Publishing Company
Contact: jasinek@wenworld.com
Website: http://www.wenworld.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/494
Author: Tim Reiterman, Los Angeles Times
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Can Pot Extend Ted Kennedy's Life? Too Bad It's Illegal
Just to clarify: The U.S. does allow cannabioid and glioma research. Our lab just submitted our research on combinations of cannabinoids for the treatment of gliomas invitro... I presented the data at the P.O.T. conference last month but I guess it went unnoticed...
Also our lab FIRST showed that THC selectivley kills gliomas., not the Italian research group.
Heres the video on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OqSRfzqwWA
Michelle Aldrich wrote:
Can Pot Extend Ted Kennedy's Life? Too Bad It's
Illegal
By Paul Armentano, NORML
Posted on May 23, 2008, Printed on May 23, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/86256/
In the 14 years I've worked in marijuana law reform,
few events have struck me as so needlessly tragic as
the federal government's consistent and deliberate
stifling of medical cannabis research. Nowhere is the
Fed's refusal to allow this science more overt and
inhumane than as it pertains to the investigation of
cannabinoids as anti-cancer agents, particularly in
the treatment of gliomas.
As noted in today's wire stories regarding Sen. Edward
Kennedy's diagnosis, glioma is an aggressive form of
cancer that affects an estimated 10,000 Americans
annually. Standard treatments for the cancer include
radiation and chemotherapy, though neither procedure
has proven particularly effective -- the disease kills
approximately half its victims within one year and all
within three years.
But what if there was an alternative treatment for
gliomas that could selectively target the cancer while
leaving healthy cells intact? And what if federal
bureaucrats were aware of this treatment, but
deliberately withheld this information from the
public?
Sadly, the above questions are not hypothetical. As I
originally wrote in a 2004 essay for Alternet.org,
titled Pot Shows Promise as a Cancer Cure":
In fact, the first experiment documenting pot's
anti-tumor effects took place in 1974 at the Medical
College of Virginia at the behest of the U.S.
government. The results of that study, reported in an
Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were
that marijuana's psychoactive component, THC, "slowed
the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a
virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and
prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."
Despite these favorable preliminary findings, U.S.
government officials banished the study and refused to
fund any follow-up research until conducting a similar
-- though secret -- clinical trial in the mid-1990s.
That study, conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology
Program to the tune of $2 million, concluded that mice
and rats administered high doses of THC over long
periods had greater protection against malignant
tumors than untreated controls.
However, rather than publicize their findings,
government researchers shelved the results, which only
became public after a draft copy of its findings were
leaked in 1997 to a medical journal which in turn
forwarded the story to the national media.
In the years since the completion of the National
Toxicology trial, the U.S. government has yet to fund
a single additional study examining the drug's
potential anti-cancer properties. Is this a case of
federal bureaucrats putting politics over the health
and safety of patients? You be the judge.
Fortunately, in the past 10 years scientists overseas
have generously picked up where U.S. researchers so
abruptly left off, reporting that cannabinoids can
halt the spread of numerous cancer cells -- including
prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer,
pancreatic cancer, and in one human clinical trial,
brain cancer.
Writing earlier this year in the journal Expert Review
of Neurotherapeutics, Italian researchers reiterated,
"(C)annabinoids have displayed a great potency in
reducing glioma tumor growth either in vitro or in
animal experimental models. (They) appear to be
selective antitumoral agents as they kill glioma cells
without affecting the viability of nontransformed
counterparts." Not one mainstream media outlet
reported their findings. Perhaps now they'll pay
better attention.
What possible advancements in the treatment of cancer
may have been achieved over the past 34 years had U.S.
government officials chosen to advance -- rather than
suppress -- clinical research into the anti-cancer
effects of cannabis? It's a shame we have to
speculate; it's even more tragic that the families of
Senator Kennedy and thousands of others must suffer
while we do.
Watch a video of Paul Armentano explaining the
relationship between cannabinoids and giloma.
Paul Armentano is the deputy director for the NORML
Foundation in Washington, D.C.
© 2008 NORML All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/86256/
Also our lab FIRST showed that THC selectivley kills gliomas., not the Italian research group.
Heres the video on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OqSRfzqwWA
Michelle Aldrich
Can Pot Extend Ted Kennedy's Life? Too Bad It's
Illegal
By Paul Armentano, NORML
Posted on May 23, 2008, Printed on May 23, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/86256/
In the 14 years I've worked in marijuana law reform,
few events have struck me as so needlessly tragic as
the federal government's consistent and deliberate
stifling of medical cannabis research. Nowhere is the
Fed's refusal to allow this science more overt and
inhumane than as it pertains to the investigation of
cannabinoids as anti-cancer agents, particularly in
the treatment of gliomas.
As noted in today's wire stories regarding Sen. Edward
Kennedy's diagnosis, glioma is an aggressive form of
cancer that affects an estimated 10,000 Americans
annually. Standard treatments for the cancer include
radiation and chemotherapy, though neither procedure
has proven particularly effective -- the disease kills
approximately half its victims within one year and all
within three years.
But what if there was an alternative treatment for
gliomas that could selectively target the cancer while
leaving healthy cells intact? And what if federal
bureaucrats were aware of this treatment, but
deliberately withheld this information from the
public?
Sadly, the above questions are not hypothetical. As I
originally wrote in a 2004 essay for Alternet.org,
titled Pot Shows Promise as a Cancer Cure":
In fact, the first experiment documenting pot's
anti-tumor effects took place in 1974 at the Medical
College of Virginia at the behest of the U.S.
government. The results of that study, reported in an
Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were
that marijuana's psychoactive component, THC, "slowed
the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a
virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and
prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."
Despite these favorable preliminary findings, U.S.
government officials banished the study and refused to
fund any follow-up research until conducting a similar
-- though secret -- clinical trial in the mid-1990s.
That study, conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology
Program to the tune of $2 million, concluded that mice
and rats administered high doses of THC over long
periods had greater protection against malignant
tumors than untreated controls.
However, rather than publicize their findings,
government researchers shelved the results, which only
became public after a draft copy of its findings were
leaked in 1997 to a medical journal which in turn
forwarded the story to the national media.
In the years since the completion of the National
Toxicology trial, the U.S. government has yet to fund
a single additional study examining the drug's
potential anti-cancer properties. Is this a case of
federal bureaucrats putting politics over the health
and safety of patients? You be the judge.
Fortunately, in the past 10 years scientists overseas
have generously picked up where U.S. researchers so
abruptly left off, reporting that cannabinoids can
halt the spread of numerous cancer cells -- including
prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer,
pancreatic cancer, and in one human clinical trial,
brain cancer.
Writing earlier this year in the journal Expert Review
of Neurotherapeutics, Italian researchers reiterated,
"(C)annabinoids have displayed a great potency in
reducing glioma tumor growth either in vitro or in
animal experimental models. (They) appear to be
selective antitumoral agents as they kill glioma cells
without affecting the viability of nontransformed
counterparts." Not one mainstream media outlet
reported their findings. Perhaps now they'll pay
better attention.
What possible advancements in the treatment of cancer
may have been achieved over the past 34 years had U.S.
government officials chosen to advance -- rather than
suppress -- clinical research into the anti-cancer
effects of cannabis? It's a shame we have to
speculate; it's even more tragic that the families of
Senator Kennedy and thousands of others must suffer
while we do.
Watch a video of Paul Armentano explaining the
relationship between cannabinoids and giloma.
Paul Armentano is the deputy director for the NORML
Foundation in Washington, D.C.
© 2008 NORML All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/86256/
Friday, May 23, 2008
The California Court of Appeals
Los Angeles, May 22: The California Court of Appeals ruled that
the state limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation
established under state law SB 420 are unconstitutional.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/
In the case People v. Patrick Kelly, the court overturned
defendant's conviction for possessing 12 ounces of dried marijuana
plants on the grounds that the prosecutor had improperly argued that
the defendant was guilty because he possessed more than the 8-ounce
limit established in Health & Safety Code Sec. 11362.77 and did not
have a doctor's recommendation authorizing more.
In a 3-0 decision, the court ruled: "The prosecutor's argument
was improper. It was improper because the CUA can only be amended
with voters' approval. Voters, however, did not approve the
eight-ounce limit and other caps in section 11362.77; hence, section
11362.77 unconstitutionally amends the CUA." The decision is
certified for partial publication, pending possible appeal to the
Supreme Court.
The Court validated the long-standing view of California NORML
and other Prop 215 advocates that the SB 420 limits are
unconstitutional. Cal NORML attorneys have successfully argued the
point in several lower court cases, but this is the first time it has
been addressed by an appellate court.
Text of the Kelly decision is available at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A115095.PDF
the state limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation
established under state law SB 420 are unconstitutional.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/
In the case People v. Patrick Kelly, the court overturned
defendant's conviction for possessing 12 ounces of dried marijuana
plants on the grounds that the prosecutor had improperly argued that
the defendant was guilty because he possessed more than the 8-ounce
limit established in Health & Safety Code Sec. 11362.77 and did not
have a doctor's recommendation authorizing more.
In a 3-0 decision, the court ruled: "The prosecutor's argument
was improper. It was improper because the CUA can only be amended
with voters' approval. Voters, however, did not approve the
eight-ounce limit and other caps in section 11362.77; hence, section
11362.77 unconstitutionally amends the CUA." The decision is
certified for partial publication, pending possible appeal to the
Supreme Court.
The Court validated the long-standing view of California NORML
and other Prop 215 advocates that the SB 420 limits are
unconstitutional. Cal NORML attorneys have successfully argued the
point in several lower court cases, but this is the first time it has
been addressed by an appellate court.
Text of the Kelly decision is available at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A115095.PDF
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
This is Preventable....... Not to mention a waste of money......
FLORIDA: UNTRAINED INFORMERS NEEDED(dead), POLICE SAY
Rachel Hoffman's death this month in Tallahassee came during one of police work's most dangerous operations: a drug buy involving an untrained civilian informer.
Law enforcement officials say such work is necessary to get drugs and bad guys off the streets.
"The drug world is subversive, and there is no way to penetrate it without confidential informants," Tallahassee police Officer David McCranie said.
Statistics are hard to come by, but officials in Pinellas and Hillsborough counties say the use of informers is common, and sometimes they get hurt.
It can be further complicated because a potential informer might face a harsh dilemma: Cooperate, and get less jail time or none at all. Refuse, and face the consequences.
In Hoffman's case, it was the work of another informer that led to her own work for the police.
On April 15, an informer told Tallahassee police that Hoffman had sold marijuana in the past but hadn't done so recently, according to police records.
At the time, Hoffman, 23, was in a pretrial drug diversion program because of charges of possession of marijuana and resisting arrest in February 2007. To stay in the program, she had to stay out of trouble.
Two days after police got the informer's tip, a Tallahassee police officer stopped Hoffman as she was getting into her car.
The officer asked Hoffman whether she had any drugs in her apartment. A quarter-pound of marijuana, she said, plus two ecstasy pills and four Valiums, according police records.
While she waited, police obtained a search warrant and found the marijuana and ecstasy in the apartment. She wasn't arrested.
Instead, with the prospect of serving time for more serious charges, the graduate of Countryside High and Florida State University agreed to work with police.
So on May 7, Hoffman was scheduled to meet Andrea J. Green, 25, and Deneilo R. Bradshaw, 23.
Her mission: purchase 1,500 ecstasy pills and 2 ounces of cocaine or crack.
And buy a gun - something experts say is risky because it ensures the bad guys will come to the deal armed.
"Most drug deals are just robberies waiting to happen," said retired Drug Enforcement Administration agent Dennis Fitzgerald, who said he was robbed several times while working undercover.
"A buy-bust is one of the most dangerous operations to run," he said. "You are breaking into the drug deal as it occurs and when the drug meets the money, it's the most dangerous time because neither side knows if it's a ripoff or not."
Carrying between $12,000 and $15,000 in cash, Hoffman met Green and Bradshaw in a city park, according to her boyfriend. Just before leaving, she text-messaged the boyfriend and said she had been wired for the operation.
Police Blame Victim
Police defended their use of Hoffman, but said she didn't follow protocol. Instead of staying where investigators told her to go, they said, she accompanied Green and Bradshaw to another location.
She disappeared, and her body was found in rural Taylor County two days later. She had been shot, according to her lawyer. Green and Bradshaw have been charged with kidnapping and robbery, but not murder.
Since Hoffman's death, Tallahassee's police chief has asked the Florida Attorney General's Office to review his agency's procedures for dealing with informers.
Tallahassee police have said Hoffman brought Green and Bradshaw to their attention. She appeared to be a good informer because of "her maturity, her intelligence and her ability to follow directions, combined with her knowledge of the drug trade," Officer McCranie said.
"We were not asking her to do anything that required specialized training," he said. "We were asking her to do what she was already doing, and that was to purchase narcotics."
But Fitzgerald, the author of Informants and Undercover Investigations: A Practical Guide to Law, Policy, and Procedure, said he thinks police bullied Hoffman into acting as an informer.
Hoffman's father said his daughter was too young for the operation. He said he plans to push for legislation to put an age limit on informers.
"It's a sin to use kids to do that," said Irv Hoffman of Palm Harbor. "Some of these kids have a brush or two with the law, then they are thrown into these dangerous situations without fully understanding the ultimate outcome."
Not The First Time
Rachel Morningstar Hoffman isn't the only informer who has been killed.
Robin Lee Welshons, 35, was killed while cooperating with the DEA in Aberdeen, Md. She was making recorded calls and drug buys to reduce an 18-month prison sentence. She was shot to death at a motel in February 2006, just two days before she was scheduled to start her sentence.
This month, Gary B. Williams Jr., 28, was linked to her death during a sentencing hearing after his conviction on crack and cocaine distribution charges in Baltimore.
According to the Baltimore Sun, Williams asked Welshons, "You ain't working with no feds, are you?" He warned he didn't "play games" while negotiating for crack, a transcript of their telephone conversation said.
In addition to getting killed, informers also can hurt a case.
"The majority of informants are trying to work off a sentence or a charge and it is someone who is jammed up," said Ron Kurpiers, a Tampa lawyer and a former federal prosecutor. "That mind-set is dangerous because they will do anything to keep from going to prison."
But law enforcement officials say informers are vital to fighting crime. For example, in 2006, federal prosecutors in Tampa relied heavily on informers to build a case against Cali drug cartel leader Mario Valencia-Trujillo, who was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison.
"Confidential informants are as critical to me as news is to reporters," said Capt. Michael Platt, the narcotics division commander for the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n513/a01.html
Newshawk: http://www.novembercoalition.org
Rate this article Votes: 0
Pubdate: Sun, 18 May 2008
Source: Ledger, The (Lakeland, FL)
Copyright: 2008 The Ledger
Contact: voice@theledger.com
Website: http://www.theledger.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/795
Author: Demorris A. Lee, St. Petersburg Times
Cited: Tallahassee police http://www.talgov.com/tpd/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Rachel+Hoffman (Rachel Hoffman)
Rachel Hoffman's death this month in Tallahassee came during one of police work's most dangerous operations: a drug buy involving an untrained civilian informer.
Law enforcement officials say such work is necessary to get drugs and bad guys off the streets.
"The drug world is subversive, and there is no way to penetrate it without confidential informants," Tallahassee police Officer David McCranie said.
Statistics are hard to come by, but officials in Pinellas and Hillsborough counties say the use of informers is common, and sometimes they get hurt.
It can be further complicated because a potential informer might face a harsh dilemma: Cooperate, and get less jail time or none at all. Refuse, and face the consequences.
In Hoffman's case, it was the work of another informer that led to her own work for the police.
On April 15, an informer told Tallahassee police that Hoffman had sold marijuana in the past but hadn't done so recently, according to police records.
At the time, Hoffman, 23, was in a pretrial drug diversion program because of charges of possession of marijuana and resisting arrest in February 2007. To stay in the program, she had to stay out of trouble.
Two days after police got the informer's tip, a Tallahassee police officer stopped Hoffman as she was getting into her car.
The officer asked Hoffman whether she had any drugs in her apartment. A quarter-pound of marijuana, she said, plus two ecstasy pills and four Valiums, according police records.
While she waited, police obtained a search warrant and found the marijuana and ecstasy in the apartment. She wasn't arrested.
Instead, with the prospect of serving time for more serious charges, the graduate of Countryside High and Florida State University agreed to work with police.
So on May 7, Hoffman was scheduled to meet Andrea J. Green, 25, and Deneilo R. Bradshaw, 23.
Her mission: purchase 1,500 ecstasy pills and 2 ounces of cocaine or crack.
And buy a gun - something experts say is risky because it ensures the bad guys will come to the deal armed.
"Most drug deals are just robberies waiting to happen," said retired Drug Enforcement Administration agent Dennis Fitzgerald, who said he was robbed several times while working undercover.
"A buy-bust is one of the most dangerous operations to run," he said. "You are breaking into the drug deal as it occurs and when the drug meets the money, it's the most dangerous time because neither side knows if it's a ripoff or not."
Carrying between $12,000 and $15,000 in cash, Hoffman met Green and Bradshaw in a city park, according to her boyfriend. Just before leaving, she text-messaged the boyfriend and said she had been wired for the operation.
Police Blame Victim
Police defended their use of Hoffman, but said she didn't follow protocol. Instead of staying where investigators told her to go, they said, she accompanied Green and Bradshaw to another location.
She disappeared, and her body was found in rural Taylor County two days later. She had been shot, according to her lawyer. Green and Bradshaw have been charged with kidnapping and robbery, but not murder.
Since Hoffman's death, Tallahassee's police chief has asked the Florida Attorney General's Office to review his agency's procedures for dealing with informers.
Tallahassee police have said Hoffman brought Green and Bradshaw to their attention. She appeared to be a good informer because of "her maturity, her intelligence and her ability to follow directions, combined with her knowledge of the drug trade," Officer McCranie said.
"We were not asking her to do anything that required specialized training," he said. "We were asking her to do what she was already doing, and that was to purchase narcotics."
But Fitzgerald, the author of Informants and Undercover Investigations: A Practical Guide to Law, Policy, and Procedure, said he thinks police bullied Hoffman into acting as an informer.
Hoffman's father said his daughter was too young for the operation. He said he plans to push for legislation to put an age limit on informers.
"It's a sin to use kids to do that," said Irv Hoffman of Palm Harbor. "Some of these kids have a brush or two with the law, then they are thrown into these dangerous situations without fully understanding the ultimate outcome."
Not The First Time
Rachel Morningstar Hoffman isn't the only informer who has been killed.
Robin Lee Welshons, 35, was killed while cooperating with the DEA in Aberdeen, Md. She was making recorded calls and drug buys to reduce an 18-month prison sentence. She was shot to death at a motel in February 2006, just two days before she was scheduled to start her sentence.
This month, Gary B. Williams Jr., 28, was linked to her death during a sentencing hearing after his conviction on crack and cocaine distribution charges in Baltimore.
According to the Baltimore Sun, Williams asked Welshons, "You ain't working with no feds, are you?" He warned he didn't "play games" while negotiating for crack, a transcript of their telephone conversation said.
In addition to getting killed, informers also can hurt a case.
"The majority of informants are trying to work off a sentence or a charge and it is someone who is jammed up," said Ron Kurpiers, a Tampa lawyer and a former federal prosecutor. "That mind-set is dangerous because they will do anything to keep from going to prison."
But law enforcement officials say informers are vital to fighting crime. For example, in 2006, federal prosecutors in Tampa relied heavily on informers to build a case against Cali drug cartel leader Mario Valencia-Trujillo, who was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison.
"Confidential informants are as critical to me as news is to reporters," said Capt. Michael Platt, the narcotics division commander for the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n513/a01.html
Newshawk: http://www.novembercoalition.org
Rate this article Votes: 0
Pubdate: Sun, 18 May 2008
Source: Ledger, The (Lakeland, FL)
Copyright: 2008 The Ledger
Contact: voice@theledger.com
Website: http://www.theledger.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/795
Author: Demorris A. Lee, St. Petersburg Times
Cited: Tallahassee police http://www.talgov.com/tpd/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Rachel+Hoffman (Rachel Hoffman)
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Los Angeles Times: marijuana and organ transplants don't mix
Patients who have used doctor-prescribed pot are being turned away from
hospital transplant programs.
By Stuart Glascock
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 19, 2008
SEATTLE — Should using doctor-prescribed marijuana be a deal-breaker for
someone needing an organ transplant? It is not a theoretical question but a
pressing and emotional one confronting hospitals and patients in states
where medical use of marijuana is legal.
This month, Timothy Garon, 56, a Seattle musician, died after being turned
down for a liver transplant. He was rejected partly because he had used
medical marijuana.
Now, a second critically ill patient in Washington state says he has been
denied a spot in two organ transplant programs because he uses
doctor-prescribed marijuana.
Jonathon Simchen, 33, of Fife, a town south of Seattle, is a diabetic whose
kidneys and pancreas have failed.
He said he was removed from the transplant program at Virginia Mason
Hospital in Seattle because he admitted using medical marijuana. Later, he
said, University of Washington Medical Center transplant officials refused
to accept him because of the medical marijuana issue.
"I'm just so discouraged," said the community college student, who wants to
be a teacher. "I've lost all remnants of hope. I look at my life right now
as if it is a prison term. I just have to serve each day."
The lawyer who represented Garon has taken on Simchen's case.
Douglas Hiatt argues that his clients are the victims of a loosely defined
transplant policy, one not based on science.
"They are really killing people over this," he said.
Hospital transplant programs, wanting to ensure the best possible outcome
for each transplant and to make optimum use of the limited number of organs
available, have strict standards about drug use and smoking in determining
who is eligible for a transplant list.
Hiatt and advocates of medical marijuana are urging hospitals to adjust
their policies after Garon's death May 1. Garon used marijuana with a
doctor's approval to ease the symptoms of hepatitis C. He died without
gaining admission to the University of Washington Medical Center's
transplant program.
Hiatt wants to negotiate on behalf of Simchen to get him on a transplant
list, but he expects he may have to file a lawsuit to get that accomplished.
If nothing else, Hiatt intends to compel judicial review of the policy.
"No, it ain't over," Hiatt said. "Jonathon needs help. He's going to get on
that list one way or another.
"You cannot treat people like this. There's no rational basis for it."
Although marijuana remains an illegal substance under federal law, about a
dozen states, including Washington, Oregon, California and Nevada, allow
doctors to prescribe it for medical purposes. It is used for conditions such
as glaucoma, diabetes, high blood pressure and AIDS.
University of Washington officials, citing privacy laws, declined to discuss
specifics of individual cases, but issued a statement acknowledging that
they took marijuana use into consideration.
"Although medical marijuana may be an issue in rare cases, it is never the
sole determinant in arriving at medical decisions about candidates for organ
transplants," the statement said.
A spokeswoman for Virginia Mason Hospital said smoking of any kind could
"lead to patient-safety and transplant-effectiveness issues" and was
precluded. She said the hospital's transplant committee would also weigh a
patient's use of medical marijuana in pill form.
At the University of Washington, the transplant committee said it reviewed
"behavioral concerns such as a history of substance abuse or dependency. If
such a history exists, then the committee looks at the period of abstinence
the candidate has demonstrated to date," as well as the patient's efforts to
maintain abstinence and potential to abuse again.
Asked why the committee considered marijuana use under a doctor's
supervision "a history of substance abuse," a hospital spokesman cited the
federal law categorizing marijuana as an illegal drug.
The United Network for Organ Sharing, which oversees the organ transplant
system nationally, leaves it up to hospitals to determine how to allocate
organs. The network's members include 254 U.S. transplant centers.
There are nearly 100,000 people on waiting lists for transplants, the
network said. On average, there are about 6,000 donors a year.
Some medical ethicists say standardized written policies on marijuana use by
transplant patients are needed.
"Medical marijuana is opening a can of worms," said Peggy Stewart, a
clinical social worker with the liver transplant program at UCLA Medical
Center.
Her studies of transplant centers found discrepancies in eligibility
criteria.
She said bias existed in the medical community against marijuana because of
the federal law.
Some transplant committee members see it as an illegal substance and as
grounds for automatic rejection.
"If we are going to discriminate in this way, then we need to inform doctors
that maybe they shouldn't be prescribing marijuana," Stewart said. "It's a
problem right now. There's no distinction between a recreational drug user
and somebody who used it only for medicinal purposes."
She said many other addictive prescriptions, particularly pain medications,
did not automatically disqualify patients from transplant lists because they
were not illegal substances under federal law.
She said UCLA excluded marijuana users until they could demonstrate that
they had abstained for six months. She said the policy was being reexamined.
The policy debate has done little to soften the grief for family and friends
of Garon, the late singer, songwriter and acoustic guitarist.
His death triggered a flood of reaction.
The website Stop the Drug War called it evil to deny transplants to medical
marijuana patients.
One Seattle-area alternative newspaper was so outraged that it listed the
telephone numbers of University of Washington transplant center staff
members.
In an editorial, the Ventura County Star wrote: "So, be warned, medical
marijuana -- legal for the last 12 years in California with a doctor's
authorization -- could cost you your job. And if you need an organ
transplant, it could cost you your life."
stuart.glascock@latimes.com
hospital transplant programs.
By Stuart Glascock
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 19, 2008
SEATTLE — Should using doctor-prescribed marijuana be a deal-breaker for
someone needing an organ transplant? It is not a theoretical question but a
pressing and emotional one confronting hospitals and patients in states
where medical use of marijuana is legal.
This month, Timothy Garon, 56, a Seattle musician, died after being turned
down for a liver transplant. He was rejected partly because he had used
medical marijuana.
Now, a second critically ill patient in Washington state says he has been
denied a spot in two organ transplant programs because he uses
doctor-prescribed marijuana.
Jonathon Simchen, 33, of Fife, a town south of Seattle, is a diabetic whose
kidneys and pancreas have failed.
He said he was removed from the transplant program at Virginia Mason
Hospital in Seattle because he admitted using medical marijuana. Later, he
said, University of Washington Medical Center transplant officials refused
to accept him because of the medical marijuana issue.
"I'm just so discouraged," said the community college student, who wants to
be a teacher. "I've lost all remnants of hope. I look at my life right now
as if it is a prison term. I just have to serve each day."
The lawyer who represented Garon has taken on Simchen's case.
Douglas Hiatt argues that his clients are the victims of a loosely defined
transplant policy, one not based on science.
"They are really killing people over this," he said.
Hospital transplant programs, wanting to ensure the best possible outcome
for each transplant and to make optimum use of the limited number of organs
available, have strict standards about drug use and smoking in determining
who is eligible for a transplant list.
Hiatt and advocates of medical marijuana are urging hospitals to adjust
their policies after Garon's death May 1. Garon used marijuana with a
doctor's approval to ease the symptoms of hepatitis C. He died without
gaining admission to the University of Washington Medical Center's
transplant program.
Hiatt wants to negotiate on behalf of Simchen to get him on a transplant
list, but he expects he may have to file a lawsuit to get that accomplished.
If nothing else, Hiatt intends to compel judicial review of the policy.
"No, it ain't over," Hiatt said. "Jonathon needs help. He's going to get on
that list one way or another.
"You cannot treat people like this. There's no rational basis for it."
Although marijuana remains an illegal substance under federal law, about a
dozen states, including Washington, Oregon, California and Nevada, allow
doctors to prescribe it for medical purposes. It is used for conditions such
as glaucoma, diabetes, high blood pressure and AIDS.
University of Washington officials, citing privacy laws, declined to discuss
specifics of individual cases, but issued a statement acknowledging that
they took marijuana use into consideration.
"Although medical marijuana may be an issue in rare cases, it is never the
sole determinant in arriving at medical decisions about candidates for organ
transplants," the statement said.
A spokeswoman for Virginia Mason Hospital said smoking of any kind could
"lead to patient-safety and transplant-effectiveness issues" and was
precluded. She said the hospital's transplant committee would also weigh a
patient's use of medical marijuana in pill form.
At the University of Washington, the transplant committee said it reviewed
"behavioral concerns such as a history of substance abuse or dependency. If
such a history exists, then the committee looks at the period of abstinence
the candidate has demonstrated to date," as well as the patient's efforts to
maintain abstinence and potential to abuse again.
Asked why the committee considered marijuana use under a doctor's
supervision "a history of substance abuse," a hospital spokesman cited the
federal law categorizing marijuana as an illegal drug.
The United Network for Organ Sharing, which oversees the organ transplant
system nationally, leaves it up to hospitals to determine how to allocate
organs. The network's members include 254 U.S. transplant centers.
There are nearly 100,000 people on waiting lists for transplants, the
network said. On average, there are about 6,000 donors a year.
Some medical ethicists say standardized written policies on marijuana use by
transplant patients are needed.
"Medical marijuana is opening a can of worms," said Peggy Stewart, a
clinical social worker with the liver transplant program at UCLA Medical
Center.
Her studies of transplant centers found discrepancies in eligibility
criteria.
She said bias existed in the medical community against marijuana because of
the federal law.
Some transplant committee members see it as an illegal substance and as
grounds for automatic rejection.
"If we are going to discriminate in this way, then we need to inform doctors
that maybe they shouldn't be prescribing marijuana," Stewart said. "It's a
problem right now. There's no distinction between a recreational drug user
and somebody who used it only for medicinal purposes."
She said many other addictive prescriptions, particularly pain medications,
did not automatically disqualify patients from transplant lists because they
were not illegal substances under federal law.
She said UCLA excluded marijuana users until they could demonstrate that
they had abstained for six months. She said the policy was being reexamined.
The policy debate has done little to soften the grief for family and friends
of Garon, the late singer, songwriter and acoustic guitarist.
His death triggered a flood of reaction.
The website Stop the Drug War called it evil to deny transplants to medical
marijuana patients.
One Seattle-area alternative newspaper was so outraged that it listed the
telephone numbers of University of Washington transplant center staff
members.
In an editorial, the Ventura County Star wrote: "So, be warned, medical
marijuana -- legal for the last 12 years in California with a doctor's
authorization -- could cost you your job. And if you need an organ
transplant, it could cost you your life."
stuart.glascock@latimes.com
Friday, May 16, 2008
RI: SENATE APPROVES MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES
SENATE APPROVES MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES
PROVIDENCE -- The Senate approved legislation yesterday that would
create "compassion centers" where chronically ill patients enrolled
in the state's medical marijuana program could openly purchase the drug.
Despite the 29-to-6 vote, the bill faces opposition in the House of
Representatives and is not expected to become law this year.
"I would really have to have a sock over my head if I didn't know
that," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Rhoda E. Perry, D-Providence.
The legislation is named in part for her nephew, Edward O. Hawkins,
who died of complications from AIDS and cancer.
"What I think is important is to show movement," Perry said of
yesterday's vote. "I think getting it out of a chamber is movement.
It's showing that there is a level of understanding and a level of acceptance."
The General Assembly last year made permanent a law that allowed the
state to offer a medical marijuana program to chronically ill
patients. But lawmakers did not offer a legal means for patients to
obtain the drug, which is considered illegal by the federal
government even when prescribed.
"It was sort of the unasked question," said House Majority Leader
Gordon D. Fox. "Do you send someone that may be suffering from cancer
or whatnot out into the streets to procure it? I don't know if that's
necessarily a good solution. I think the natural extension of that is
that we provide some sort of safe place to obtain it for those who
are legally authorized."
But Fox couldn't explain the widespread assumption that the House
would block it from becoming law.
"I'm not saying that the leadership's going to support it," he said.
"I'd like to read the bill. I haven't looked at what the bill does."
The legislation would create licensed marijuana dispensaries, or
"compassion centers," that would legally grow and sell the drug at
affordable prices to the 359 patients in the state's program. The
centers would be regulated by the state Health Department.
At least 12 states have laws allowing use of medical marijuana. But
policies governing dispensaries are more fractured and several states
have stumbled trying to pass legislation for distribution centers.
Part of the problem is that federal law still bans marijuana use,
even for medical purposes. Dozens of dispensaries in California (one
of two states that allows them) have been raided by the federal
government, something medical marijuana supporters say they don't
want to see happen in Rhode Island.
Newshawk: The Source for Medicinal Marijuana News www.mapinc.org
Pubdate: Fri, 16 May 2008
Source: Providence Journal, The (RI)
Webpage: http://drugsense.org/url/G2avjkjp
Copyright: 2008 The Providence Journal Company
Contact: letters@projo.com
Website: http://www.projo.com/
Author: Steve Peoples, Journal State House Bureau
Referenced: The bill
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText08/SenateText08/S2693Aaa.pdf
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/dispensaries
PROVIDENCE -- The Senate approved legislation yesterday that would
create "compassion centers" where chronically ill patients enrolled
in the state's medical marijuana program could openly purchase the drug.
Despite the 29-to-6 vote, the bill faces opposition in the House of
Representatives and is not expected to become law this year.
"I would really have to have a sock over my head if I didn't know
that," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Rhoda E. Perry, D-Providence.
The legislation is named in part for her nephew, Edward O. Hawkins,
who died of complications from AIDS and cancer.
"What I think is important is to show movement," Perry said of
yesterday's vote. "I think getting it out of a chamber is movement.
It's showing that there is a level of understanding and a level of acceptance."
The General Assembly last year made permanent a law that allowed the
state to offer a medical marijuana program to chronically ill
patients. But lawmakers did not offer a legal means for patients to
obtain the drug, which is considered illegal by the federal
government even when prescribed.
"It was sort of the unasked question," said House Majority Leader
Gordon D. Fox. "Do you send someone that may be suffering from cancer
or whatnot out into the streets to procure it? I don't know if that's
necessarily a good solution. I think the natural extension of that is
that we provide some sort of safe place to obtain it for those who
are legally authorized."
But Fox couldn't explain the widespread assumption that the House
would block it from becoming law.
"I'm not saying that the leadership's going to support it," he said.
"I'd like to read the bill. I haven't looked at what the bill does."
The legislation would create licensed marijuana dispensaries, or
"compassion centers," that would legally grow and sell the drug at
affordable prices to the 359 patients in the state's program. The
centers would be regulated by the state Health Department.
At least 12 states have laws allowing use of medical marijuana. But
policies governing dispensaries are more fractured and several states
have stumbled trying to pass legislation for distribution centers.
Part of the problem is that federal law still bans marijuana use,
even for medical purposes. Dozens of dispensaries in California (one
of two states that allows them) have been raided by the federal
government, something medical marijuana supporters say they don't
want to see happen in Rhode Island.
Newshawk: The Source for Medicinal Marijuana News www.mapinc.org
Pubdate: Fri, 16 May 2008
Source: Providence Journal, The (RI)
Webpage: http://drugsense.org/url/G2avjkjp
Copyright: 2008 The Providence Journal Company
Contact: letters@projo.com
Website: http://www.projo.com/
Author: Steve Peoples, Journal State House Bureau
Referenced: The bill
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText08/SenateText08/S2693Aaa.pdf
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/dispensaries
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)