California

[palmspringsbum]

Medical Marijuana Dispensary Tax Legislation Introduced in California

The Drug Policy Aliance
Wednesday, February 13, 2008


A recently introduced bill would protect California’s medical marijuana dispensaries from overwhelming tax burdens that have resulted from a previously gray area in the law.

Senate Bill 1098, introduced by California State Senator Carole Migden (D – San Francisco), would relieve medical marijuana dispensaries of tax liability, interest, and penalties for sales made prior to October 1, 2005.

The state Board of Equalization, responsible for administering taxes in the state, ruled in 2005 that medical marijuana is subject to general sales tax. Before that ruling there was no clear direction from the state on the subject.

Curtis Notsinneh of DPA’s California Capital office said, “It’s not fair to hold dispensaries responsible for sales tax dating back before the Board of Equalization ruling. That tax liability would be financially crushing.”

SB 1098 is an improved version of a bill from last year, SB 529, and would put into law a ruling by a California Appellate Court. In the process of protecting dispensaries from tax liability for sales prior to October 1, 2005, the bill would normalize medical marijuana business practices with regard to tax policy. Get more information about SB 1098.

[palmspringsbum]

<span class=postbigbold>OPEN FORUM</span>

Hell-bent on shutting medical marijuana dispensaries

Betty T. Yee,Carole Migden
The San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, February 15, 2008

This will be a make-or-break year for medical marijuana dispensaries - if they can survive the tactics employed by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which recently added busting dispensaries' landlords to its repertoire of raids and fear. As urged by Senate Joint Resolution 20 by state Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, the federal government needs to back off and respect state compassionate use laws that authorize a network of responsible, law abiding and tax-paying medical marijuana providers.

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215 to exempt patients and caregivers from criminal penalties when they possess or cultivate marijuana for medical use as recommended by a physician. On the heels of voters approving the initiative, the Legislature enacted a regulatory framework that authorizes local governments to work with dispensaries so medical cannabis could be provided to seriously and terminally ill patients. Eleven other states have similar laws following California's model.

Since 2005, the DEA has raided dozens of medical marijuana dispensaries and collectives, with 28 of these raids occurring since June 2007 in 11 counties in California. Los Angeles County saw a record of four raids in a single day last year. Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the DEA's authority to conduct these raids in Gonzales vs. Raich, it left state medical marijuana laws intact. Angel Raich of Oakland had sued the federal government in 2002 to prevent it from interfering with her right to use medical cannabis for an inoperable brain tumor, seizures, life-threatening wasting syndrome and severe chronic pain.

The DEA believes these dispensaries are illegal drug dealers facilitating recreational drug use. However, most of the dispensary operators who have contacted the State Board of Equalization for information about how to obtain seller's permits for collecting and remitting sales taxes are not fugitives, but responsible persons willing to abide by the laws to conduct their businesses.

For example, the Compassion Center for Alameda County was licensed by Alameda County. It paid $3 million in sales taxes prior to being shut down by the DEA at the end of October. The center had employed about 50 workers who earned a living wage and were provided health benefits, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation coverage. Take another example. Nature's Medicinal in Bakersfield had been licensed by Kern County. It paid almost $1 million in taxes until its closure in 2007, including $203,000 in federal and state income taxes, $365,000 in payroll taxes and $427,000 in sales taxes. Nature's had 25 employees: eight were indicted, and the rest were left unemployed and without health insurance after the raid.

Multiply these examples by the 300 medical cannabis businesses of which the DEA has sent letters to landlords, and what do we get? Millions of dollars in lost tax revenue for the state and municipalities, thousands are well-paying jobs with benefits disappearing from our economy, and scores of dispensaries forced to close or move underground for unregulated operations. However, the most significant setback of the DEA's actions will be to the thousands of California patients who suffer from the effects, pain and discomfort of chemotherapy, HIV/AIDS, glaucoma and neurological disorders. Where is the compassion when these individuals can no longer access medical marijuana to relieve their chronic pain, debilitating symptoms and treatment side-effects?

We applaud the leadership of House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., in his oversight of the DEA's property forfeiture threats. Recognizing the conflict between federal and state law, we will continue to exercise our responsibilities as state policymakers to the fullest extent and uphold the will of California voters to regulate the provision and availability of medical marijuana for those in need. Meanwhile the Legislature should approve SJR20, urging the federal government to honor California law and respect state-sanctioned dispensaries so medical marijuana patients can treat their pain, pay their taxes, and live in peace.

Betty T. Yee is the chairwoman of the State Board of Equalization and represents the First Equalization District, comprising 21 counties along the Northern and Central California coast and including the entire Bay Area. Carole Migden represents the Third Senate District in the California State Senate, comprising San Francisco, Marin, and Sonoma counties.

<i><small>This article appeared on page B - 11 of the San Francisco Chronicle</small></i>

[palmspringsbum]

<span class=postbold>Drug War Chronicle - world’s leading drug policy newsletter</span>

Stop Filling Prisons, California -- Advocates to Take Sentencing Reform Case to Voters

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #524, 2/21/08


California's prison system is in crisis. With some 172,000 inmates, the state's prison system is second only to the federal system in size, and its budget has ballooned by 79% in the last five years to nearly $8 billion annually. Still, the system is vastly overcrowded and faces two federal class-action suits seeking to cap inmate populations because overcrowding is resulting in the state not delivering constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care.

<table class=posttable align=right width=300><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/prison-overcrowding.jpg alt="Overcrowding at Mule Creek State Prison" width=300></td></tr></table>In December, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced he was considering a plan to release some 22,000 nonviolent inmates early in response to the festering crisis. But that one-shot approach would not deal with the systemic problems and policies that created the prison crisis in the first place.

Now, after years of inaction in Sacramento in the face of the crisis, a well-funded initiative campaign that would result in a seismic shift in California sentencing and prison policies, especially when it comes to drug offenders and those whose offenses are related to their problematic drug use, has gotten underway. Dubbed the Non-Violent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA), the initiative would dramatically expand the treatment and diversion options made available under a previous reform initiative, Proposition 36, as well as reform parole and probation programs, and make simple marijuana possession an infraction instead of a misdemeanor.

About 35,000 California inmates, or about 20% of the prison population, are doing time for drug offenses. An unknown number, certainly in the thousands and possibly in the tens of thousands, are doing time for offenses related to their drug use. It is these offenders and their future brethren at whom the NORA initiative is aimed.

Sponsored by the Drug Policy Alliance Network, the lobbying arm of the Drug Policy Alliance and the Santa Monica-based Campaign for New Drug Policies, the people who engineered the successful Prop. 36 campaign, the NORA initiative would:<ul class=postlist><li>
Create a multi-track diversion program for adult offenders. Track I provides for treatment for nonviolent drug possession offenders with a plea held in abeyance during treatment. For those who wash out of Track I, Track II provides Prop 36-style treatment after conviction, with graduated sanctions for probation violations, including eventual jail time. Track III is an expansion of existing drug court programs, with stronger sanctions than the other tracks. Judges would have the discretion to use Track III not only for drug offenders, but for any non-violent offenders whose crimes are linked to their drug use. Track III would be mandatory for those identified as "high-cost offenders" (five arrests in the past 30 months). The initiative would fund the diversion and treatment program at $385 million per year.</li>

<li> Create drug treatment programs for youth. NORA would invest about $65 million a year to build a prevention and treatment program for young people where none currently exists. </li>

<li> Require California prisons to provide rehabilitation programs to all exiting inmates at least 90 days before release and for up to a year after release at state expense. </li>

<li> Allow nonviolent prisoners to earn sentence reductions with good behavior and by participating in rehabilitation programs.</li>

<li> Cut parole periods for qualifying nonviolent offenders to between six and 12 months, instead of the current up to three years. Early discharge from parole could be gained with completion of a rehabilitation program.</li>

<li> Make simple marijuana possession an infraction (ticketing offense) instead of a misdemeanor.</li></ul>Not only would NORA mean freedom for thousands of nonviolent drug and drug-related offenders, it would also save California billions of dollars. Prop. 36 is estimated to have saved at least $1.3 billion in five years by diverting offenders to treatment, and the California Legislative Analyst's Office projects that NORA could generate a billion dollars a year in savings for the prison system, as well as obviating the need for a one-time prison-building outlay of $2.5 billion.

Paid canvassers for NORA are already hitting the streets in California. They have until April 21 to gather some 435,000 valid signatures to put the measure on the November ballot. NORA will make that goal, organizers vowed.

"We've just announced this to our members and started gathering signatures," said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli of the Southern California office of the Drug Policy Alliance Network. "We're very excited. It looks like the largest sentencing and prison reform in American history will be on the November ballot."

"This is Prop 36 on steroids," said Dale Gieringer, executive director of California NORML. "If it passes, this will lead to a comprehensive rewrite of all of California's laws regarding sentencing, probation, and parole for nonviolent, drug-related offenses. And this is a professional campaign. The measure will be on the ballot in November," he flatly predicted.

"Prop. 36 has been such a success, it has been extensively studied and proven, but the biggest problem is that it isn't big enough," said Dooley-Sammuli. "Combined with the difficulty of getting any prison reform through and of even obtaining adequate funding for existing reforms because of the impasse in Sacramento -- we've seen so many prison reforms die there -- we thought we really needed to put this on the ballot for stable funding, more treatment, and more diversion," she said.

"But NORA is not just about expanding Prop. 36," Dooley-Sammuli was quick to point out. "This is primarily a prison and sentencing reform effort. It brings common sense solutions to the problem of over-incarceration in California, especially the over-incarceration of nonviolent offenders in this state."

"The state has been incredibly reluctant and negligent in addressing the whole problem of nonviolent prisoners," said Gieringer. "Every effort to extricate drug offenders from the prison system has been seen as a political hot potato and has gone nowhere. Sentencing reform is political poison in Sacramento, yet we have this simmering prison crisis here in California."

If the politicians refuse to act, said Gieringer, it is time to take the issue directly to the voters. "This initiative is very justified because of the negligence of California's political class in not dealing with these issues," he said. "In fact, it is overdue, and now we the people have to try to come to grips with the failure of our political leaders to act. And I think we have the public on our side. The polling on this has been very favorable. Most people think nonviolent drug offenses should be handled with treatment, not prison."

"We have federal judges considering whether to take over the entire state prison system," said Dooley-Sammuli. "We don't have solutions coming out of Sacramento. We have very real budget problems that mean we can't afford to keep spending what we are on incarceration. NORA reallocates state spending from incarceration to treatment and rehabilitation, so we will end up with substantial savings over time," she predicted.

Gov. Schwarzenegger's move to release some prisoners early is necessary, but not sufficient, said Dooley-Sammuli. What is needed is not one-shot fixes, but systemic reforms, she said. "NORA is not a one-time opening of the jailhouse gates," said Dooley-Sammuli, "This is about systemic change in our sentencing and parole practices. This is not radical; it's common sense. This is not soft on crime; this is smart on crime. NORA will allow us to get past the politicking and get some solutions."

At this point early in the campaign season, there is no organized opposition, but that is almost certain to change. Too many powerful groups, from prosecutors to prison guards, benefit from the status quo, and fear-mongering on crime issues is a perennial favorite among politicians.

"The question is whether there will be any well-funded political opposition," said Gieringer. "Then there might be a real fight. But we haven't seen an opposition committee form yet. That's the real question mark."

NORA organizers have done their best to blunt opposition at the early stages by bringing potential opponents into the process, said Dooley-Sammuli. "We made many, many efforts to make this a collaborative process by reaching out to a wide variety of stakeholders. This has been a broad effort to bring in as many perspectives and sets of expertise as possible, and we've tried to make friends instead of foes," she said.

Coerced drug treatment is not the best of all possible worlds. But it's difficult to argue that drug law violators are better off in prison than in treatment. The NORA initiative will give California voters a chance to take a giant step in sentencing and prison reform and a small step toward true justice for drug users.

[palmspringsbum]

Bill would protect medical pot users' jobs

The Oakland Tribune
By Josh Richman,STAFF WRITER
Article Created: 02/21/2008 03:12:14 PM PST

A new Assembly bill with two Bay Area co-authors seeks to protect medical-marijuana users' jobs.

AB 2279, introduced Wednesday, would prohibit employment discrimination against those who use marijuana as medicine in compliance with state law away from the workplace. It would leave intact already-existing provisions barring consumption in the workplace, and would protect employers from liability by carving out an exception for safety-sensitive jobs.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, had vowed to introduce such a bill last month after the state Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that an employer can fire a worker solely because he or she uses medical marijuana outside the workplace.

"AB 2279 is merely an affirmation of the intent of the voters and the legislature that medical marijuana patients need not be unemployed to benefit from their medicine," Leno said in a news release issued Thursday.

The bill is co-authored by Assemblywomen Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley; Patty Berg, D-Eureka; and Lori Saldana, D-San Diego. It's sponsored by Oakland-based Americans for Safe Access, a national nonprofit which had argued for the plaintiff in the state Supreme Court case decided in January.

"Despite the ill-conceived ruling by the California Supreme Court, the intent of state legislatures has been to recognize the civil rights of patients and to offer them reasonable protections," ASA spokesman Kris Hermes said Thursday.

ASA says companies that have fired medical-marijuana users, threatened their jobs or denied them jobs include Costco, UPS, Foster Farms Dairy, DirecTV, the San Joaquin Courier, Power Auto Group and several construction companies, hospitals, and trade union employers.

Similar bills have been introduced in Oregon and Hawaii.


--Contact Josh Richman at jrichman@bayareanewsgroup.com or 510-208-6428. Read the Political Blotter at www.ibabuzz.com/politics

[palmspringsbum]

February 22, 2008

Soros gives big to drug rehab measure


<span class=postbigbold>Telling it like he see's it</span>

Marcos Bretón

The Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert


Liberal billionaire George Soros is wading back into California’s drug and rehabilitation laws, donating $1 million to a proposed ballot measure that would relax penalties for nonviolent drug offenses.

The measure would expand California’s drug treatment program, modify the state’s parole laws as well as change possession of marijuana from a misdemeanor to an infraction, the legal equivalent of a traffic ticket.

Soros, a well-known Democratic financier who donated millions of his personal fortune to try to oust President Bush from office in 2004, is no stranger to California ballot measures. In 2000, the New York investor poured in more than $1 million of his own money to pass Proposition 36, California’s landmark drug treatment law.

That measure mandated drug treatment instead of incarceration for people arrested and convicted of being under the influence or in possession of drugs, including harder substances such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine.

Four years earlier, in 1996, he gave close to $500,000 to pass Proposition 215, the state’s medical marijuana initiative, according to news reports.

<table class=posttable align=right width=300><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg width=300 src=bin/soros_george.jpg alt="George Soros"></td></tr></table>Soros, who ranked 80th on Forbes magazine’s list of the richest people in the world in 2007 with a net worth of $8.5 billion, has been an outspoken critic of America’s drug policies and has opened up his wallet to fund ballot measures across the country.

The latest Soros-backed California measure is sponsored by the Drug Policy Alliance, which bills itself as the “nation's leading organization of people who believe the war on drugs is doing more harm than good.” Soros is a member of the group’s board of directors.

The proponents of the measure, which began circulation in early January, must gather 433,971 valid signatures and submit them to county registrars by the April 21 deadline recommended by the secretary of state’s office.

So far, backers of the measure, which they call the Campaign for Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation, have raised $1.475 million – more than two-thirds of which came from Soros, who made his $1 million donation on Jan. 21.

Another $400,000 came from the Drug Policy Alliance Network, which did not immediately return a call for comment.

Note: The original verison of this story said the Drug Policy Alliance donated the $400,000, when the donation came from the group's political arm, the Drug Policy Alliance Network

The price tag of the measure is up for debate.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office’s review predicted that increased costs “could exceed $1 billion annually” for the expanded drug treatment programs, but savings “could exceed $1 billion annually” from reduced prison and parole costs. The LAO also estimates potential one-time savings of $2.5 billion from not building prisons.

With more than $3 raised per necessary valid signature, the measure is likely headed for the November 2008 ballot.

See the full text of the initiative here.

[palmspringsbum]

Tax relief proposed for pot clubs

John Upton, The Examiner
2008-03-12 11:00:00.0

SAN FRANCISCO - Medical marijuana sellers across the state would have millions of dollars in unpaid back taxes pardoned in an effort to spare them from bankruptcy and encourage them to pay sales tax under a bill introduced by a San Francisco lawmaker.

Although federal rules state that using marijuana is a crime, medical marijuana can be legally sold in California under a state law approved by voters in 1996. It wasn’t until 2005, however, that the California Board of Equalization ruled that medical marijuana dispensaries must pay sales tax.

As a result, many dispensaries that opened before 2005 have “massive” back-tax burdens that could force them out of business, according to Bruce Mirken, a San Francisco-based spokesman for the nonprofit Marijuana Policy Project.

“A lot of these dispensaries really do want to be responsible citizens and pay taxes as appropriate, but many of them weren’t sure what to do for a long time,” Mirken said.

A bill introduced recently by state Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, would forgive sales tax debts accrued prior to October 2005 if the marijuana traders register before April 2009 to pay sales tax.

Board of Equalization Vice-Chair Betty Yee said it would be “appropriate” to provide amnesty to the dispensaries because they didn’t charge sales tax to their customers before 2005.

Yee said although there’s no estimate for the amount of money that is owed by the dispensaries, it would be in the “millions of dollars.”

Providing back-tax amnesty to dispensaries that register to pay sales tax could help the state and its municipalities raise an estimated $25 million to $30 million a year in new sales tax receipts, according to Yee.

Forgiving dispensaries’ back taxes would encourage them to register to pay sales tax, according to San Francisco-based lawyer Matt Kumin, who represents dispensaries.

A total of 31 dispensaries in San Francisco have obtained city permits or applied for permits to operate legally in San Francisco, according to Planning Department official Tara Sullivan, who added that “many more” could be operating without permits.

Kevin Reed, who operates a cannabis delivery service in San Francisco, said new patients are given a brochure that explains that marijuana prices include sales tax, but “it’s an area nobody really wants to talk about,” so “we never mention it again.”

jupton@examiner.com

[palmspringsbum]

Among Calif. Pot Clubs There Stirs a Budding Rebellion

Evan Hill
The Recorder
03-17-2008

When the Drug Enforcement Administration sent letters last year to California landlords who rent to marijuana dispensaries, reminding them -- not so subtly -- that it's a federal crime to do so, they opened another front in the battle to define how pot clubs operate in the hazy border between state and federal law.

The letters state that "federal law takes precedence over state law" and that Proposition 215 -- which in 1996 legalized medical marijuana in California -- offers landlords no defense against penalties of 20 years in prison and the loss of their property.

Numerous pot clubs have closed in anticipation of eviction. But some are pushing back, and using the courts to do it.

Steven Schectman, an attorney with Arcata, Calif.-based Pacific Law, is leading the charge against the DEA on their behalf.

In late January, he sued the agency in federal court, alleging it violated pot clubs' civil rights and seeking an injunction to halt future letters.

"The DEA is perceived to be a super-entity in the United States, and that's because they've been abusive in their police powers," Schectman said.

He also successfully defended a Los Angeles club, the Arts District Healing Center, from an eviction brought after its landlord received a letter. Schectman argued that the landlord had no right to evict the club because the tenant hadn't broken the lease contract, and a judge agreed.

Dale Gieringer, California director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, calls this the "Schectman ploy." The strategy has emerged as a model for how the fight between pot clubs and the DEA could play out over the coming months.

The letters began arriving at the doors of Southern California landlords in June and in ensuing months spread throughout the state.

That summer, at a house in the Berkeley hills, a group of attorneys met to formulate a strategy that could protect both dispensaries and their landlords. Among them were Schectman and medical marijuana champion William Panzer, a lawyer and co-author of Prop 215.

They figured sympathetic landlords could file eviction proceedings as a way of demonstrating to the feds that they were taking the warnings seriously. State courts, they reasoned, wouldn't evict clubs that hadn't violated their leases.

This avenue would work best where the lease didn't spell out that tenants were selling medical marijuana, Panzer said. If the lease put the owner on notice, he explained, they'd have a harder time arguing against federal forfeiture.

Whether that strategy puts the DEA letters to rest for clubs and landlords all depends, attorneys said, on if the Department of Justice actually follows through on the DEA's threats of federal prosecution against landlords.

Javier Pena, special agent in charge of the DEA's San Francisco division, said the letters are not a threat, but a courtesy intended to "educate [landlords] as to what the law says."

He estimated around 50 have been sent in the Northern District so far. Pena wouldn't say how many clubs have closed, or comment on the DEA's plans or Schectman's defense strategy.

Joseph Russoniello, U.S. Attorney for California's Northern District, said the letters do have legal teeth, but that "right now we're in a wait-and-see period."

He also made a notable distinction between commercial dispensaries and small-scale medical operations.

"Prosecuting medicinal providers is low [priority] if they're true caregivers," he said.

Russoniello said a typical "caregiver" would operate "at cost with no profits" and have a small staff. He said large, profiteering commercial operations "do not meet my definition of low priority."

"That does not mean and should not be taken to mean that there's going to be a crackdown by the U.S. Attorney," he said.

In the Arts District club case, after the club's landlord went to Los Angeles County Superior Court to get an eviction, Schectman successfully argued that the club hadn't broken its lease contract with the landlord. The lease stated that the club was renting the property for "dispensing medical cannabis and other related uses, all to be legal in the City and County of Los Angeles, California."

Panzer said Schectman's strategy may open landlords to the risk of prosecution.

"If the lease on [the property] said, 'This is for a medical cannabis dispensary,' then none of this works anyway, because the landlord was on notice from the get-go," Panzer said.

On the other hand, former San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan, who represents 14 clubs in the city, said it might still help the landlords to try to evict a known dispensary.

"Presumably if the landlord follows up on the warning, then the DEA would not move to forfeit their property," he said.

A landlord for one club that Hallinan represents has brought an eviction action, and Hallinan has not yet filed his response.

Though Schectman's client was spared from eviction, San Francisco solo Matthew Kumin, who does legal work for several pot dispensaries, gives the DEA points for their tactic, saying it's a cheap and effective way to scare landlords into getting rid of their clubs. In recent years, federal law enforcement's anti-pot-club strategy seemed to consist of raids of the premises.

"The DEA scored a big hit with this landlord letter ... I don't quite understand why they didn't try it many, many years ago," he said.

But Schectman, whose suit against the DEA remains in preliminary stages in the state's Central District, said the agency has now made itself vulnerable to legal attack.

"What the DEA has done with these letters is it has exposed itself."

While the San Francisco board of supervisors has rallied to medicinal marijuana's defense in the wake of the DEA's actions, some observers said the federal government risks stepping on a different kind of hornet's nest if it pursues forfeiture.

"It's a very nasty and politically unpopular tactic to go after property owners," Gieringer said. "Republicans don't like it when you go after property owners."

[palmspringsbum]

CA Supreme Court Affirms ASA Win!

by Americans for Safe Access
Sunday Mar 23rd, 2008 9:53 PM
<span class=postbigbold>
Appellate ruling that local police must uphold state law is now binding statewide
</span>


Dear ASA supporter,

On Wednesday, Americans for Safe Access (ASA) quietly scored one of the most important legal victories since voters approved Proposition 215, when the California Supreme Court decided not to review or de-publish last year’s landmark return of property decision in Garden Grove v. Superior Court. By affirming the appellate court’s decision, the Supreme Court has made protection against wrongful seizure of medical marijuana legally binding throughout the state of California.

ASA needs your help right now to make the most of this victory and to keep fighting for patients’ rights. Please take a moment right now to join ASA or make a special contribution?

Last year, the California Court of Appeal ruled that state law enforcement could not use federal law as an excuse for not upholding California’s medical cannabis laws – therefore police must return medicine wrongfully seized from legal patients. ASA filed the successful appeal on behalf of Garden Grove patient Felix Kha in hopes of stemming the tide of hundreds of wrongful confiscations of medicine all over California. Our November victory should have ended the debate about “enforcing federal law,” but the decision was quickly appealed to the State Supreme Court.

As a result of literally hundreds of cases of wrongful medical marijuana confiscation, and careful legal planning and research, ASA’s legal team strongly defended the rights of Felix Kha and others like him. The whole process took more than two years! Think for a moment how lucky we are to have a dedicated legal team at ASA working full time to defend patients’ rights. http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/Donate

This victory would not have been possible without the ongoing and generous support of people like you – people who believe in the right to legally use medical cannabis in California. But now what? We need to make sure that the more than 250,000 legal patients, and thousands of attorneys and public defenders are sufficiently educated about patients’ rights and protection from medicine confiscation to which patients are now entitled. We also need to educate police officers, prosecutors, and judges. We need to tell this story in the media to end patient harassment and to ensure that police no longer hide behind the excuse that marijuana is illegal under federal law.

We can do all of this and press on to new victories for patients if we have your continued support! Please take a moment to join ASA or make a new pledge of monthly support right now. Your gift of $20, $50, or more per month will help us make the most of this case and finally succeed in defending patients’ rights to medicine. Please do it today, so we can keep fighting!

Thank you in advance for your generosity,

Don Duncan
California Director
Americans for Safe Access

P.S. For more information, please see ASA's page about the Garden Grove case.

Americans for Safe Access is the nation's largest organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research.

[palmspringsbum]

Medicinal marijuana puts tax collectors in tight spot

The Capitol Weekly
By John Howard (published Thursday, March 27, 2008)

In a tight budget year, California wants every tax dollar it can lay its hands on. This year, those hands are reaching for marijuana.

More than a decade ago, California voters approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes, making it legal under state law. However, federal law enforcers say marijuana use of any kind is illegal - and they are raiding clinics to prove their point. The state tax appeals board, which wants the sales taxes, is stuck in the middle.

"We're caught between a rock and a hard place," said Betty Yee, a member of the state Board of Equalization, which collects and distributes sales taxes on more than $553 billion worth of transactions each year in California on everything from corkscrews to Cadillacs. "We do not want to serve as aiding or abetting the (federal Drug Enforcement Administration). But they (the dispensaries) are not exempt from the sales tax, so by law we have to enforce it," Yee said.

Yee's district encompasses all of coastal California from Santa Barbara to the Oregon state line and includes scores of marijuana dispensaries and thousands of medicinal users.

Estimates vary wildly on just how much taxable marijuana is out there. The state, facing $16 billion in red ink through the middle of next year, wants precise numbers. So far, it doesn't have them. State authorities are quick to point out that collecting marijuana taxes won't balance California's books - but every penny helps.

The Board of Equalization says it collected about $11.4 million in tax on some $142 million worth of medicinal marijuana sales in 2005-06, the most recent period for which numbers are available. That's likely a partial amount, because the board's taxation policy was adopted in October 2005, the final rule didn't go into effect until 15 months later, and it typically takes time to ramp up tax programs.

About 200,000 people across California are authorized by their doctors to use marijuana for medical reasons. The drug costs about $40 for an eighth of an ounce.

The sales of medicinal marijuana are tiny compared with other products, such as $20 billion in apparel sales and nearly $18 billion for office and school supplies. Even the smallest category - fuel and ice sales - among some four dozen listed by the tax board totals more than $414 million, nearly three times the level of the medicinal marijuana transactions. Marijuana vendors are listed as selling "general merchandise" - an attempt to give some anonymity to sellers who fear federal intervention.

Americans for Safe Access, a pro-medicinal marijuana group that favors similar programs nationwide, says the state's figures are deceptive. The group surveyed a representative sampling of California dispensaries and tallied their sales, then multiplied that amount by the number of dispensaries in the state. ASA estimated the paid sales tax at about $100 million, and the amount of taxable sales at about $800 million. "This is a significant amount of money in a tough budget year," said ASA spokesman Kris Hermes. "We'd rather have the Board of Equalization be the entity that gives out that number, but they say it goes directly into the General Fund and there is nothing that requires the dispensaries to indicate what they sell. I hope over time that they will consider it, so it's not just us saying that we represent $100 million annually in sales taxes," Hermes added.

A number of states have some form of medical marijuana law, including Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Colorado, Main, Vermont, Rhode Island, Montana and California.

Federal drug enforcers note that the use of marijuana is illegal, and they point to a 2006 U.S. Food and Drug Administration study stating that marijuana has no medical value. "It is unequivocally illegal under federal law," said Casey McHenry, a spokeswoman for the Drug Enforcement Administration. "Our job is to enforce federal law, and the distribution or cultivation of marijuana is in clear violation."

California's position, determined by the 1996 passage of Proposition 215, is that the use of marijuana for medical purposes is legal. That, McHenry added, "doesn't affect what we do. We are still continuing to do our investigative work."

Tracking medicinal marijuana sales has been murky for years. Sellers, fearful of federal investigators, are hesitant to disclose information to state tax officials, whose records may be subject to review by federal authorities. State tax officials know that, but they say the transfer of information is limited.

"We do not have blanket information-sharing with different law enforcement entities, but in the event that there was a specific investigation going on, the Board of Equalization would be cooperative. But the board doesn't send information to the DEA as part of any kind of blanket agreement," said board spokeswoman Anita Gore.

Still, those who dispense the marijuana are nervous about the role of the federal government. "That is a danger, and it is a vulnerability in the system. We've raised incrimination and vulnerability as important issues," Hermes said.

Federal authorities, meanwhile, say income from marijuana sales is taxable and can lead to investigations of related criminal activities, such as money laundering. "With us, there is a potential for a criminal tax issue," said Arlette Lee, a spokeswoman for the IRS criminal investigations unit.

And the feds note that income from any source, legal or illegal, is taxable.

"Income, regardless of whether the source is legal or illegal, is taxable," Lee said.

[palmspringsbum]

In progress:

[palmspringsbum]

Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use - Edmund G. Brown, California Attorney General

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/ ... elines.pdf

<ul class=postlist><li>Distributors are divided between co-operatives which are designated "statutory" because they are organized as a non-profit corporation and collectives which are not incorporated but must be non-profit.</li>

<li>Neither a co-coperatives nor a collective may buy from non-members.<br><br>"Collectives and cooperatives should acquire marijuana only from their constituent members." AND TRANSPORT IT.</li>

<li>Seller's Permit is REQUIRED, along with any local business license.</li>

<li>Both collectives and cooperatives must pay sales tax and obtain a Sellar's Permit, and get a business license if required.</li>

<li>Bank accounts and transparent record keeping are demanded, along with scheduled 'bank runs' and 'cash drops'.</li>

<li>Dispensaries that merely require patients to complete a form summarily designating the business owner as their primary caregiver - and then offering marijuana in exchange for cash "donations" - are likely unlawful.</li>

<li>It specifies, ironicly enough among the INDICIA (I thought it was Indica at first) of "unlawful operation" excessive amounts of marijuana and/or cash. I see this as being a source of great problems. What is 'excessive'? Who decides?</li>
</ul>

[palmspringsbum]

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/a ... n_v95.html

[palmspringsbum]

Judge says Feds violated 10th Amendment by subverting state marijuana laws

As It Stands by Dave Stancliff/For the Times-Standard
Article Launched: 09/14/2008 01:32:06 AM PDT

A landmark decision for all Californian's quietly made history on August 20th in a Santa Cruz courtroom.

For the first time since 1996, when the Compassionate Use Act was passed, the federal authorities have been charged with violating the 10th Amendment for harassing medical marijuana patients and state authorities.

The case of Santa Cruz vs. Mukasey, was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who said the Bush Administration's request to dismiss a lawsuit by Santa Cruz city and county officials, and the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), wasn't going to happen.

In a recent telephone interview with Alan Hopper, an ACLU counsel familiar with the case, I asked him what came next?

”The plaintiff will get a get a court-ordered discovery document that will allow them to get documents, and even depositions, from the federal authorities to support their claims,” he explained.

So now it's the city, county, and WAMM's turn to prove their case against the federal government. The court has recognized a concerted effort by the federal government to sabotage state medical marijuana laws, which violates the U.S. Constitution. The significance of this ruling, the first of its kind, cannot be overstated.

California voters may finally get what they asked for a dozen years ago. When the court said that the federal government had gone out of its way to arrest and prosecute some of the most legitimate doctors, patients, caregivers, and dispensary owners that had been working with state and local officials, it finally drew a line-in-the sand.

An example of the federal authorities violations was their pursuit of WAMM. This non-profit group has been around for many years, and has been fully supported by the city and county of Santa Cruz. They have been referred to, by officials, as the model medical marijuana patient's collective.

The group was functioning so smoothly that the city even allowed them to hold regular meetings to distribute marijuana to its patients on the steps of city hall! The federal agents still went after them, which brought about this court decision.

When the ACLU filed this lawsuit to stop them from targeting medical marijuana providers and patients, they opened a door that may finally lead to no federal interference in California's medical marijuana law.

We must not forget that medical marijuana brings in about $100 million each year in tax revenue. Conferring total legitimacy to the law will allow this cash flow to continue, and hopefully, increase over time.

When the judge ruled the feds were threatening physicians who recommended marijuana, he set the stage for regaining patient's rights. The ruling clearly pointed out that the feds were also threatening government officials who issue medical marijuana cards, and interfered with municipal zoning plans.

In the summation, the court found that, “There was a calculated pattern of selective arrests and prosecutions by the federal government with the intent to render California's medical marijuana laws impossible to implement and therefore forced Californian's and their political subdivisions to re-criminalize medical marijuana.”

In a recent column, I mentioned California's Attorney General Jerry Brown had passed out an 11-page directive that all law agencies were to go by. I expressed concern that the federal authorities would ignore those guidelines, but upon finding out about this recent ruling I now have some cause for hope.

It sure sounded like Hopper was looking forward to the next phase, and he seemed confident that positive change lay ahead. Asked which presidential candidate would be more amenable to upholding medical marijuana laws, he cleverly replied that he thought they both would be willing to work for change. He could be right too. This is a year of change.

This on-going battle with the federal authorities ignoring California's laws has been well-documented in the past. Why hasn't there been more coverage for such an epic ruling? Its potential as breakthrough legislation is something all Californian's should know about in my opinion.

The war against medical marijuana hasn't been won yet, but this could be the breakthrough everybody's waited for. At the core of the war waged by the federal government against the voter's will, is the failed War on Drugs by the Bush Administration. It's about time someone told them to back off.

As It Stands, we can score this as a successful round for state's rights.

[palmspringsbum]

From the Los Angeles Times

Dust-Up

A fleeting change in pot policy?

Can the feds address drug policy in a way that doesn't subject states to the political leanings of different administrations? Stephen Gutwillig and Scott Imler discuss.

March 5, 2009

Today's topic: Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. has said federal drug officers will end their raids on pot dispensaries in California, where medical marijuana is legal. But this is only the Obama administration's policy, and the next president could just as easily resume Drug Enforcement Administration raids. Is there a way for the feds to address this issue that doesn't subject states and medical marijuana users to the political leanings of different administrations?


<span class=postbigbold>Take marijuana off Schedule I</span>
<span class=postbold>Point: Stephen Gutwillig</span>

The Obama administration has taken an important step to protect patients in the 13 states with medical marijuana laws. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. confirmed last week that his Department of Justice will uphold President Obama's campaign promise to end Drug Enforcement Administration raids of medical marijuana dispensaries in California. The Bush administration's DEA unleashed hundreds of commando-style raids that intimidated and terrorized patients, providers and caregivers while undermining the capacity of states to defend popular medical marijuana laws they had enacted since 1996. The Obama White House has ended the reign of terror.

But this cease-fire isn't enough.

For medical marijuana patients and their advocates, it's crucial that the Obama administration and Congress acknowledge the value of marijuana as medicine and foster an open, honest discussion about how the federal government can best regulate its use. In particular, the feds should remove marijuana from the list of Schedule I drugs.

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 created five schedules for all illicit and prescription drugs. Marijuana wound up in Schedule I, defining it as having a high potential for abuse and no acceptable medical use. Placing marijuana under Schedule I federally criminalized its use as a medicine and severely restricted research into its medicinal value. Nonetheless, there is increasing consensus among medical professionals that marijuana provides substantial therapeutic benefits for a number of conditions, including AIDS, hepatitis C, glaucoma, cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and chronic pain.

To date, 13 states have embraced those findings, rejected the inflexible federal position and taken matters into their own hands. The vast majority of those states adopted medical marijuana laws by ballot initiative, many by a landslide. Every state polled has shown a significant majority of voters in favor of legalizing medical marijuana. Within a year, those 13 states may be joined by as many as six others that are considering medical marijuana legislation or initiatives. Quite simply, most Americans -- including our president -- agree that when a loved one is seriously ill, he or she deserves access to medical marijuana if a doctor recommends it.

The placement of marijuana under Schedule I makes no sense for a drug that is being recommended by doctors from Alaska to Vermont. As The Times editorialized Feb. 25, marijuana "is not nearly as addictive or intoxicating as less-restricted Schedule 2 drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamine. Moreover, the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, can be sold in pill form as a Schedule 3 drug. So what makes the plant so dangerous?"

The Obama administration has signaled its intention to use a public-health approach to drug policy in general. Medical marijuana is the perfect opportunity to illustrate that sensible new posture. By ending the raids on dispensaries in California, the administration has taken a big step toward protecting Americans who benefit from the medicinal properties of marijuana. But this policy is far too impermanent and leaves far too many Americans outside medical marijuana states unprotected. It's time to reschedule marijuana and make it available as a medicine to all those in need.
<small>
Stephen Gutwillig is California director for the Drug Policy Alliance.
</small>

<span class=postbigbold>Good job Obama, but medical marijuana should be a federal issue</span>
<span class=postbold>Counterpoint: Scott Imler</span>

There is little in your post with which to disagree, Stephen. Although the Obama administration's policy change is good news for legitimate and illegitimate operators alike, it is bittersweet for thousands of patients and dozens of trail-blazing individuals and organizations who, acting in good faith over the last decade, have had their lives wrecked, financially ruined or been imprisoned while awaiting this logical and inevitable development.

While the Bush administration's commando-style raids have been superbly effective in wiping out the original non-profit and charitable, community-based programs established in the immediate aftermath of Proposition 215's passage in 1996 -- in some cases with the support of local law enforcement -- they've done little to curb the dominance of for-profit, black-market resale operations that constitute the bulk of the burgeoning "medical marijuana" industry.

Despite 20 years of presidential stonewalling by two Bushes and one Clinton (ironically, Ronald Reagan is the only modern president under whom patient access expanded), medical marijuana is no longer an issue to decide, but a problem to solve. Obama's more nuanced approached to federal enforcement should help combat the reluctance of states and local jurisdictions to meaningfully regulate medical marijuana for fear of federal prosecution.

For this reason, I have some concerns about the federal government's complete abandonment of the enforcement arena and the potential marginalization of the issue as a provincial matter. I believe that targeted suspensions of DEA enforcement actions against legitimate medical marijuana dispensaries operating in compliance with state law is appropriate. It pushes us toward a more rational federal policy and the regularization of cannabis as a prescription drug available through traditional medicine.

You are also correct, Stephen, in identifying the next logical step for solving the problem nationally -- federal rescheduling. Yes, marijuana is a substance with a high potential for abuse, but it also clearly has medical value, so it must come off Schedule I.

The other benefit of viewing this as a national rather than a state issue is liberating the political dialogue from the vapid confines of "states rights." We live in the United States of America, not the 50 States of America. There is no reason that a 20-year-old Californian with a storefront and his own letterhead should be laughing all the way to the bank while an AIDS patient in Oklahoma faces 30 years in prison for growing two plants.

If Holder's announcement is a fulfillment of a campaign promise, there is reason to believe that Obama's more nuanced statements as a candidate on this issue may still be operative. He could suspend raids on "patients" (as opposed to, say, wholesalers or guerrilla growers who despoil forests in their reckless pursuit of profit), stemming from his belief that medical marijuana is OK so long as it is handled with appropriate controls like any other prescription drug.

As Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a news conference regarding Proposition 215, "The devil is in the details." In the case of California Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and its spawn in a dozen others states, the devil is in the context, which we'll talk about tomorrow.
<small>
The Rev. Scott Imler was coauthor of Proposition 215 and founder of the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center, Southern California's first patient-based medical marijuana cooperative.
</small>

[palmspringsbum]

<i>From the Los Angeles Times</i>

Dust-Up

Medical marijuana in California: a history

Have the state's efforts to legalize and regulate medical marijuana been successful? Scott Imler and Stephen Gutwillig debate.

March 6, 2009

Today's topic: Have California's efforts to legalize and regulate medical marijuana -- including Proposition 215, the 1996 voter initiative -- been successful? Scott Imler and Stephen Gutwillig will finish their discussion on Monday.


<span class=postbigbold>A success, yes, but there are many unintended consequences</span>
<span class=postbold>Point: Scott Imler</span>

About four weeks before the 1996 general election, Sen. Diane Feinstein said what would become the mantra of anti-medical marijuana forces. She said Proposition 215 was so poorly written that "you'll be able to drive a truckload of marijuana through the holes in it. While its seems simple, the devil is in the details or, in this particular bill, the lack of details."

The purposes of the Compassionate Use Act were, in reality, as clear as the demagoguery of the opposition and stand as the only authentic standard of the measure's success or failure. They were:
<ul class=postlist>
<li>To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraines or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.</li>

<li>To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.</li>

<li>To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need.</li>
</ul>
Clearly, concerning the right to obtain and use marijuana for any illness for which marijuana provides relief, Proposition 215 -- for better or worse -- has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination. It is estimated that more than 200,000 Californians have received approval from their physicians to use marijuana for conditions ranging from the ridiculous to the sublime, many of which were not enumerated in the language of Proposition 215.

Likewise, state courts, following the letter of the law, have ruled time and again in favor of patients with even the most minor of afflictions. While this fact continues to draw its share of ridicule, the authors of Proposition 215 were not in a position to play doctor -- or God -- when it came to marijuana's potential therapeutic applications.

As to protecting patients, their caregivers and physicians from criminal prosecution or sanction, Proposition 215 has been a mixed bag. Immediately following its passage, the feds publicly threatened to revoke the DEA license of any physician who prescribed marijuana. Not a group to take threats lightly, physicians won a speedy injunction in federal court on 1st Amendment grounds to protect themselves against DEA action, but the chill had already set in. To this day, despite a federal court order protecting the confidentiality of doctor-patient communications, many legitimate physicians fear writing prescriptions for medical marijuana.

Patients, however, have proved easier pickings for law enforcement set on business as usual. While many patient prosecutions have been stopped in the earliest phases, raids, arrests, confiscations and legal retainers are forms of "sanction" in their own right. This problem was addressed six years after Proposition 215 passed, when Gov. Gray Davis signed SB 420, the Medical Marijuana Protection Act, which established an identification card system for medical marijuana patients. The ID cards give police the confidence they need to walk away from a medical marijuana patient. Even though some counties are still resisting implementing the ID system, I would consider SB 420 a qualified success.

I'm less enthusiastic about SB 420's achievement in regulating access. Other than making explicit what was implicit in Proposition 215 under existing doctrines of "free association" -- namely, collective cultivation of marijuana -- when coupled with SB 420's ambiguous language about "caregiver" profits and its lack of any reference to "dispensaries," Feinstein's truck-sized hole suddenly found its commercial application.

If, as the senator says, the devil is in the details, when it comes to the third purpose of Proposition 215 -- encouraging state and federal cooperation to resolve the medical marijuana problem -- the devil has been and remains in the context.

The fact is, with the charitable community-based programs basically destroyed by initial federal actions, Proposition 215 and SB 420 have largely failed in their overarching goal of delivering patients from the high costs and indignities of the black market and the criminal justice system. Proposition 215's intent was to liberate patients from the expensive but questionable products from dubious sources.

With federal law enforcement seeking to undermine Proposition 215 and with much of the marijuana legalization movement seeking to exploit it for commercial and political gain, state and federal cooperation never had a chance. This has, sadly, institutionalized the black market in the medical marijuana business.

We didn't write Proposition 215 in a vacuum; rather, we responded to a specific set of legal problems faced by patients. Where implementation has gone wrong, and it's not yet clear that the Obama administration understands this, is in the enabling of a largely unregulated medical marijuana industry that lurks somewhere between the shadows of folklore and a multimillion-dollar criminal enterprise.

Despite the promise of a new day, last week's announcement by U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. doesn't move us much closer to solving the medical marijuana problem. It could, in fact, only make things worse in the short term as a new wave of "Johnnie come legal" black-marketeers feel emboldened to open up shop.

Only federal rescheduling, licensed quality-controlled production and well-regulated prescription access can fulfill the true promise of Proposition 215 and the aspirations of normalcy for those for whom it was intended.
<small>
The Rev. Scott Imler was coauthor of Proposition 215 and founder of the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center, Southern California's first patient-based medical marijuana cooperative.</small>



<span class=postbigbold>Problems? Sure. But there's no denying the incredible success</span>
<span class=postbold>Counterpoint: Stephen Gutwillig</span>

Is Proposition 215 vaguely worded? Yes. Are there instances where the system is abused? Yes. Could the laws be improved? Of course. But what Proposition 215 has accomplished in the 13 years since its passage is nothing short of incredible.

Almost 200,000 patients in California are now able to obtain medical marijuana to treat a variety of medical conditions and relieve pain. Hundreds of legitimate collectives provide patients with safe, effective and affordable medical marijuana. Many patients no longer have to risk arrest by turning to the black market. Twelve other states have followed California's lead to enact laws of their own, allowing patients to obtain medical marijuana safely far beyond California's borders.

A major criticism of Proposition 215 -- as you point out, Scott -- is its vague wording. I agree. However, the law has since been clarified through several rulings of the California Supreme Court and through the passage of subsequent laws by the Legislature. Additionally, many cities and counties have enacted local laws and regulations aimed at creating guidelines and models to suit differing communities' needs. Finally, just last year, California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown issued guidelines that further clarify the specifics of the medical marijuana laws. These guidelines serve to advise patients, caregivers, collectives and law enforcement.

Another criticism of Proposition 215 is that anyone can obtain a recommendation for medical marijuana at any time for practically any ailment, as you suggest. Of course there have been abuses, but doctors and patients have largely been successful in figuring out how and when medical marijuana is appropriate. Unfortunately, as the result of federal prohibition and interference with medical marijuana research, there has not been extensive research into the effectiveness of medical marijuana for many medical conditions. Thus, California doctors and patients are charting their own course.

The best evidence that medical marijuana laws are working well and not causing serious problems is that public support for medical marijuana has actually increased in states with medical marijuana laws. Proposition 215 received 56% of the vote in 1996. Now, according to several polls, about 75% of Californians support medical marijuana.

Scott, you and I certainly agree that Holder's announcement that the federal government would allow the states latitude to run their medical marijuana programs is good news. But while you are concerned that a lack of federal pressure may encourage "black marketeers" to swoop in and abuse the system, I am convinced that this move will lead to greater state control, not less, over medical marijuana in the long run.

This is because the biggest obstacle to the successful regulation of state medical marijuana programs has always been federal law and federal law enforcement. State medical marijuana laws were drafted primarily in an effort to avoid conflicts with federal law and to make it least likely that patients would become victims of federal raids and prosecutions. States will closely regulate medical marijuana if the federal government will let them -- as it now appears it will.

Now that patients and providers no longer face the risk of prosecution and arrest by the federal government, California can begin an open and honest dialogue about how to best improve state-level medical marijuana laws and how to best create a system that places patients' needs and safety first.
<small>
Stephen Gutwillig is California director for the Drug Policy Alliance.
</small>

[palmspringsbum]

From the Los Angeles Times

Ban on medical pot cases quickly lifted

<span class=postbigbold>L.A.'s U.S. attorney declines to say why he ordered prosecutors to stop filing charges, then abruptly changed his mind.</span>

By Scott Glover

March 7, 2009

The U.S. attorney in Los Angeles sent a confidential memo to prosecutors last week ordering them to stop filing charges against medical marijuana dispensaries, then abruptly lifted the ban on Friday, according to sources familiar with the developments.

U.S. Atty. Thomas P. O'Brien declined comment on what prompted him to issue the directive or to later rescind it.

O'Brien's decision to temporarily halt the prosecutions came two days after remarks by Atty. Gen. Eric Holder, who seemed to imply at a Washington, D.C., press conference that medical marijuana prosecutions would not be a priority for the Justice Department under President Obama.

A Justice Department official said Friday that the attorney general did not direct O'Brien or any other U.S. attorney to alter policies regarding the prosecution of such cases.

O'Brien's initial order was delivered in a memo by Christine Ewell, head of the U.S. attorney's criminal division, according to three sources who read the document, which was distributed by e-mail on Feb. 27.

In addition to being told to stop filing new cases, prosecutors were instructed to refrain from issuing subpoenas or applying for search warrants in pending cases, said the sources, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter. In fact, a few hours after the memo was circulated, Ewell sent out another e-mail admonishing prosecutors not to discuss the contents of the memo with anyone outside the U.S. attorney's office, the sources said.

Another e-mail came out Friday instructing prosecutors to resume work on medical marijuana cases. Despite the reversal, news of the temporary ban is likely to spark interest amid the ongoing national debate over medical marijuana. Thirteen states, including California, allow for the cultivation, use and sale of doctor-prescribed medical marijuana under certain conditions, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, an organization that supports the legalization of the drug. Federal law, which trumps those of the states, bans the drug altogether.

As a result, operators of dispensaries in California and elsewhere who maintain they were operating under state law have been raided by the Drug Enforcement Administration and charged under federal drug laws.

Such prosecutions have been controversial, with patients and supporters of the dispensaries complaining that operators embraced by their own communities were unfairly targeted. Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for O'Brien, has said that prosecutors target people they consider egregious offenders, such as those accused of selling drugs to minors or proprietors with past drug convictions.

One high-profile case went to trial in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles last summer. Charles Lynch, who sought and received the blessing of elected officials in Morro Bay before opening a dispensary in that Central Coast community in 2006, was charged with distributing more than 100 kilos of marijuana.

At trial, prosecutors portrayed Lynch, 47, as a common drug dealer who sold dope to minors and toted around a backpack stuffed with cash.

Lynch and his lawyers hoped to mount a defense based on the assertion that he was providing a legitimate service to cancer patients and other severely ill people. But they were limited in doing so because the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that because federal law trumps those of the states, why drugs are being distributed is irrelevant.

Jurors convicted Lynch on five counts, but the jury forewoman said it was not easy to do so. "We all felt Mr. Lynch intended well," Kitty Meese said after the verdict in August. "It was a tough decision for all of us because the state law and the federal law are at odds."

Lynch, who is to be sentenced later this month, is facing a mandatory minimum of five years in federal prison. His case has become something of cause celebre among medical marijuana advocates.

Holder was asked about medical marijuana at a Feb. 25 press conference after the arrests of more than 50 alleged members of Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel. Specifically, he was asked whether the DEA would continue raiding medical marijuana dispensaries under Obama's administration. He did not answer the question directly but said: "What the President said during [the] campaign . . . is now American policy."

Obama was asked about the topic numerous times during the campaign and responded with varying levels of specificity. Generally speaking, the campaign's position was that DEA raids would not be a high priority in states with their own medical marijuana laws on the books.

"The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws, and as he continues to appoint senior leadership to fill out the ranks of the federal government, he expects them to review their policies with that in mind," Nick Shapiro, a White House spokesman, told the Washington Times last month. Shapiro declined to elaborate on Friday.

Alex Capron, a professor of law and medicine at USC, said the debate about medical marijuana centers on whether the drug is viewed exclusively as an illegal narcotic or a drug that also has legitimate medical applications.

"It has become a highly politicized issue as to whether it is something that is part of the doctor-patient relationship or something where the authorities have an obligation to protect the community from a dangerous drug," Capron said.

He added that he wasn't surprised that O'Brien would want to deliberate over his office's policy on such a matter in private.

"On the one hand, there's a very vocal constituency that wants this treated like a medical issue. On the other, there's a very vocal constituency that regards allowing medical marijuana treatment as a very slippery slope toward the legalization of drugs. He doesn't want to look like he's abandoning his commitment to law enforcement," Capron said.

scott.glover@latimes.com

[palmspringsbum]

Get Up, Stand Up: Ammiano Introduces Marijuana Legalization Bill to the Press


San Francisco Weekly
By Joe Eskenazi in Breaking News, Government
Monday, Feb. 23 2009 @ 11:21AM


<object width="425" height="344" align="right"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ERCcHMhFsR0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ERCcHMhFsR0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Assemblyman Tom Ammiano's press conference this morning announcing his marijuana-legalization bill started punctually and stayed relentlessly on-point -- thereby denying a barb to every journalist present. Ammiano and the assembled speakers at San Francisco's State Building also spoke calmly and methodically, at one point being drowned out by a floor-waxer. The famously funny lawmaker reined himself in, presenting "The Marijuana Control, regulation and education act (AB 390)" as a simple matter of fiscal common sense. If you believe Ammiano and his straitlaced panel, it is. In a nutshell, here's what the bill would do: "Remove all penalties under California law for the cultivation, transportation, sale, purchase, possession, and use of marijuana, natural THC and paraphernalia by persons over the age of 21," "prohibit local and state law enforcement officials from enforcing federal marijuana laws (more on that later)" and establish a fee of $50 an ounce on marijuana on top of whatever pot will cost in a legal future -- which legalization advocates say is about half what it costs now. This tax rate figures at about a buck a joint.

Betty Yee, the chairwoman of the Board of Equalization, called Ammiano's proposal "a responsible measure on how to work out the regulatory framework of the legalization of marijuana." Her board's research indicated $1.3 billion in tax dollars could immediately head into the state's coffers from the fee on marijuana and the sales tax on medical pot. She figured the halving of marijuana's street price would cause a consumption increase of 40 percent, but the $50 per ounce levy would cut use by 11 percent. Steve Gutwillig, the state director of Drug Policy Alliance, noted that regulatory measures like Ammiano's bill can work: Teen smoking is way down, and he claims juveniles report it is easier to obtain marijuana than purchase smokes. "Marijuana arrests actually increased 18 percent in California in 2007 while all other arrests for controlled substances fell," he said. "This costs the state a billion dollars a year and taxpayers are footing the bill. Meanwhile, black marketers are laughing all the way to the bank." But the morning's most forceful speaker was Judge James P. Gray, who retired from his 25-year post on the Orange County Superior Court six weeks ago. With his gray suit, tasseled loafers, and conservative salt-and-pepper haircut, he looked like central casting's offering for "Republican candidate for higher office." Not surprisingly, Gray did run as a Republican for Congress against Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez and Senate vs. Bill Jones and Barbara Boxer. He now says he's "not a politician -- and I have the votes to prove it." "I served 25 years on the bench and I've seen the results of this attempted prohibition. It doesn't make marijuana less available, but it does clog the court system," he said.

"The stronger we get on marijuana, the softer we get with regard to all other prosecutions because we have only so many resources. And we at this moment, have thousands of people in state prison right this minute who did nothing but smoke marijuana." Gray noted that anyone who tokes up while out on parole can immediately be sent right back to prison, at great cost to the taxpayers. "You and I as adults can go home tonight and drink 10 martinis. It's not a healthy thing to do but it's not illegal. Someone who smokes marijuana and goes to bed risks jail," continued the judge. "I don't smoke marijuana and if you legalized it today and gave it away at every street corner I'm still not going to. But the most harmful thing about marijuana today is prison - and also the most expensive. I take President Obama at his word - he said let's look at what's working and what is not, and jettison those programs that are not working." Obama also wrote in his autobiography that he did "a little blow" and Ammiano is hopeful the new president will look upon this issue differently than his predecessor (it warrants mentioning that those fighting against torture and rendition also hoped that - and were disappointed).

Judge James Gray notes that quaffing 10 martinis is perfectly legal
Ammiano told SF Weekly that he doesn't expect his bill to pass "overnight," but doesn't see it as merely a "placeholder." As far as superseding federal law, he pointed to a similar bill recently introduced in Congress by Rep. Barney Frank; hopefully the law of the land will change. If not, Ammiano hoped to exploit "fuzziness" regarding state and federal laws and the low priority this state has given to busting marijuana users entitled by Proposition 215. He predicted that, in these dire economic times, "support will fall all over" for his bill. Perhaps, perhaps not. But this much is certain: If Ammiano pulls this off, there's a place for him reserved on the Mount Rushmore of Pot Gods, right between Cheech, Chong, and Bob Marley.

[palmspringsbum]

<span class=postbold>In our opinion</span>

Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 03/09/2009 08:13:33 AM PDT

<span class=postbigbold>Legalization not the simple answer</span>

A bill to legalize and tax marijuana is getting lots of attention not only here in California but across the nation where people are wondering if it's finally time to put marijuana in the same category as wine, beer and liquor.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, (D-San Francisco) who introduced AB 390 to legalize pot smoking for those over 21 and allow commercial farming of the drug and tax it at $50 per ounce, says it would raise about $1 billion a year for state coffers.

For a lot of people - including a lot of people in Mendocino County - legalizing pot has always seemed like a logical idea. But, as we saw in Mendocino County when pot was all but legal under our former local Measure G combined with legalized medical marijuana, there are a host of problems that come with letting just anyone grow marijuana.

Mr. Ammiano's bill talks about "commercial" marijuana growing, but we know where a lot that commercial growing will take place: right here in Mendocino County. The people living in LA and San Francisco might think legalizing marijuana is a great idea and they'd love to be able to stop by the corner store and buy their pack of joints, but what about the people who live in the agricultural areas where all that pot will be raised?

While we don't think Mr. Ammiano's bill has a chance of passing, (for one thing, even if passed, it appears to depend on federal legalization for much of it to take effect) we think that while the conversation about legalizing the growing of marijuana in the state is under way, there are several points that need to be addressed:

Like having, say, a liquor still in the back yard, would marijuana growing be prohibited at home? No. Under Mr. Ammiano's bill anyone 21 years of age can grow up to 10 plants in the back yard. However, that provision provides 10 plants to anyone in the household who is of age. That means two people, 20 plants, 3 people, 30 plants and so on. Citizens of Ukiah know what having someone next door with 20 plants in the backyard smells like and what an attraction it is to teenagers. This bill would make it all legal.

Will local communities be allowed to regulate the growing of marijuana both commercially and individually? Like, say, a pig farm, which can stink up a whole neighborhood, will cities and townships be allowed to prohibit growing any marijuana in residential areas or allow it only within certain zoning areas? No.

The bill also states that defying the cultivation laws is an infraction with a fine of $100. How is that a deterrent?

How will the safety and quality of the marijuana be regulated? Will there be requirements that all marijuana grown commercially be grown organically? Who will oversee the quality and the safety of the product? We may save money on some law enforcement aspects, but what about all the agricultural inspectors and tax collectors we'll need to make sure we're creating a product safe for the public as well as getting our money's worth, so to speak. The bill does not address the quality of the marijuana or its safety.

If marijuana growing becomes legal, there's certainly no reason to continue prohibiting commercial hemp growing. How will the state regulate the inevitable conflicts between hemp and marijuana growers whose crops are not mutually compatible (industrial hemp plants can cross pollinate marijuana and weaken its potency). The bill does not address this.

What will the state do about regulating the undisputed health problems associated with smoking - marijuana is bad for your lungs too. Will second hand marijuana smoke be regulated in the same way as second hand cigarette smoke? The bill only states that smoking or ingesting marijuana in "public" is an infraction.

The bill also strikes the section of law prohibiting selling or providing marijuana to minors but does not reinstitute it elsewhere except to the extent that disobeying marijuana regulations is an infraction.

The bill provides that the $50 per ounce tax be spent solely on drug education programs. How does that help the budget crisis?

The bill strikes the current provision in law in which marijuana is treated the same as an open container of alcohol for the purposes of having the substance in your car with you. How will law enforcement be able to tell if you are driving high and police marijuana smoking while driving?

The bill provides for mandated security systems at all marijuana growing and processing places as well as at retail outlets, and background checks on employees therein. That certainly implies acknowledgment that this is still a valuable and dangerous commodity. How many growers will pass background checks and how many will instead go the "unregulated" route?

Even if the bill is moot without federal marijuana legalization, how does the state deal with the tens of thousands of people who will move to California from the rest of the nation to grow marijuana anyway, simply because it is "legal" in California? Many of them will try to do it without paying the taxes, without obeying any local regulations, without being part of the "system."

The price of marijuana may drop in California (although it hasn't dropped much even with legal medical marijuana in place here and several other states already) but it will still be well worth growing for the folks in Chicago, New York, Boston and Miami just to name a few large cities which will depend on "legal" California pot growing. How will the state handle the lawsuits from those states when they claim that California is exporting its drug to their areas? How much law enforcement will be needed to keep the pot within the state's borders? We don't think frankly that the state will save all that much on law enforcement when the rest of the nation's pot growers spark California's 21st Century Gold Rush.

For years, people have argued about whether marijuana smoking is on a par with wine drinking and whether our legal and prison systems should be tied up with marijuana cases. Whichever side of those arguments you reside, it is clear that legalization is not a simple solution.

[palmspringsbum]

California DMV: Licenses can't be revoked over medical marijuana


The San Jose Mercury News
Posted: 03/04/2009 11:58:34 AM PST


State officials have issued new guidelines saying California drivers cannot lose their licenses just because they have a medical marijuana prescription.

A revised Department of Motor Vehicles' training memo instructs agency staff to treat medical marijuana like any other prescription drug when considering whether to renew a driver's license.

Medical marijuana advocates released the memo this week and credited the changes to lawsuits filed by medical marijuana patients whose licenses were revoked.

A DMV spokesman said the revisions do not represent a new policy but merely spell out guidelines already in practice.

Medical marijuana is legal in California under a voter-approved ballot measure passed in 1996.

[palmspringsbum]

Opinion: California can't afford to legalize marijuana
By Kevin A. Sabet


Special to the Mercury News

Posted: 03/07/2009 11:17:06 PM PST


It's a tempting idea: Legalize and tax a commodity that a lot of people like, collect the revenue, and reap the budgetary benefits. In economic times like these, that might be just the formula we need to pull us out of the red. In this case, the truth does not live up to the hype.

Legalizing marijuana will not solve our budget woes, nor will it be good for public health. Introducing marijuana into the open market is very likely to do some other things, however: increase the drug's consumption, and with it, the enormous social costs associated with marijuana-related accidents, illness and productivity loss.

The example of legal alcohol and tobacco reveals an unsettling pattern. Legal drugs are by definition easy to obtain, and commercialization glamorizes their use and furthers their social acceptance. Their price is low, and high profits make promotion worthwhile for sellers. Addiction is simply the price of doing business. Any revenue gained from taxing these drugs is quickly offset by the heavy costs associated with their increased prevalence. Because today's high-potency marijuana is much more harmful than once thought, a spike in use from legalization would result in a financial burden California cannot afford to bear.

It is almost universally accepted in the medical community that marijuana use is linked with mental illness. Since the appearance of the British Medical Journal's famous 2002 headline, "Marijuana and psychiatric illness: the link grows stronger," the research showing marijuana's link with illnesses like psychosis and schizophrenia has become frighteningly commonplace. In fact, researchers from King's College in London have shown that eliminating marijuana use would decrease the incidence of schizophrenia in the American population by more than 8 percent.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano's justification for AB 390 relies on the myth that marijuana laws are costing taxpayers millions of dollars and wrecking the lives of otherwise law-abiding citizens. But a closer examination of the facts reveals a very different reality. Although there are thousands of arrests for marijuana possession every year in our state, most of these arrests result in little or no consequences. Most of those who are charged with possession plead down from more serious charges, such as trafficking. Researchers from Rand report that many marijuana arrests result from drinking and driving violations at alcohol checkpoints. "The police also find joints, and then (the offender) is in jail for both offenses. People's images of the casual (marijuana) user getting hauled off to jail are not true," a Rand researcher recently commented.

Rand-sponsored research reveals that in the Netherlands, where the drug is sold openly at "coffee shops," marijuana use among young adults increased almost 300 percent after a wave of commercialization. The country has also become a haven for producers of high-potency marijuana, and other drugs like ecstasy and methamphetamine. These unintended consequences have led many Dutch officials to advocate for rolling back the status quo.

To be sure, restricting marijuana use by law — especially because some people find it extremely pleasurable — is not without its costs. But legalizing this addictive substance would only exacerbate our problems by increasing the harm that greater levels of use will cause. Given the heavy costs associated with our two legal substances, and the relatively minor costs associated with our current restrictive marijuana policy, the case for a commercial market for marijuana remains weak and unconvincing — even in this uncomfortable economic environment.


<small>Kevin A. Sabet, a senior drug policy adviser in the Clinton and Bush administrations, is a native of Anaheim. He wrote this article for the Mercury News.</small>

[palmspringsbum]

Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?

Time
By ALISON STATEMAN / LOS ANGELES
Fri Mar 13, 7:10 pm ET


<table align="right" class="posttable"><tr><td class="postcell"><img class="postimg" src="bin/time_save-californias-budget.jpg" width="360"></td></tr></table>Could marijuana be the answer to the economic misery facing California? Democratic state assemblyman Tom Ammiano thinks so. Ammiano introduced legislation last month that would legalize pot and allow the state to regulate and tax its sale - a move that could mean billions of dollars for the cash-strapped state. Pot is, after all, California's biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion a year in sales, dwarfing the state's second largest agricultural commodity - milk and cream - which brings in $7.3 billion a year, according to the most recent USDA statistics. The state's tax collectors estimate the bill would bring in about $1.3 billion a year in much needed revenue, offsetting some of the billions of dollars in service cuts and spending reductions outlined in the recently approved state budget.

"The state of California is in a very, very precipitous economic plight. It's in the toilet," says Ammiano. "It looks very, very bleak, with layoffs and foreclosures, and schools closing or trying to operate four days a week. We have one of the highest rates of unemployment we've ever had. With any revenue ideas, people say you have to think outside the box, you have to be creative, and I feel that the issue of the decriminalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana fits that bill. It's not new, the idea has been around, and the political will may in fact be there to make something happen." (See pictures of stoner cinema.)

Ammiano may be right. A few days after he introduced the bill, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that states should be able to make their own rules for medical marijuana and that federal raids on pot dispensaries in California would cease. The move signaled a softening of the hard-line approach to medicinal pot use previous Administrations have taken. The nomination of Gil Kerlikowske as the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy may also signal a softer federal line on marijuana. If he is confirmed as the so-called drug czar, Kerlikowske will take with him experience as police chief of Seattle, where he made it clear that going after people for possessing marijuana was not a priority for his force. (See a story about the grass-roots marijuana war in California.)

In 1996 California became one of the first states in the nation to legalize medical marijuana. Currently, $200 million in medical-marijuana sales are subject to sales tax. If passed, the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act (AB 390) would give California control of pot in a manner similar to that of alcohol while prohibiting its purchase by citizens under age 21. (The bill has been referred to the California state assembly's public-safety and health committees; Ammiano says it could take up to a year before it comes to a vote for passage.) State revenues would be derived from a $50-per-oz. levy on retail sales of marijuana and sales taxes. By adopting the law, California could become a model for other states. As Ammiano put it, "How California goes, the country goes."

Despite the need for the projected revenue, opponents say legalizing pot would only add to social woes. "The last thing we need is yet another mind-altering substance to be legalized," says John Lovell, lobbyist for the California Peace Officers' Association. "We have enough problems with alcohol and abuse of pharmaceutical products. Do we really need to add yet another mind-altering substance to the array?" Lovell says the easy availability of the drug would lead to a surge in its use, much as happened when alcohol was allowed to be sold in venues other than liquor stores in some states. (Read why Dr. Sanjay Gupta is against decriminalizing pot.)

Joel W. Hay, professor of pharmaceutical economics at USC, also foresees harm if the bill passes. "Marijuana is a drug that clouds people's judgment.

It affects their ability to concentrate and react, and it certainly has impacts on third parties," says Hay, who has written on the societal costs of drug abuse. "It's one more drug that will add to the toll on society. All we have to do is look at the two legalized drugs, tobacco and alcohol, and look at the carnage that they've caused. [Marijuana] is a dangerous drug, and it causes bad outcomes for both the people who use it and for the people who are in their way at work or other activities." He adds, "There are probably some responsible people who can handle marijuana, but there are lots of people who can't, and it has an enormous negative impact on them, their family and loved ones." (See pictures of Mexico's drug wars.)

In response, retired Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray, a longtime proponent of legalization, estimates that legalizing pot and thus ceasing to arrest, prosecute and imprison nonviolent offenders could save the state $1 billion a year. "We couldn't make this drug any more available if we tried," he says. "Not only do we have those problems, along with glamorizing it by making it illegal, but we also have the crime and corruption that go along with it." He adds, "Unfortunately, every society in the history of mankind has had some form of mind-altering, sometimes addictive substances to use, to misuse, abuse or get addicted to. Get used to it. They're here to stay. So let's try to reduce those harms, and right now we couldn't do it worse if we tried."

<small>Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.</small>

[palmspringsbum]

Americans for Safe Access | March 3rd, 2009

Medical Marijuana Advocates Force Change to California DMV Policy

Americans for Safe Access hosts media conference call Wednesday 3/4 at Noon


Oakland, CA -- The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued a new policy yesterday with regard to how it treats qualified medical marijuana patients. The DMV Driver Safety Procedure Manual was revised to include reference to medical marijuana, stating that "use of medicinal marijuana approved by a physician should be handled in the same manner as any other prescription medication which may affect safe driving." The manual states that the existence of medical marijuana use "does not, in itself, constitute grounds for a license withdrawal action."


What: Media teleconference to discuss new DMV medical marijuana policy
When: Wednesday, March 4th at Noon
Where: Call (877) 209-9920, confirmation code: 991279
Who: Medical marijuana patients adversely affected by previous DMV policy & ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford

The change in DMV policy was the result of a lawsuit filed on November 19, 2008 by medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) on behalf of Rose Johnson, a 53-year-old patient from Atwater, whose driving license was revoked because of her status as a patient. Despite Ms. Johnson's clean driving record, not having caused an accident in 37 years of driving, the DMV revoked her license on July 26, 2008. According to the DMV, Ms. Johnson's license was revoked "because of...[an] addiction to, or habitual use of, [a] drug," thereby rendering her unable to safely operate a motor vehicle, even though no evidence existed to substantiate this claim. In January, as a result of the lawsuit and a positive driving test by Ms. Johnson, the DMV reinstated her license and issued the new policy before the case had a chance to be heard in Superior Court.

"The new DMV policy is a significant departure from how the agency approached medical marijuana in the past," said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who represented Ms. Johnson in her claim against the DMV. "Drivers will no longer have their licenses suspended or revoked simply because of their status as medical marijuana patients."

Advocates assert that the DMV policy of suspending and revoking the licenses of medical marijuana patients was widespread, occurring in at at least 8 California counties, including Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Glenn, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, and Sonoma. License revocations by the DMV, which have been based on a person's status as a medical marijuana patient, are often rationalized by calling the drivers "drug abusers" despite no evidence of the claim. "This DMV policy change represents a victory for patients, which puts us closer to full implementation of California's medical marijuana law," said Elford.

The DMV will be advising its Driver Safety employees of the policy change in a training session scheduled for Wednesday.

Further information:
DMV's policy change re medical marijuana: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downl ... Policy.pdf
ASA's lawsuit against the DMV: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downl ... V_Writ.pdf

[palmspringsbum]

June 21, 2009
Marijuana Smoke on California Cancer List

The New York Times | 21 Jun 09

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Marijuana smoke has joined tobacco smoke and hundreds of other chemicals on a list of substances that California regulators say cause cancer.

The decision, made by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment on Friday, is likely to force medical marijuana dispensaries with 10 or more employees to post warnings. Final rules are expected by the time warning requirements take effect in a year.

An agency spokesman, Sam Delson, said the office found that marijuana smoke contained 33 of the same harmful chemicals as tobacco smoke. He said the findings came from a review of more than 30 scientific papers.

California’s Proposition 65 requires businesses to warn consumers of chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive harm.

[palmspringsbum]

<small>Drug War Chronicle - world’s leading drug policy newsletter</small>
Feature: Two Marijuana Legalization Initiatives Have Been Filed in California for Next Year's Ballot
from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #596, 7/31/09

Last month, Drug War Chronicle reported that cannabusinessman and dispensary operator Richard Lee, creator of Oaksterdam and founder of Oaksterdam University, had assembled a team of activists, attorneys, political consultants and signature-gathering pros for an initiative to tax and regulate marijuana in California they hoped to place on the November 2010 election ballot. Drug reform organizations were apprehensive, however, worrying the proposed initiative was too soon, the polling numbers weren't high enough, and that a loss could take the steam out of the legalization push for years to come.

<img class="postimg" align="right" src="http://stopthedrugwar.org/files/devilsharvest.jpg">Lee has pushed forward, such concerns notwithstanding; on Monday he and Oakland medical marijuana pioneer Jeff Jones filed the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.

And then there were two. On July 15 -- two weeks prior, but with less heraldry -- a trio of NORML-affiliated Northern California attorneys filed the Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010.

To avoid confusion, we'll refer to the second as the Omar Figueroa initiative (coauthored by Joe Rogoway and James Clark) and the first as the Richard Lee initiative.

"Cannabis prohibition, like alcohol prohibition, is an expensive and ineffective waste of taxpayer money," said Figueroa.

"California's laws criminalizing cannabis have failed and need to be reformed," said Lee. "Cannabis is safer than alcohol. Cannabis doesn't cause overdose deaths or make people violent like alcohol. It makes sense to regulate cannabis like alcohol, instead of prohibiting it completely."

The Figueroa initiative is broader and would bring complete legalization under state law, while the Lee initiative would create semi-legalization, allowing adults to possess up to one ounce and grow their own in a 5' x 5' garden space. The Figueroa initiative would allow the state of California to tax marijuana sales, while the Lee initiative would allow cities and counties to tax marijuana sales. The Figueroa initiative would end marijuana prohibition statewide, while the Lee initiative would give cities and counties the local option to tax and regulate or not, but would also provide that people could still possess and grow the specified amounts even in locales that opt out of regulating.

"Our initiative repeals cannabis prohibition; Richard's just narrows the scope," said Figueroa, a San Francisco attorney specializing in medical marijuana and marijuana cultivation cases. "People would not be free to possess more than one ounce and there would be limitations on growing your own. And our initiative is going to have that big economic impact statement for the state budget that Richard's will not," he said.

"We worked for many weeks with Richard on his initiative, and we support both, but we think ours would result in more far-reaching change and would generate money for the state through tax revenues," Figueroa added. "We want to stimulate debate and provide an alternative to Richard's initiative, which we don't think would create enough change."

The initiative effort is moving forward and preparing to begin signature-gathering, said Figueroa, but its prospects are iffy. "We don't have the deep pockets Richard has," he said.

Lee has signed a $1.05 million contract with a signature-gathering organization and says he has already raised half of that sum. "We are confident we will be on the ballot," he said. "Then we need to raise another $10 to $20 million to win, depending on the opposition."

The initiatives come as the noise level around marijuana legalization in California grows ever louder. An April Field poll put support for legalization at 56%. Gov. Schwarzenegger said this year that the issue should be discussed, and the state Board of Equalization's estimate that legalization could generate $1.4 billion in revenue for the state has generated considerable interest. That estimate was a response to a bill before the legislature, Rep. Tom Ammiano's AB 390, which would legalize marijuana and allow the state to tax it.

Meanwhile, voters in Oakland last week overwhelmingly supported a special dispensary tax, another Richard Lee effort. And now the Los Angeles city council is considering doing the same thing.

The Figueroa initiative would appear to have more appeal to hard-core marijuana legalizers, but the Lee initiative has more money behind it and is more likely to actually make it to the ballot. That is making the Lee initiative the subject of more discussion as to its likelihood of passage. That discussion in turn has opened a window on just how complex the issues around legalization are, how difficult it is to create a "perfect" legalization initiative, and how difficult it is to decide if this is the time to act or whether it would be premature.

The major national marijuana and drug reform groups are generally skeptical that a legalization initiative can win in California in 2010. They also worry about the impact of a defeat on the movement.

"We're concerned about the timing and we're not sure it's the best worded initiative," said Dan Bernath, assistant communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "It is getting the conversation about marijuana policy reform going, but we're concerned it could set the movement back if it loses. We're more interested in Ammiano's bill," he said.

"We would like [the Lee initiative] to win," said Steven Gutwillig, California State Director for the Drug Policy Alliance, whose funding of Proposition 215 helped make medical marijuana legal in the state, "and we're not that concerned that losing would be an enormous setback to the movement unless it really loses big. We are looking to end marijuana prohibition as quickly and effectively as possible, and if this is the way to do it, we're all for it."

But unlike the Prop. 215 effort, DPA will be cheering from the sidelines. "We're not an official proponent of this and we're not in a position to fund a campaign of this scale anytime soon," said Gutwillig. "We're still relatively fresh from the $7.5 million campaign to pass Proposition 5 sentencing reforms, which didn't go the right way."

Lee is optimistic, and he thinks that now, rather than 2012 as others have suggested, is the time. "We have poll numbers that show a majority, and we have the terrible economy working for us," he said. Lee pointed to the budgetary crisis afflicting California cities and counties, which lost big in the latest state budget. "The governor and legislature stole a bunch of money from the cities and counties, and this could help them recoup some of the money they're losing," Lee argued.

Dale Gieringer, head of California NORML, worries the lack of a provision for taxation directly by the state will hurt the initiative at the polls, even if the potential revenues for counties and cities are equivalent. "The state always writes a financial analysis on initiatives, and I suspect this one will say uncertain or none." Gieringer pointed to the Board of Equalization's $1.4 billion estimate. "The tax benefits make this a sexy issue, and sacrificing that sacrifices most of the appeal of legalization to non-users."

Still, if it's happening, CANORML will support it. "We support anything that improves the marijuana laws," said Gieringer. "There is a lot of enthusiasm right now, and people want to do something for legalization."

"Omar Figueroa and Richard Lee are both pushing the envelope," said national NORML head Allen St. Pierre, who was more sanguine about the effort than MPP or DPA, though only slightly. "These initiatives are a good thing; I just don't know if they will be successful. Even if they aren't, they will move the ball forward on the public discussion of the issue. When we have public discussions about reform, the longer and deeper the discussion, the more it breaks toward reform."

The Lee initiative in particular is a harbinger of things to come and demonstrates changing dynamics within the California marijuana reform movement, said St. Pierre. "What is really changing drastically is that this will be driven by cannabusinesses' ability to raise and spend money, not by one or two elite wealthy people whose stake in this is magnitudes less than say, Richard Lee, who has created Oaksterdam."

There is another reason for the local option, said Lee. "It gets us around federal law. We don't have any other way until federal law changes because the state would be in conflict with federal law. But we had cities taxing medical marijuana outlets; that's why we wrote it that way."

Will the competing initiatives both make it to the ballot? If they do, can they win? Will it fly in Fresno? Will the threat of an initiative spur the legislature to act on the Ammiano legalization bill? Stay tuned. It looks like very interesting times are ahead.

[palmspringsbum]

<span class="postbold">See:</span> Oaksterdamn U wants to tax marijuana without limit - Examiner.com | 29 Jul 09

Comparing California cannabis/marijuana legalization initiatives - Examiner.com | 31 Jul 09

Marijuana legalization and California initiatives - Examiner.com| 8 Aug 09

California has three initiatives filed to legalize marijuana - Examiner.com | 10 Aug 09

Oakland's marijuana legalization initiative is still a Trojan Horse - Examiner.com | 16 Aug 09

[palmspringsbum]

Medical marijuana moves mainstream

By Dana Hull | Mercury News
Posted: 06/29/2009 08:00:00 PM PDT
Updated: 06/30/2009 08:57:10 AM PDT


David Goldman has a chronic headache, but help is on the way. A driver arrives at his apartment and rings the doorbell, checks Goldman's ID card, then hands over a small bag of marijuana.

"It's really nice to have the convenience of delivery," said Goldman, a retired teacher who orders medicinal marijuana about once a week from the Green Cross, a medical marijuana delivery service. "I trust their product, and their prices are competitive."

As Californians consider legalizing marijuana, the Green Cross in San Francisco is a signal of just how mainstream pot has become. In some ways, the medical marijuana dispensary is just like any other retail business: It takes credit cards; it's reviewed on Yelp; and it promises delivery within an hour — there's even a $10 discount if the pot is late.

"Drivers are clean-cut, professional, and bring your goods in a discreet white paper bag," wrote one Yelp user. "Like ordering a pizza, but, of course, much better," wrote another.

Since November 1996, when California voters passed Proposition 215, medical marijuana has been steadily moving toward mainstream acceptance. Thirteen states, including Maine, Michigan, Montana and New Mexico, have passed laws allowing seriously ill patients access to medical marijuana. The cause has celebrity advocates: singer Melissa Etheridge, who used marijuana to alleviate the effects of chemotherapy, is among those now pushing for its legalization, and television host Montel Williams openly talks about using marijuana to relieve the pain of his multiple sclerosis.

Meanwhile, California's battered economy and $24 billion budget gap is fueling calls for marijuana use to be more widely legalized, as well as taxed like alcohol and cigarettes, a tactic supported by 56 percent of voters, according to an April Field Poll. And a statewide initiative to legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for all Californians 21 and older is expected to go before voters in November 2010.

Currently, only medicinal marijuana is legal and there are about 400 medical marijuana dispensaries in California, including 25 in San Francisco, though none in Santa Clara County.

The Green Cross operates out of founder and owner Kevin Reed's apartment in a large Victorian house at 11th and Howard streets. Here, 19 employees bake brownies and other THC-infused "edibles," stock cabinets with more than 40 different strains of marijuana from a changing menu (an ounce is $310), and assemble orders.

Office workers wearing headsets begin taking orders for medical marijuana and edibles at 10 a.m., when the phones start ringing nonstop. Delivery service starts at noon and ends around 7 p.m., but there's usually a big rush at the end of the day.

Drivers use a fleet of tiny Smart Cars to crisscross the city's hilly streets. On a busy day, a driver will make about 25 deliveries.

"People who don't have health insurance are the people using medical marijuana the most," said Reed, an Alabama native who founded the Green Cross five years ago. "Delivery is key because some of our patients literally cannot get out of their beds. It's like hot pizza to me: Once an order is in, you've got to get it out the door in 20 minutes."

Other dispensaries in California also deliver. But the Green Cross is one of the largest, with about 2,500 active "patients," as they refer to all clients. Some struggle with depression or chronic pain; others have AIDS or cancer.

The Green Cross only delivers within San Francisco city limits. Its client base, however, extends far beyond the city, including 176 patients in San Jose. Drivers typically arrange to meet those patients or their caregivers in the parking lot of the Stonestown mall near Interstate 280.

Santa Clara County's Public Health Department has issued 993 medical marijuana identification cards to date, according to spokeswoman Joy Alexiou.

Reed grew up in Mobile, Ala. He began smoking marijuana — he prefers to call it by its Latin name, cannabis — years ago, after seriously hurting his back in a car accident. At the time he didn't have health insurance, and marijuana was easier to get than pain pills. He moved to California 13 years ago, shortly after voters passed Proposition 215, and has been involved in the medical marijuana movement ever since.

He began the Green Cross with a storefront dispensary in tony Noe Valley, but complaints by neighbors about all the foot traffic in and out eventually shut him down. He tried to open a storefront in Fisherman's Wharf, but other businesses fought the idea, saying it would scare away tourists.

Reed finally decided to sell medical marijuana out of his apartment via delivery service. He first liked the idea because it solved the problem of annoyed neighbors; he quickly learned that it was also a huge hit with customers.

Reed is a stickler for rules: Patients must show him the original recommendation for medical marijuana from their health care professional, and Reed will then verify that the doctor's license is current.

One of Reed's peeves is that most people don't understand the many difference between indica and sativa, the two main strains of marijuana. Indica is commonly used for pain or to induce appetite; Sativa reduces depression and is more stimulating and creatively enhancing. Detailed "Know Your Medication" pamphlets describing various products (type of high, scent/taste) go out to all patients, and all employees must pass an extensive written test.

"I go overboard because I want people to know that this can be done right," said Reed, who smokes about 10 joints a day. "Cannabis is a drug. It has side effects. It's not something that should be readily available to anyone and everyone."

[palmspringsbum]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 24, 2009
11:46 AM


CONTACT: Americans for Safe Access [1]
ASA Media Liaison Kris Hermes 510-681-6361
CA Supreme Court Lets Stand Landmark Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ruling
<span class="postbigbold">Appellate court ruling protects collective cultivation and affirms civil actions by patients</span>

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - September 24 - The California Supreme Court yesterday refused to review County of Butte v. Superior Court, a landmark appellate court ruling that protects the right of medical marijuana patients and their primary caregivers to collectively cultivate. The landmark ruling by California's Third Appellate District Court also affirmed a patient's ability to take civil action when their right to collectively cultivate is violated by law enforcement. The Butte County case involved a private 7-patient medical marijuana collective in Paradise, California.

The nationwide medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a lawsuit in May 2006 on behalf of 56-year-old David Williams and six other collective members after Butte County Sheriffs conducted a warrantless search of his home in 2005. Williams was forced by law enforcement to uproot more than two-dozen plants or face arrest and prosecution. Contrary to state law, Williams was told by the Sheriff that his collectively cultivated medical marijuana was illegal.

"By refusing to review this case, the California Supreme Court sends a strong message that local law enforcement must uphold the medical marijuana laws of the state and not competing federal laws," said Joe Elford, ASA Chief Counsel and the attorney that litigated the case on behalf of Williams. The appellate court ruling from July 2009 concluded that, "[T]he deputy was acting under color of California law, not federal law. Accordingly, the propriety of his conduct is measured by California law."

In its landmark decision, the appellate court asserted that the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 is not simply an affirmative defense to criminal sanctions: "[W]e see an opportunity for an individual to request the same constitutional guarantee of due process available to all individuals, no matter what their status, under the state Constitution. The fact that this case involves medical marijuana and a qualified medical marijuana patient does not change these fundamental constitutional rights or an individual's right to assert them."

The appellate court ruling upheld Butte County Superior Court Judge Barbara Roberts' ruling from September 2007, in which she states that seriously ill patients cultivating collectively "should not be required to risk criminal penalties and the stress and expense of a criminal trial in order to assert their rights." Judge Roberts' ruling also rejected Butte County's policy of requiring all members to physically participate in the cultivation, thereby allowing collective members to "contribute financially."

ASA filed the Williams lawsuit after receiving repeated reports of unlawful behavior by Butte County law enforcement, as well as by other police agencies throughout the state. After uncovering Butte County's de facto ban on medical marijuana patient collectives, ASA decided to pursue the case to show that collectives and cooperatives are protected under state law.

Further information:
CA Supreme Court disposition (Case # S175219): http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supr ... 092309.PDF [2]
Ruling by California's Third Appellate District Court: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downl ... cision.pdf [3]
Information on Butte Case: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/Butte [4]

###
Americans for Safe Access is the nation's largest organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research.
Americans for Safe Access Links: Homepage [1]Americans for Safe Access (Press Center) [5]Americans for Safe Access (Action Center) [6]

Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/09/24-9

[palmspringsbum]

Cities applaud ruling on pot
<span class="postbigbold">Claremont law on clinics OK'd</span>

Wes Woods II, Staff Writer | The Daily Bulletin
Created: 10/04/2009 04:54:09 PM PDT


California's Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court's permanent injunction that bars a medical marijuana dispensary from operating in Claremont.

Local cities have expressed agreement with the decision, saying it strengthens their hand in dealing with dispensaries.

Rancho Cucamonga City Attorney Jim Markman said the decision helps cities like the ones he represents in controlling their zoning.

"We have an outright ban in every one of those cases," said Markman, who is also city attorney for Brea and La Mirada.

"The Claremont opinion is very helpful," assuming the decision stands at the California Supreme Court level and beyond, Markman said.

"Just because you sell marijuana to people with a prescription, does that mean you're a primary caregiver? This drives a stake in the heart of that theory."

Claremont filed the case against Darrell Kruse to shut down his dispensary. They succeeded, and Kruse lost the case on appeal, which was published Sept. 22.

"We have always felt local government has the right to designate land uses," Claremont Assistant City Manager Tony Ramos said. "We always felt all along we would win this case, because it was based on a land-use issue."

Claremont city attorney Sonia R. Carvalho concurred.

"Obviously we're pleased with the decision," said Carvalho. "We're also pleased the court of appeals has made clear once and for all the (medical marijuana) compassionate use act does not pre-empt the city's local land-use powers.

"As this case makes clear, the law does not prevent the city's ability to regulate or prohibit dispensaries."

Kruse said he has to pay at least $120,000 in legal fees and does not plan again to operate a dispensary.

Pro-marijuana activists believed the decision was short-sighted and hurt patients.

Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project, said because he was not a legal expert he would not weigh in on legal technicalities - but he was not pleased.

"If cities because of this are more inclined to ban dispensaries, that creates a problem for patients who need safe access for medicine. The thing that bothers me about cities doing this is it feels short-sighted to me," he said.

"It's unmistakable California law requires patients with a doctor's recommendation to have it and grow it for themselves, but there will always be a group of people who can't grow it because of no space or whatever. For a city, wouldn't you rather have folks getting medical marijuana from above-ground businesses rather than street corner drug dealers? My question is why are they supporting drug dealers, which is what they're doing."

Mirken added: "I suspect that in a town like Claremont with a substantial elder population, a significant number of persons would benefit from medical marijuana but have no idea how to grow or get it safely."

Paul Chabot, founder of the Coalition for a Drug Free California, described the verdict as "a small victory" in the war against drugs.

"There are so many court cases going on, not just in California, but around the country largely funded by pro-drug legalization lawyers. There's always a court case in the hopper which could affect cities and states on any given day."

Chabot described Claremont as "a great example of a city in California that sort of got hit pretty hard by pro-marijuana folks but once educated on the good and bad behind the initiative, eventually they made the right decision."

[palmspringsbum]

October 5, 2009
Situation NORML 2009
Reconciling Medical Pot Use and Legalization

By FRED GARDNER | Counterpunch


More than 500 devotees of the cannabis plant attended the 38th annual NORML convention at the Grand Hyatt in San Francisco September 24-26. The crowd was not only larger than in previous years, but people seemed to be listening more intently to the speakers, less apt to gab outside the auditorium. NORML’s goals have been remote and vague for decades; now they seem attainable and in need of definition.

Local media coverage centered on the “Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010” that is likely to be on the California ballot in November 2010. If approved by the voters, it would allow adults over 21 to cultivate, possess, and share up to an ounce. Distribution would be regulated and taxed by local governments.

The prime mover behind Tax Cannabis 2010 is Richard Lee, an organizer with a record of accomplishment —founder of the Bulldog Coffeeshop, Café Blue Sky (one of Oakland's four permitted cannabis dispensaries), and Oaksterdam University (a trade school for the burgeoning industry). Lee also helped lead the 2004 campaign for Oakland's Measure Z, which made the use of marijuana by adults a low-priority matter for the police.

To make the ballot, Lee’s team has to get 433,000 registered voters to sign petitions over the next five months. A professional signature-gathering outfit has been hired to coordinate the efforts of paid volunteers.

C.W. Nevius of the Chronicle belittled the initiative's chances of winning. "I doubt voters in conservative Orange County will be thrilled to vote for the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010," Nevius opined. He was covering sports in 1996 and might not know that Proposition 215 carried Orange County with 52% of the vote, overcoming opposition by Attorney General Dan Lungren, Governor Gray Davis, former Presidents Ford, Carter and Bush, Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, 57 of 58 district attorneys (Terence Hallinan being the lone supporter), the sheriffs' lobby, the police chiefs', the police officers', and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.

Some of Rich Lee's former allies are not supporting Tax Cannabis 2010 because it would penalize smoking in the presence of children and stiffen the punishment for providing cannabis to those under 21. Dennis Peron is among the detractors.

<span class="postbold">The Harborside Model</span>

A call for a slower approach to legalization was issued by Steve DeAngelo, executive director of Oakland's extremely successful Harborside Health Center. About 70% of the American people support legalization for medical use, DeAngelo noted, but fewer than 50% are for full legalization. "Why do so many Americans feel comfortable with people possessing cannabis but not obtaining it unless they are sick?" he asked. “What is the source of their reservations?"

The answer that DeAngelo said he’d gleaned from neighbors, bureaucrats, cops, and other sources, is: "their discomfort springs from the lack of any positive image of what legal cannabis distribution would look like." People envision "armed dealers setting up shop and slinging weed on the corners of their suburban neighborhoods.” They don’t want their kids exposed to "glossy ads for reefer in the style of Anheuser-Busch."

The way to win the hearts and minds of these swing voters, according to DeAngelo, is to establish professionally run dispensaries throughout California and other states where they are allowed. He called on NORML (and has been urging the Marijuana Policy Project and Drug Policy Alliance) to back dispensary-friendly initiatives in states that have yet to enact medical-marijuana laws.

DeAngelo recently formed a consulting firm with the directors of two other high-end dispensaries —Don Duncan of the Los Angeles Patients Group and Robert Jacob of Sebastopol's Peace in Medicine. They advise newcomers to the industry and owners of existing dispensaries who want to upgrade their operations. It wouldn’t be surprising if this group developed a dispensary brand that is franchised nationwide.

DeAngelo, 51, has been a pro-cannabis activist since his early teens. A cynic might say that he is now advocating a political strategy to advance his business interests. DeAngelo says that he created the business to advance his political strategy. They spent $400,000 to create a dispensary that Oakland would regard as an asset, not a threat. Indeed, Harborside is a secure, clean, well lit, spacious, facility. The budtenders are knowledgable and helpful. Members of the collective can get acupuncture and other alternative health care, free. The seting is a small business park, away from young passersby. The inventory is extensive and varied. All the cannabis that growers provide gets tested for pathogenic mold and cannabinoid content at the Steep Hill analytic lab, a visionary project that DeAngelo backed as an investor. Harborside pays taxes to the state and to the city (an obligation that DeAngelo and Rich Lee offered to incur).

One observer impressed by the Harborside model was Roger Parloff of Fortune Magazine, who writes in the current issue, "Medical marijuana... has given legalization advocates in California a first-ever opportunity to devise and showcase a business prototype. They've been afforded the chance to show a skeptical public that a safe, seemly, and responsible system for distributing marijuana is possible. If they succeed, they'll convince the fence sitters and lead the way to a nationwide metamorphosis. If they fail, the backlash will be savage. If communities cannot adequately regulate the dispensaries, they'll descend into unsightly, youth-seducing, crime-ridden playgrounds for gang-bangers, and this flirtation with legalization will conclude the way the last one did: with a swift and merciless swing of the pendulum."

In his talk to NORML, DeAngelo quoted Parloff'’s summary of the current situation, adding, "As one of those with his head on the chopping block, I am very concerned about that pendulum." Then he laid out his what-is-to-be-done:

"We must demand the effective licensing and regulation of dispensaries... Today, 50% of California jurisdictions still prohibit dispensary operations, and many others unnecessarily restrict their operations. We must do the sustained political footwork needed to move them to effective licensing and regulation.

"We must embrace the not-for-profit, community-service model of cannabis distribution. When you boil down the fear of our 25% of swing voters, I would submit that it likely comes down to them not wanting us as a society to make the same mistakes with cannabis that we made with alcohol and tobacco: glamorization, excessive advertising driving inappropriate use, profit-making corporations enticing their children into lifetimes of dependency.”

DeAngelo does not support Tax Cannabis 2010. "If legalization initiatives lack effective distribution regulations," he argued, "they will likely manifest the worst fears of the key swing voters. A legal but unregulated cannabis market would turn into a free-for-all, leading to a public-relations mess."

Looking beyond California, DeAngelo called for legislation and voter initiatives that "contain provisions that will enable the creation of an effective distribution system. All too often our movement has traded easy victory for laws that fail to adequately protect us… We have accepted medical cannabis laws that severely restrict the ability of doctors to write recommendations, which is the first step in creating a market large enough to sustain dispensaries…. We have accepted severe restrictions on the quantity of medicine patients may cultivate, or on their right to collective gardens-which are the first steps in creating a sufficient supply of medicine-another pre-requisite of an effective marketplace… We have accepted bans or restrictions on the right of patients to trade and distribute medicine amongst themselves, with obvious implications for developing a positive image of cannabis distribution.

"These self-defeating half steps must end. If we accept these kinds of restrictions, we will never be able to place positive images of cannabis distribution in front of our fellow citizens. We will blow this historic opportunity to win them over.

<span class="postbold">“Flip The Switch”</span>

DeAngelo told his NORML audience to fast forward five or six years to a time when, if events follow his scenario, “tens of millions of Americans have become legal cannabis consumers. Almost everybody has a friend or a relative with a recommendation, and knows that it has done them no harm, and indeed probably a whole lot of good. Fears and reservations about the distribution of cannabis have been allayed, and replaced with acceptance. Scientific research has solidly established both the safety and the medical efficacy of cannabis for a wide range of ailments, including everyday ailments.

“Across the nation, thousands of not-for-profit, community service dispensaries have created a positive model of cannabis distribution. There's no reefer in the 7-11; kids aren't being subject to the machinations of a created market, and communities are benefiting from tax revenue, charitable donations, and community services. In short, a safe, seemly, and reliable distribution system will already be in existence.”

At this point DeAngelo would have the reform movement push for legalization by advocating reclassification of cannabis as an over-the-counter drug. “At dispensaries all across the country,” he concluded with a flourish, “we will stop asking for medical cannabis identification, and simply ask for adult identification. We will flip the switch at the dispensary door, and all adult Americans will have what hundreds of thousands of Californians now have: free, safe, and affordable access to cannabis.”

Say what you will about Steve DeAngelo, the man does not have a hidden agenda.

Fred Gardner edits O'Shaughnessy's, the journal of cannabis in clinical practice. Email fred@plebesite.com.

[palmspringsbum]

Posted on Sun, Oct. 11, 2009

A push to legalize marijuana

<span class="postbigbold">Advocates are seeking to get measures on the ballot in California.</span>

By Marcus Wohlsen | philly.com


SAN FRANCISCO - Marijuana advocates are gathering signatures to get as many as three pot-legalization measures on the ballot in 2010 in California, setting up what could be a groundbreaking clash with the federal government over drug policy.

At least one poll indicates voters would support lifting the pot prohibition, which would make the state of more than 38 million the first to legalize marijuana.

Such action would send the state into direct conflict with the U.S. government while raising questions about how federal law enforcement could enforce its drug laws in the face of a government-sanctioned pot industry.

The state already has a thriving marijuana trade, thanks to a 1996 ballot measure that allowed people to smoke pot for medical purposes. But full legalization could turn medical marijuana dispensaries into all-purpose pot stores, and the open sale of joints could become commonplace on mom-and-pop liquor store counters.

Under federal law, marijuana is illegal, period. After overseeing raids that destroyed more than 300,000 marijuana plants in California's Sierra Nevada foothills in the summer, federal drug czar Gil Kerlikowske proclaimed: "Legalization is not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine."

The U.S. Supreme Court also has ruled that federal law enforcement agents have the right to crack down even on marijuana users and distributors who are in compliance with California's medical marijuana law.

But some legal scholars and policy analysts say the government will not be able to require California to help enforce the federal marijuana ban if the state legalizes the drug.

Without assistance from the state's legions of narcotics officers, they say, federal agents could do little to curb marijuana in California.

"Even though that federal ban is still in place and the federal government can enforce it, it doesn't mean the states have to follow suit," said Robert Mikos, a Vanderbilt University law professor.

[palmspringsbum]

October 28, 2009
Push to Legalize Marijuana Gains Ground in California

The New York Times | By JESSE McKINLEY


SAN FRANCISCO — These are heady times for advocates of legalized marijuana in California — and only in small part because of the newly relaxed approach of the federal government toward medical marijuana.

State lawmakers are holding a hearing on Wednesday on the effects of a bill that would legalize, tax and regulate the drug — in what would be the first such law in the United States. Tax officials estimate the legislation could bring the struggling state about $1.4 billion a year, and though the bill’s fate in the Legislature is uncertain, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has indicated he would be open to a “robust debate” on the issue.

California voters are also taking up legalization. Three separate initiatives are being circulated for signatures to appear on the ballot next year, all of which would permit adults to possess marijuana for personal use and allow local governments to tax it. Even opponents of legalization suggest that an initiative is likely to qualify for a statewide vote.

“All of us in the movement have had the feeling that we’ve been running into the wind for years,” said James P. Gray, a retired judge in Orange County who has been outspoken in support of legalization. “Now we sense we are running with the wind.”

Proponents of the leading ballot initiative have collected nearly 300,000 signatures since late September, supporters say, easily on pace to qualify for the November 2010 general election. Richard Lee, a longtime marijuana activist who is behind the measure, says he has raised nearly $1 million to hire professionals to assist volunteers in gathering the signatures.

“Voters are ripping the petitions out of our hands,” Mr. Lee said.

That said, the bids to legalize marijuana are opposed by law enforcement groups across the state and, if successful, would undoubtedly set up a legal showdown with the federal government, which classifies marijuana as an illegal drug.

California was the first state to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, in 1996, but court after court — including the United States Supreme Court — has ruled that the federal government can continue to enforce its ban. Only this month, with the Department of Justice announcement that it would not prosecute users and providers of medical marijuana who obey state law, has that threat subsided.

But federal authorities have also made it clear that their tolerance stops at recreational use. In a memorandum on Oct. 19 outlining the medical marijuana guidelines, Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden said marijuana was “a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime,” adding that “no state can authorize violations of federal law.”

Still, Mr. Lee anticipates spending up to $20 million on a campaign to win passage of his ballot measure in California, raising some of it from the hundreds of already legal medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles, which have been recently fighting efforts by Los Angeles city officials to tighten restrictions on their operations.

“It’s a $2 billion industry,” Mr. Lee said of the medical marijuana sales.

Opponents said they are also preparing for a battle next year.

“I fully expect they will qualify,” said John Lovell, a Sacramento lobbyist for several groups of California law enforcement officials that oppose legalization.

Any vote would take place in a state where attitudes toward marijuana border on the schizophrenic. Last year, the state made some 78,500 arrests on felony and misdemeanors related to the drug, up from about 74,000 in 2007, according to the California attorney general.

Seizures of illegal marijuana plants, often grown by Mexican gangs on public lands in forests and parks, hit an all-time high in 2009, and last week, federal authorities announced a series of arrests in the state’s Central Valley, where homes have been converted into “indoor grows.”

At the same time, however, there are also pockets of California where marijuana can seem practically legal already. At least seven California cities have formally declared marijuana a low priority for law enforcement, with ballot measures or legislative actions. In Los Angeles, some 800 to 1,000 dispensaries of medical marijuana are in business, officials say, complete with consultants offering public relations services and “canna-business management.”

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat and author of the legalization bill, said momentum for legalization has built in recent years, especially as the state’s finances have remained sour.

“A lot of people that were initially resistant or even ridiculed it have come aboard,” Mr. Ammiano said.

In Oakland, which passed a tax on medical cannabis sales in July, several people who signed a petition backing Mr. Lee’s initiative said they were motivated in part by the cost of imprisoning drug offenders and the toll of drug-related violence in Mexico.

“Personally I don’t see a way of getting it under control other than legalizing it and taxing it,” said Jim Quinn, 60, a production manager. “We’ve got to get it out of the hands of criminals both domestic and international.”

Mr. Lovell, the law enforcement lobbyist, however, said those arguments paled in comparison to the potential pitfalls of legalization, including people driving under the influence. He also questioned how much net revenue a tax like Mr. Ammiano is proposing would actually raise. “We get revenue from alcohol,” he said. “But there’s way more in social costs than we retain in revenues.”

The recent history of voter-approved drug reform laws in California is not encouraging for supporters of legalization. Last November, voters rejected a proposition that would have increased spending for drug treatment programs and loosened parole and prison requirements for drug offenders.

None of which seems to faze Mr. Lee, 47, a former roadie who founded Oaksterdam University, a medical marijuana trade school in Oakland, in 2007. Mr. Lee says he plans to use the Internet to raise money, as well as tapping out-of state sources for campaign money.

More than anything, however, Mr. Lee said he was banking on a basic shift in people’s attitudes toward the drug.

“For a lot of people,” he said, “it’s just another brand of beer.”

[palmspringsbum]

State, defense lawyers try to save pot IDs

Bob Egelko, The San Francisco Chronicle

Tuesday, November 3, 2009


(11-03) 18:12 PST BERKELEY -- In a rare display of harmony, prosecution and defense lawyers urged the state Supreme Court on Tuesday to save California's medical marijuana identification card program from a flaw in the legislation that created it.

Both Deputy Attorney General Michael Johnsen and Gerald Uelmen, the lawyer for a man challenging his marijuana conviction, agreed that a state appeals court went too far last year when it ruled that the 2003 law protecting card-holding pot patients from arrest clashed with California law allowing medical use of marijuana.

Proposition 215, which voters approved in 1996, allows patients with doctors' approval to possess an amount of marijuana reasonable for their medical use. The 2003 law set limits of eight ounces of dried marijuana, or six mature or 12 immature plants, and allows patients who comply with those standards to carry county-issued identification cards.

The case reached the courts after police found seven marijuana plants and 12 ounces of marijuana in Patrick Kelly's home in Los Angeles County. A prosecutor argued that Kelly had exceeded the limits of the 2003 law, and he was convicted of illegal possession and cultivation and sentenced to two days in jail.

In a May 2008 ruling, the Second District Court of Appeal overturned Kelly's convictions and said the limits that the Legislature set in 2003 were an unconstitutional amendment of Prop. 215. The initiative contained no such limits.

The court said defendants who possessed greater amounts of marijuana could still try to persuade a jury that they had only what they needed for medical use. Neither side disputed that in Tuesday's Supreme Court hearing at the UC Berkeley law school.

But both sides challenged the appeals court's conclusion that the ID cards, available only to patients who comply with the limits, are also invalid. The ruling is on hold while the state's high court considers the case.

Identification cards are designed to "protect patients" and serve Prop. 215's goals, said Uelmen, a Santa Clara University law professor. He noted that the 1996 initiative, while allowing patients to possess and grow marijuana for medical use, did not protect them from arrest.

The cards establish "a bright line both for law enforcement and for patients out in the field," Johnsen said.

The court gave no clear indication of its leanings. A ruling is due within 90 days.

The case is People vs. Kelly, S164830.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 1AEJP6.DTL

[palmspringsbum]

The Los Angeles Times

Cities, counties no longer mellow about pot dispensaries

<span class="postbigbold">At least 120 cities and eight counties in California have banned medical pot shops, fearing crime and profiteering. Some cite the proliferation of dispensaries in L.A.</span>

By John Hoeffel

November 10, 2009



As hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries have opened this year in a startling rollout across California, unnerved local officials have started to push back aggressively.

Many cities and a few counties have banned them. Others have imposed emergency moratoriums. And some have started to sue dispensaries to force them to close. So far, the state's courts have sided with local officials.

For marijuana advocates, who have seen over-the-counter sales become commonplace and watched the steady drift of California's vibrant weed counterculture into the mainstream, these setbacks are a discordant development.

"At this point, we're not winning a battle we should be winning," said Joe Elford, chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access, who believes that local bans violate state law. "There's been this kind of backlash of 'Let's give ourselves this great enforcement tool of just banning dispensaries.' "

Three years ago, Elford's organization found that 29 California cities had banned dispensaries. Now, at least 120 have done so, according to advocates and opponents of medical marijuana. That's a quarter of the state's cities. In recent months, the pace appears to have accelerated. The number of cities allowing dispensaries has grown much more slowly, from two dozen to about 30.

Last week, Red Bluff, about 130 miles north of Sacramento, became the latest city to vote for a ban, one that outlaws not only dispensaries, but also collectives and marijuana cultivation. This week, Nevada City, a postcard-perfect Gold Rush city in the Sierra foothills, is likely to follow.

Los Angeles, the apogee of the uncontrolled dispensary boom, has become the scare story that has driven many other cities to act. The city attorney's office estimates that about 1,000 dispensaries have opened, most of them after a moratorium that was adopted in 2007.

"We actually tell cities around the state to look at the failure in Los Angeles," said Paul Chabot, the founder of the Coalition for a Drug Free California. "That's why the cities are moving fast and furious across the state to adopt bans."

This blow-back has come as local politicians look at the experiences of other cities and decide that they don't much like what they see: Anyone who wants to smoke pot can easily get a doctor's recommendation; dispensaries can attract crime; and some operators are in it for the money even though profits are prohibited.

Even places widely seen as pot-friendly have become wary.

Santa Cruz passed a law in 2000 to allow dispensaries. One opened in 2005, another in 2006, in the same industrial area. City officials say they have not had any trouble with them.

But Mike Ferry, a Santa Cruz city planner, said he was inundated with inquiries about opening dispensaries after the Obama administration announced in March that federal agents would lay off stores that adhered to state law.

"It goes from a trickle to a call a day, from all over the state and even out of the state," he said.

The city studied its dispensaries and learned that about three-quarters of their customers were not from Santa Cruz. The prospect of being a regional marijuana hub did not excite city leaders.

"We kind of felt like we were going to end up with a concentration," he said.

City officials have recommended a cap at two.

Some towns that once welcomed dispensaries have switched off the "Vacancy" sign. Dixon, a bedroom community on Interstate 80 between the Bay Area and Sacramento, decided years ago to allow dispensaries. None opened. This year, several people who did not live in the city inquired about starting one.

This was surprising to Jack Batchelor, the mayor. Why Dixon, a city of about 17,500?

"My sense is that it would be people living outside Dixon and driving by," Batchelor said.

Given the push-the-envelope innovation in California's marijuana industry, Batchelor's fear that his city might host the first drive-through dispensary doesn't seem far-fetched. It was not an appealing prospect, he said.

The more Batchelor learned, the more he worried. On the web, he realized how easy it was for anyone to get a doctor's recommendation for marijuana. He read reports that dispensaries attract crime. And he decided that he didn't believe that the aspiring dispensary operators had approached Dixon out of compassion for its residents.

"It's a monetary issue," he said. "Here's a way to expand their business."

In August, Dixon's City Council banned the stores.

Other cities, including many in the Inland Empire and Orange County, have similarly enacted outright bans.

Laguna Beach adopted a ban in September. Mayor Kelly Boyd said school officials urged the city to prohibit dispensaries. "We saw what was happening in other cities, and how they were rapidly growing and opening, and we didn't want that happening in our city," he said.

At least eight of California's 58 counties now have bans.

Supervisors in Madera County, in the Central Valley, voted unanimously in September to outlaw dispensaries after listening to almost two dozen supporters. One after another, they pleaded to be allowed to buy marijuana at the county's two dispensaries, telling emotional stories of how it helped them deal with anxiety, glaucoma, lupus, asthma, chronic pain and headaches. One man, who said he was a veteran and suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome, said, "I don't know why you are being backward about it."

But the board was swayed by the sheriff who cited crime statistics, insisted a vote for dispensaries would be a vote to violate federal law, noted that county voters had rejected the 1996 medical marijuana initiative and offered this opinion of dispensary operators: "They're not compassionate caregivers, they're criminals."

Elford and other advocates for medical marijuana argue that it is the bans that are illegal and insist that the California Supreme Court will eventually invalidate them. "They can't pass ordinances that are inimical to a matter of statewide concern," said Elford, who has provided legal counsel on many of the state's medical marijuana cases.

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown concluded last year that dispensaries run by collectives "may be lawful," but did not address whether cities and counties could outlaw them.

So far, cities have won several cases in state courts.

As cities wait to see whether an appeals court will uphold a ban imposed by Anaheim, they have embraced another appellate court ruling. The state 2nd District Court of Appeal recently ruled for Claremont in its three-year battle with a dispensary that opened after the city denied it a business license and permit. The panel decided the state's medical marijuana laws did not stop the city from enforcing its licensing and zoning requirements.

That approach -- using licensing and zoning rules to keep dispensaries out of town -- is becoming increasingly popular with cities. A Superior Court judge recently sided with Fresno and ordered nine dispensaries to shut down. In the Bay Area, Walnut Creek has issued daily $500 fines to a dispensary that officials say violates its zoning rules and have filed suit. City Atty. Paul Valle-Riestra estimates the total fine at about $15,000. "Clearly, there seems to be a lot of money involved in this, and they don't seem to bat an eye at those kind of penalties," he said.

Lake Forest in Orange County has seen many dispensaries open in strip malls near the junction of the 5 and 405 freeways. The city has sued 21 dispensaries; five have closed.

Red Bluff officials said the Claremont decision emboldened them to push for their sweeping ban. As in Claremont, a dispensary opened in Red Bluff without permission, triggering the City Council's action. But city leaders also worried about crime and complaints of people smoking pot at houses used as collectives.

"You can really just start seeing that there's a dark side to this," said Scott Timboe, the city's planning director, "and so it was really the dark side that our community was concerned about."

john.hoeffel@latimes.com


Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times