ABC News reports that the upcoming November ballot initiative to legalize the cultivation, possession, and recreational use of marijuana (the Tax Cannabis Act) is getting support from some unexpected allies.

While the fifty-two percent of Americans nationwide who oppose the legalization of marijuana consists mostly of “older Americans, conservatives, and mothers of teenagers,” California proponents of the Tax Cannabis initiative are creating a broad and diverse coalition of support, including the official endorsement of California NAACP President Alice Huffman.

“In California African Americans make up 7 percent of the population, but 22 percent of the marijuana arrests,” Huffman says. She continues:

I see it as a civil rights issue because so many of our young people get their start in the criminal justice system over a joint… if we want to rescue our young people and keep them out of prison, we have to not only attack the education system but also the dysfunctional parts of the system that’s criminalizing our children disproportionately and causing them lifelong harm.

While critics may decry the California NAACP for “race-baiting,” the facts are on Huffman’s side. According to the California Department of Justice, “Marijuana possession arrests of teenagers of color rose from 3,100 in 1990 to 16,300 in 2008 — an arrest surge that is 300 percent greater than population growth in that group.”

Indeed the civil rights aspect of marijuana legalization takes on a poignant historical character in light of circumstances surrounding its prohibition. Before the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, it was legal to cultivate, possess, and use the plant in the United States. Proponents of the act rallied support by using racially charged imagery against a drug that was predominately used by African Americans at the time- particularly in America’s vibrant jazz music scene.

One of the leaders of the movement to ban pot, Harry J. Anslinger, coordinated a campaign of propaganda to convince white Americans that marijuana use made African Americans violent and lascivious. He also wrote articles that included extremely offensive and very racist statements such as:

“Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with (white) female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races”

“Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of hemp. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis.”

With black Americans suffering disproportionately from the criminalization of marijuana, and a long, ugly history behind its original prohibition, it’s not hard to see why the California NAACP considers support for the Tax Cannabis Act to be a civil rights issue.

           

No tie-dye was on display at a standing-room only hearing held by a California lawmaker on Wednesday in a bid to get his marijuana legalization bill taken seriously.

Instead, suits and sober discussion were the rule at the state Capitol as Assemblyman Tom Ammiano presided over what his office said was the first legislative consideration of the issue since California banned the drug in 1913.

Both sides of the debate were heard, but Ammiano has long had his mind made up.

Before the hearing, the San Francisco Democrat and former comedian called the criminalization of marijuana a failed policy that denies the state significant revenue. He said the bill could put the state in a position to set the national agenda on pot.

“I think we have a real shot at it, particularly in the context of it being in some ways bigger than California,” Ammiano said.

His bill would tax and regulate marijuana in the state much like alcohol. Adults 21 and older could legally possess, grow and sell marijuana. The state would charge a $50-per-ounce fee and a 9 percent tax on retail sales.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he does not support legalization but caused a stir in May when he said he was open to debate on the issue.

At least one poll showed a slight majority of Californians would support a tax-and-regulate scheme for pot, but the bill’s chances remain unclear. Skeptics have questioned whether the state could truly enforce a tax on marijuana and whether users and sellers would want to expose themselves to possible federal prosecution.

“You’re going to create a record of some sort,” said Assemblyman Curt Hagman, a San Bernardino County Republican. “You can’t force me to self-incriminate myself.”

Supporters of Ammiano’s bill noted the state already collects taxes from medical marijuana dispensaries with little federal interference.

Legal experts on both sides also agreed at the informational hearing that nothing in current federal law can prevent California from stripping criminal penalties for marijuana from its own books.

“If California decides to legalize marijuana, there’s nothing in the Constitution that stands in its way,” said Tamar Todd, a staff attorney for the pro-legalization Drug Policy Alliance.

Speakers at the hearing argued a number of issues, including whether legalization would increase or decrease crime and help or hurt children.

State tax collectors presented an estimate that Ammiano’s bill could generate nearly $1.4 billion in tax revenue. They cautioned, however, that the figure depended on several untested assumptions about how rates of use and prices would change following possible legalization.

Rosalie Pacula, director of drug policy research at the nonpartisan Rand Corp., said data on the economics of marijuana were “insufficient on which to base any sound policy.”

Pacula said a failed effort in Canada to increase taxes on cigarettes showed that unless taxes had a minimal effect on prevailing prices, “you create the economic incentive for the black market to remain.”

As the legalization movement has gained momentum, organized opposition outside law enforcement groups has been sparse. Still, several anti-pot protesters spoke passionately during and after the hearing.

Marijuana use is commonplace among young people in his Sacramento neighborhood, said Bishop Ron Allen, president of the International Faith Based Coalition, an anti-drug religious group.

Legalizing marijuana to tax it would help fill state coffers at the expense of its kids, he said.

“It’s blood money, that’s it,” he said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jXqaCr8mSHC5wPjTJgCgnHv18Z3gD9BKQROG1

           

By Jim Sanders

The Sacramento Bee

           

Marijuana smokers might be breathing a little easier thanks to a policy switch by the U.S. Justice Department. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that federal prosecutors would not spend limited time and resources on people who use or sell medical marijuana “in strict compliance with state law.” Thirteen states have medical marijuana laws, which are controversial because federal narcotics laws trump state statutes.

Of course, the new federal policy doesn’t prevent local prosecutors from cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries. Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley has vowed to shutter the city’s dispensaries, which he says cater to people who do not have legitimate medical reasons for using marijuana.

Is the Justice Department paving the way for legalizing marijuana? And is it crazy to think the Obama administration is more federalist — that is, respectful of state and local government decision-making — than the supposedly federalism-loving Republicans? Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuk, the RedBlueAmerica columnists, attempt to cut through the haze.

BEN BOYCHUK

All things being equal, the states are probably better arbiters than federal officials of whether marijuana should be illegal. The fact that the Obama Justice Department believes federal resources are better spent elsewhere speaks volumes. But marijuana remains outlawed under the federal Narcotics Act, .

But whether marijuana should be legalized raises a whole host of questions. Here’s one: Should medical marijuana use be protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act? The ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities, including ailments such as alcoholism and drug addiction. (See the U.S. government’s frequently asked questions about the ADA here: http://www.ada.gov/employmt.htm)

The ADA has been a boon for trial lawyers and irresponsible users and abusers. A former sheriff’s deputy in Sarasota, Fla., last month sued his employer for discrimination under the ADA because he was let go for excessive alcohol use. Earlier this year, former NBA player Ray Tarpley settled an ADA lawsuit against the pro basketball league and the Dallas Mavericks that stemmed from his cocaine addiction. Two alcoholic NFL players filed similar lawsuits in 2007.

Without question, marijuana helps thousands of people suffering chronic illnesses. The rub is that many critics of medical marijuana, including most district attorneys, say the laws are widely abused; that it’s too easy for stoners to get a doctor’s note for pot; and that many of the “illnesses” that marijuana treats are bogus. It isn’t hard to imagine a raft of lawsuits against employers by potheads claiming phony disabilities.

If Americans want to ease the prohibitions on marijuana, Congress will need to act and legislators will need to debate what’s right for their states. But if the trend is toward decriminalization, it should come with a hefty dose of personal responsibility and protections for employers from unscrupulous users.

JOEL MATHIS

Actually, Americans do want ease prohibitions on medical marijuana. They’ve wanted it for a long time.

The website of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws has a page featuring a slew of polls — going back to 1995 — showing that clear majorities of Americans believe it should be legal for doctors to prescribe and patients to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. NORML admittedly has a bias, but the polls come from a variety of outlets: Gallup, AARP, CBS, ABC, Time magazine and more.

Yet Congress has refused to act; despite those clear majorities, politicians at the federal level are too fearful about their re-election prospects to ever support legislation that might later be used to portray them as “soft on crime” or “soft on drugs.”

So activists took their case to the state level — and that’s entirely appropriate. The states have long been considered “laboratories of democracy” where different approaches to similar issues could be tried. And that’s exactly what happened: Thirteen states now permit medical marijuana. That means, of course, that 37 states do not. Nothing in the Obama administration’s new approach will force those more restrictive states to take the relaxed approach.

You can argue the Obama administration should continue to rigorously enforce federal drug laws. But given that citizens in those 13 states have made their preferences clear, the administration is probably wise to give them deference.

“What about the ADA?” my conservative friend asks. Well, what about it? The Americans with Disabilities Act is a federal law; as long as actual legalization of medical marijuana is done at the state level, federal lawsuits by a few stoned chuckleheads seeking to enrich themselves through the legal system are unlikely to be successful. When weighing the balance between real freedom and a hypothetical fear of lawsuits, freedom should win.

Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis blog at http://www.infinitemonkeysblog.com and http://politics.pwblogs.com.

(Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis blog daily at www.infinitemonkeysblog.com and joelmathis.blogspot.com.)

           

Last week we had numerous federal laws that make possessing and distributing marijuana a crime. This week the laws are still there. Nothing’s changed on that front.

What has changed is that our U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has directed federal prosecutors not to go after possessors and distributors of marijuana who are complying with state medical marijuana laws. He said, “It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal.”

Seems fair enough, but I question whether the Justice Department’s directive will go unchallenged by those who use and distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes in the 36 states where it is still illegal under state law.

Can the federal government choose not to enforce federal laws in selected states? Is there a requirement that the Justice Department apply the principles of justice evenly across all states? Could the lack of evenhandedness be grounds for a Supreme Court case? Did we just legalize marijuana?

http://www.examiner.com/x-23682-Cape-Cod–Baby-Boomer-Examiner~y2009m10d20-Did-we-just-legalize-marijuana

           

           

Anyone curious about the effects of legalizing marijuana should read Norman H. Clark’s “Deliver us from Evil,” a history of the prohibition of alcohol and narcotics.

Alcohol was legalized — in part — in order to deprive organized crime of money. Over time, the war on drugs has had little impact on drug use.

By abolishing the war we would not only save billions of dollars in expenses, we could earn billions through taxing marijuana. Every scientific study shows that on-demand and court-ordered drug-treatment programs cut drug use more cost-effectively than programs attempting to cut access to drugs.

– Susan McKeehan, La Conner

Will marijuana users really pay taxes?

There is a flaw in the thinking of legalizing marijuana. First, if we tax pot, what says the drug pushers will pay the taxes. Who will pay the cost of enforcement? Next, the so-called savings on the cost of enforcement doesn’t take into account the illegal driving that will occur and need for police involvement. The taxing will not make the drug healthy; lung disease and brain damage is still possible. Finally, taxation will not stem users’ need for more stimulation with more potent and deadly drugs. It is ironic to compare pot’s taxation as used on alcohol and cigarettes, both of which cost us dearly medically and legally.

– Jim Morris, Renton

Effective marijuana test comes before legalization

Your front-page article on marijuana may merit serious consideration subject to just one question: Is there a court-accepted test for measuring the level of marijuana in blood?

I have generally been against the legalization of drugs because of their addictive characteristics and tendency to cause damage to the user. Also, I believe one of the most serious crimes that goes underpenalized is driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, a criminal undertaking that seriously endangers innocent members of society.

Hence, I do not believe that pot should be legalized unless there is an accepted test for the level of marijuana in the blood that the politically correct liberals and civil libertarians will be unable to get tossed out of court.

I disagree with the “me” generation and defense lawyers in that I do not believe individual rights should be placed before the rights and well-being of society. If police officers can test for the influence of pot and drivers can be prosecuted for a DUI, then perhaps it may be time to legalize pot.

– Harvey Gillis, Bellevue

The Seattle Times Company

           

The current economic crisis may have one significant upside. It may convince Californians to finally legalize marijuana, so it can be taxed, thereby raising much-needed revenues for the state. Earlier this year, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco introduced a bill in the state legislature to decriminalize pot and tax it. And now backers of a measure that would legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana in California and allow the state to tax its sales hope to put their initiative on the statewide 2010 ballot. According to the Chron, Oaksterdam University, a medical marijuana education center and dispensary in downtown Oakland, is backing the pot legalization measure and founded TaxCannibis2010.org. Supporters plan to start gathering signatures in August. The measure would allow adults, 21 years and older, to legally possess up to an ounce of pot for personal use and a grow space not bigger than 5-feet-by-5-feet. All we can say is — it’s about time that something good came out of this economic misery. — Robert Gammon

Original Article

           

ANNAPOLIS — When a police officer asked her what she was doing behind a van in the park, Pamela Hughes told him the honest truth.

“I said I was smoking a cannabis cigarette,” she said.

She presented the stunned policeman with a written recommendation from her doctor and a copy of Maryland’s “Compassionate Use Act,” which reduces the penalties for possession of medical marijuana.

“I honestly thought that I wasn’t breaking the law,” Hughes said.

Rather than take her word for it, the officer called for backup that included a canine unit, she said.

Hughes ended up spending several hours in jail. She fought the charges and won, but only after a lot of time, stress and money — three things that her fibromyalgia, a chronic condition characterized by widespread pain and fatigue, and a reoccurrence of stage IV cancer were already monopolizing.

Hughes and several other patients told the House Judiciary Committee last week that while Maryland’s Compassionate Use Act was a step forward for its time, the law merely provides them with a false sense of security.

The patients testified on behalf of a bill that would establish a task force to evaluate the effectiveness and fairness of the current law and consider whether medical marijuana should become legal in the state. They said medical marijuana provides relief for certain ailments in ways no other medication can replicate.

No one testified against the bill, and a vote on the legislation has not been scheduled.

Medical marijuana has been legalized in 13 states, including California, Maine, Rhode Island and Vermont. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said recently that federal law enforcement will no longer target providers that are operating within state law, a major departure from the Bush administration’s stance on the issue.

The Darryl Putnam Compassionate Use Act, passed by the General Assembly in 2003, was a compromise between those advocating the legalization of medical marijuana and those against such a move.

The act is named after Putnam, a former Green Beret and Howard County Farm Bureau director who advocated for the legalization of medical marijuana. He died of cancer in 1999.

The Compassionate Use Act reduced the penalties for marijuana possession to a maximum $100 fine, provided a patient has a recommendation from a medical doctor. However, patients still have to buy their “medicine” on the street and face the health and legal risks inherent in doing so.

Those with drug offenses on their records could also face eviction from subsidized housing.
John McCarthy, an AIDS activist who has been HIV-positive for 18 years, said that medical marijuana has allowed him to reduce his pill intake from 45 to 13 pills a day. Most of those pills had been prescribed merely to alleviate the side effects of other pills, which include vomiting, headaches and neuropathy, a condition “where the nerve endings burn.”

McCarthy, who lives in subsidized housing, said a drug conviction under the present law could cause someone to be evicted from public housing no matter how old they were or what their condition was.

Eric Sterling, a Chevy Chase lawyer and president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, said the law needs to be revised.

“It’s really barbaric to think that we would prosecute sick people,” he said. “These (cases) should never go to court.”

The American College of Physicians, which calls itself the “largest medical-specialty organization and second-largest physician group in the United States,” has endorsed the use of non-smoked marijuana in cases where it has been proven to have therapeutic value.

A 2008 policy paper said the organization “strongly urges protection from criminal or civil penalties for patients who use medical marijuana as permitted under state laws.” It advocated further research on the issue and said that “the science on medical marijuana should not be obscured or hindered by the debate surrounding the legalization of marijuana for general use.”

Americans for Safe Access, a group that advances legalizing marijuana for therapeutics and research, and brought many of the witnesses together in Annapolis last week, was careful to clarify its intentions.

Caren Woodson, director of government affairs for the group, said the goal was to have safe and legal access to medical marijuana for patients and researchers — “and that’s it.”
“That’s the line, and we don’t cross over it,” she said.

However, some say others are crossing that line every day.

Jerrod Menz, president of A Better Tomorrow Treatment Center Inc., a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center in Murrieta, Calif., said some young people in his state are faking back pain and other hard-to-prove ailments in order to legally obtain marijuana. He said a client in his early 20s recently admitted telling his doctor he was suffering from foot pain, which helped him obtain a medical marijuana card after a five-minute examination.

Menz said doctors need to use more care in their examinations to better prevent people from abusing the intent of medical marijuana laws. He said that some problems could be prevented by having the federal government regulate medical marijuana like any other drug, although he did not endorse such a move.

For Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Vallario Jr., D-Prince George’s, federal law is the line that shouldn’t be crossed — and the reason for the 2003 compromise legislation in the first place.

“How can you pass something that’s against federal law?” he said. “That really is the bottom line.”

Delegate Henry Heller, D-Montgomery, the sponsor of the bill, said the task force would also consider establishing research programs at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland medical schools. He said this would not only allow further research on medical marijuana, but also help provide a safe product.

As the law stands, Heller said glaucoma and cancer patients at Leisure World, a retirement community in Silver Spring where he lives and represents, have to buy their marijuana on the street.

“It’s not the safest way to buy medicine,” he said.

Capital News Service supplied this report.

Foxnews.com