Legislation to permit marijuana use by people with severe chronic pain sparked heated Senate debate Thursday between a two-time cancer survivor who supports the bill and a physician who fears doctors would “over-prescribe” the illegal drug.

Sen. David R. Brinkley, who survived Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 1989 and melanoma in 1995, said marijuana provides the best and safest relief for people living with constant pain. But Sen. Andrew P. Harris, an anesthesiologist, expressed deep concern that the legislation could be abused by treating physicians or lead unethical doctors to exploit the law by starting a side business of growing marijuana for medicinal use.

The Senate is scheduled to continue its consideration of the measure Friday morning.

If the legislation is enacted, Maryland would become the 15th state that permits medicinal marijuana use without penalty. Maryland currently allows medicinal use to be asserted as an affirmative defense to a marijuana-possession charge. But the defense, if successful, merely reduces the penalty to a $100 fine.

“Whether we like it or not,” thousands of desperate Marylanders in severe chronic pain are getting marijuana illegally from drug dealers, said Brinkley, R-Carroll and Frederick. Brinkley, who said he did not use marijuana when he had cancer, would prefer that these patients receive the treatment legally and under the care of their physician rather than illicitly through the “black market.”

Harris, though expressing sympathy for those in severe pain, countered that the legislation does not place sufficient constraints on physicians. The measure also does not bar doctors from growing the drug and then recommending it to patients, he said.

“This will solve our physician shortage problem in Maryland,” said Harris, R-Harford and Baltimore counties. “Where is the oversight of the physician?”

But Sen. Jamin B. “Jamie” Raskin, a co-sponsor of the bill, defended the legislation as creating “a carefully controlled and regulated system” in which both patients and would-be growers of marijuana would have to receive prior permission from the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

“It [the legislation] is about getting the drug dealers out of the medical marijuana business and the doctors into it,” Raskin said.

Doctors would remain subject to their professional obligations, as enforced by the Maryland Board of Physicians, added Raskin, D-Montgomery.

Regulating the players

The measure, Senate Bill 627, would enable a patient’s regular treating physician to recommend marijuana for “a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition” that causes severe or chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, severe or persistent muscle spasms or “any other condition that is severe and resistant to conventional medicine.” Patients with these conditions would have to receive an “identification card” from the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene affirming they are qualified for marijuana treatment.

The application for the card would have to include a statement from the regularly treating physician that the patent has “a debilitating medical condition for which recognized drugs or treatments would not be effective.” The doctor would also have to state that “the potential benefits of the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks for the patient.”

Growers of medical marijuana would also have to be certified by the department.

To get certification, the grower would have to cultivate the marijuana in Maryland, meet security and safety requirements set by the department and pass a criminal background check.

The certified grower, and any pharmacy dispensing marijuana, would be barred from hiring anyone who has been convicted of possessing or selling a controlled dangerous substance. The grower would also have to submit to testing of the marijuana to ensure its consistency and that it has not been adulterated or contaminated.

“I don’t think you can write a more airtight program” to permit the medicinal use of marijuana while preventing its illicit use or sale, Raskin said.

“There are thousands of our constituents” who want the General Assembly to pass this bill, Raskin told his colleagues. “They are suffering.”

But Harris reiterated the need for stricter limits in the bill to prevent doctors from over-prescribing marijuana and prohibit them from seeking the department’s authorization to grow the drug.

If passed by the Senate, the measure would move to the House of Delegates for its consideration.

The 14 states that allow marijuana use for medicinal purposes are Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C.-based group that lobbies for the drug’s legalization.

The growing national movement to allow marijuana use to treat severe chronic pain received a boost in October, when the Obama administration announced it will not prosecute cases against individuals whose use of marijuana is in compliance with state law.

           

The marijuana legalization measure will be on the Nov. 2 ballot as well.

California Sen. Barbara Boxer has a message for marijuana law reform activists: Just say no.

The liberal senator’s position might come as a surprise, but it’s no surprise to those who follow California politics: Boxer is facing perhaps the toughest reelection race of her career in 2010. She’s neck-and-neck with former GOP Rep. Tom Campbell and slightly ahead of former Hewlett Packard chief Carly Fiorina.

In a statement issued late Friday to liberal blog Talking Points Memo, Boxer’s campaign manager Rose Kapolczynski said the senator opposes a California ballot measure that seeks to legalize and tax marijuana.

“Senator Boxer does not support this initiative because she shares the concerns of police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement officials that this measure could lead to an increase in crime, vehicle accidents and higher costs for local law enforcement agencies,” Kapolczynski said. “She supports current law in California, which allows for the use of medicinal marijuana with a doctor’s prescription.”

Boxer’s six-year Senate term comes to a close this year. She’ll stand for election Nov. 2 against a yet-to-be-determined Republican challenger

If  California voters approve, it will be the most comprehensive reform of marijuana laws ever undertaken in the United States. While some states, such as Oregon, have relatively lax penalties for possession, no state has attempted to regulate and tax the herb before.

The measure’s chances are good: A poll taken last April found that 56 percent of Californians want to see the herb legalized and taxed.

According to the L.A. Times, the measure would make it legal for anyone over 21 to own an ounce or less of pot, and to grow pot for personal use in a space no larger than 25 square feet. It would also give cities the right to license marijuana growers and sellers, and to collect taxes on the crop.

           

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 argument to legalize marijuana is back in the news, after rock legend and Obama supporter Carlos Santana said that marijuana needs to be legalized, while also taking a hard swipe at California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In a recent interview with the Associated Press, the Grammy-winning guitarist said, “I really believe that as soon as we legalize and decriminalize marijuana, we can actually afford a really good governor who won’t keep taking money away from education and from teachers and send him back to Hollywood where he can do ‘D’ movies and we can get an ‘A’ governor.” 

Santana went on to give a heart-felt plea to President Obama, saying,  “Bring the brothers home, and sisters home now. Legalize marijuana and take all that money and invest it in teachers and in education. You will see a transformation in America.”

Last week, President Obama acknowledged that the issue is a popular subject of debate at a town hall meeting at the White House, saying that many questions from his online audience came in about whether legalizing marijuana to stimulate the economy is a good idea.

Obama answered, “The answer is, no, I don’t think that is a good strategy — (laughter) — to grow our economy.” 

But there are some lawmakers who disagree with him.  California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano recently proposed a measure that would regulate marijuana in the state of California like alcohol - with people over the age of 21 allowed to grow, buy, sell, and possess cannabis.  If passed, he claims that the legalization of marijuana would be worth billions to the state. 

My question is, if our country can legalize alcohol and cigarettes, why not marijuana?  

Of course, one should not be able to drive or operate machinery while under the influence, government should regulate its quality and safety, and there should be age requirements and health warnings on packaging, but why is marijuana being held to a different standard than cigarettes and alcohol?

Cigarette smoking is highly addictive, can lead to cancer, most commonly lung cancer, but also cancer of the lips, mouth, throat, and voice box. Smokers also have a higher risk of getting esophagus, stomach, kidney, pancreas, cervix, bladder, and skin cancer.  Cigarette smoking can also lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high blood pressure, cataracts, and fertility problems, not to mention stained gums and teeth.

Excessive drinking can cause liver disease and cirrhosis, which rank among the top 10 leading causes of death in the nation, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, heart failure and increased calorie intake (leading to obesity and a higher risk of diabetes). It can also lead to stroke and cardiomyopathy, a disease in which the heart muscle becomes inflamed and doesn’t work efficiently, cardiac arrhythmia, (abnormal, irregular heartbeat) and sudden cardiac death.

Marijuana smoking, while thought to affect the brain and body many times long after one has stopped using the drug, is generally not any more harmful than alcohol or tobacco if used in moderation.

So what’s the problem?

Legalization of marijuana would likely mean a lower price of the drug, reducing related crimes like theft.  Street justice related to drug disputes would also be diminished.  As with most bootleggers from the 1920’s, marijuana dealers would lose most or all of their business.  Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes.  And legalization would also be a source of additional tax revenues.

The problem is that people are used to thinking that marijuana smoking is “bad.”  We have forgotten that drinking used to be “bad.”  In 1933, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt and congress ended prohibition, many people were shocked and alarmed.  Then they got used to it.  Now, there is very little crime, in comparison, related to the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of alcohol.  

In contrast, cigarette smoking used to be “cool.”  In the fifties, most movie stars, on screen and off, were rarely without a cigarette.  Then in the early 1970’s, the harmful effects of cigarette smoking became widely publicized and we realized that cigarette smoking was very “uncool,” in fact, actually “bad.”  Some people still smoke despite.  Many do not.

I don’t expect that the legalization of marijuana would be much different. 

Elyce Strong - Examiner.com

           

Sen. Jim Webb, fresh off his passage of an historic expansion of the GI Bill, has found a new issue: the criminal justice system. And when Webb, a Virginia Democrat, sets his legislative sites on a priority, his colleagues pay attention.

On Thursday, Webb, along with the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), introduced a bill to create a commission that would undertake an 18-month study of the criminal justice system and come back with legislative recommendations.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Webb said that everything should be considered. And he means everything.

“I think everything should be on the table, and we specifically say that we want recommendations on how to deal with drug policy in our country. And we’ll get it to the people who have the credibility and the expertise and see what they come up with,” said Webb.

What about legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana?

Webb paused. “I think they should do a very careful examination of all aspects of drug policy. I’ve done a couple of very extensive hearings on this, so we’ll wait to see what they say about that,” he said.

So it’s on the table? Webb flashed a wry grin, laughing mischievously.

The last government study group to look at drug policy, the 1972 Shafer Commission, recommended that President Richard Nixon decriminalize marijuana. He didn’t.

This commission will have a broader mandate, said Webb. He expects a “pretty broad range of legislative priorities to come out of it [covering] not just incarceration but the entire panorama of criminal justice.”

Webb’s bill, he said, is backed by Judiciary Committee chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) as well as Majority Whip Dick Durbin and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — the chairman and ranking Republican of the Crime and Drugs Subcommittee. It has a powerful list of cosponsors, including the top four Democrats, Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), Durbin, Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

“We’ve got a good chance to get this done this year,” said Webb, suggesting that the “dramatic” growth of the prison population makes it an issue that needs to be addressed. See the charts Webb brought to the Senate floor.

Webb cited “the exponential growth of incarceration since 1980,” saying that “a huge percentage of that growth has been nonviolent crimes associated with drugs.”

Webb, a decorated Vietnam veteran who was Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan, has as much military cred as any Democrat. “I’m very concerned about the issue of gangs and transnational gangs and I think a big piece of that — not all of it — a big piece of that is the movement of drugs. So that’s a huge piece of this,” said Webb.

The growing prison population has bipartisan roots, which I explore in a book be published soon, This Is Your Country On Drugs. Throughout the 1980s, Democrats in Congress and state governments around the country increased prison sentences for drug offenses, coming down particularly hard on crack. In 1986, Congress instituted mandatory-minimum sentences for powder and crack cocaine. To trigger the powder minimum, a dealer needed to possess 500 grams. For crack, just five grams. Two years later, the law was extended to anybody who was associated with the dealer — girlfriends, roommates, etc.

In 1991, Michigander Allen Harmelin argued that his life sentence for possessing roughly a pound and a half of cocaine is cruel and unusual. The Supreme Court ruled that it is neither. California enacted its three-strikes law in 1994 — three felonies equals a minimum of 25 years — and the feds one-upped the state, declaring a third felony to result in life without parole. Twenty-three more states enacted three-strikes laws by 1995.

In 1984, just over 30,000 people were in prison for drug crimes; by 1991, the number had soared to more than 150,000. The Department of Justice found in a study of the prison population that the average length of a federal stay drastically increased between 1986 and 1997. If you walked into prison in 1986, your average stay would have been 21 months. In 1997, it was 47 months. For weapons offenders, the rise was from 23 to 75 months, and for drug offenders, it was from 30 to 66 months. Not all criminals could expect such increased time behind bars, however: A bank robber could expect 74 months in 1986 and only 83 months a decade later.

Three-strikes laws and lengthening prison sentences explain what appears to be a contradiction: U.S. crime rates are falling while U.S. incarceration rates are rising. It stands to reason that if fewer people are committing crimes, then fewer people should be locked up. But locking up fewer people every year and putting them away for much longer mushrooms the prison population.

The result is that more than one out of every 100 Americans is currently in prison. If you’re a black male between 20 and 34, there’s a better than one in nine chance that you’re imprisoned. To keep all of these people behind bars, states spent a combined $44 billion in 2007.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said he’s open to working with Webb. “It’ll be interesting,” Cornyn, a former prosecutor, said of the coming debate. “I would be open to ideas that would take certain first-time, nonviolent offenders and try to give them a shock probation or something like that which would encourage treatment but then would go serve their time if they didn’t fully cooperate,” he said.

Huffington Post