Pot Legalization.com

Time for State Leadership on Medical Marijuana

admin — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:43:42 +0000

The Los Angeles City Council last week finally adopted a medical marijuana ordinance. Though not perfect, it balances the needs of local communities with those of patients who truly need access to medical marijuana. And it will rein in an out-of-control situation in which a federally banned substance has been sold for the last four years as hundreds of dispensaries proliferated in the city of Los Angeles, with no local regulations and ambiguous state laws to guide us.

To make the new ordinance work as effectively as possible, legislators need to clarify the state’s medical marijuana laws — Proposition 215 and its accompanying SB 420. Both are silent or vague on critical issues for the practical implementation at the local level.

As cities throughout California draft ordinances, they are grappling with issues that they have no power over and that should be handled at the state level. Moreover, they are trying to pinpoint evolving and changing court rulings interpreting state law.

In Los Angeles, one of the most difficult issues was what constitutes a “sale.” My colleagues on the City Council and I addressed this by stipulating that although no collective shall operate for profit, “cash and in-kind contributions, reimbursements and reasonable compensation” are allowed as long as they comply with current state law. However, we don’t know how this provision will be enforced because we are relying on state law that is unclear and in litigation.

It is also unclear whether the over-the-counter dispensary model was what voters intended when they approved Proposition 215. The law might have intended a much more limited distribution of marijuana, such as having either patients or their caregivers grow their own product or having collectives grow a small amount and reimburse members for their labor.

Without clarity from the state, the council also had to punt on the issues of cultivation and transportation of marijuana by saying that the ordinance would abide by state law.

Cultivation is important because the ordinance as written does not address where the collectives will obtain their marijuana. Will it be grown locally, imported from Northern California or bought on the black market? And are people who transport the marijuana to and from collectives immune from prosecution?

Another issue that is not being addressed locally but perhaps is the biggest impediment to properly regulating dispensaries relates to the wide discretion and relative immunity that physicians have in recommending medical marijuana to patients. When most of us have a medical issue, we don’t look through the pages of alternative weeklies to find a physician. We go to the doctor who knows the most about our medical history — our primary-care physician.

Yet under state law there is no requirement to curb abuse by having people see their primary-care physician first, or, as Oregon does, to require that a patient get a note from an “attending physician” with whom he or she has an established patient/physician relationship.

It’s interesting to note that Oregon, like several other states, only allows medical marijuana for a narrow list of conditions. In contrast, in California, marijuana can be recommended for anything from cancer to writer’s cramp. So, although California voters have not (yet) directed the state to legalize marijuana for nonmedical use, the state medical marijuana law has created de facto legalization because practically anyone can become a qualified patient.

Given these ambiguities, the city has provided an ordinance within existing state law that does its best to create access for medical marijuana patients while protecting local communities from potential negative consequences.

The council voted to support a requirement that dispensaries be at least 1,000 feet from sensitive-use areas where children and families gather, such as schools, playgrounds and places of worship — and from other dispensaries.

We also capped the number of collectives at 70 (instead of the estimated 700-plus that exist) and required notification to neighborhood councils before new dispensaries open in their areas. To control profiteering, we also required annual audits and outlawed common ownership of multiple collectives.

I, like a majority of California voters, voted in favor of Proposition 215 because I believe that patients dealing with cancer, AIDS, chronic pain and other serious ailments should have access to medical marijuana.

However, I remain concerned about profiteers looking to make a quick buck, recreational users looking to use an ambiguous state law to their advantage and less-than-scrupulous doctors willing to play along by writing quick and unverified recommendations. Though seemingly innocuous to some, these unchecked activities can lead to real problems in local communities should the state refuse to further regulate medical marijuana. I encourage state legislators to immediately amend SB 420 to deal with its ambiguities.

In the future, if the voters legalize marijuana for recreational use, I would hope that the state provides clear and practical rules for local implementation, unlike what has occurred with medical marijuana.

José Huizar represents the 14th District on the Los Angeles City Council. This post originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times

How Is Marijuana Still Illegal?

admin — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:19:16 +0000

The American Medical Association recently reversed its long-standing position and urged the federal government to loosen the classification of Marijuana and clear the path for more medical marijuana use and clinical research.

OK–great–but for real: why isn’t pot entirely legal already?

Likely because of a Puritanical law-and-order ethos that pervades the generations of policymakers who have curried favor with frightened and uninteresting voters by creating a make-believe issue out of cannabis, is my theory.

Lumping pot in with other Schedule I drugs (the highest classification for a controlled substance) like heroin and LSD is so completely absurd that it’s like lumping alcohol in with setting your face on fire.

Setting your face on fire is clearly the more dangerous high between the two.

In fact, based on my completely anecdotal observations, I would posit that alcohol is absolutely, positively a worse drug than marijuana.

In my line of work (i.e. writer), I’ve known a ton of potheads (i.e. writers) and alcoholics (i.e. other writers). No one gets in fights when they’re high. They don’t hurt anyone, they don’t do anything. They sit on the couch, eat Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and giggle at infomercials for four hours. “Normal” people like tax accountants and nurses are more dangerous.

The Obama administration has already said that it will not concern the justice department with chasing down potheads, which makes it that much easier in states where weed is quickly becoming de facto legal.

The next step will likely come from California, which is drawing ever closer to legalization and taxation of pot–cutting it out of the business portfolio of Mexican drug cartels and raising $1.4 billion for the cash-strapped state in the bargain.

The entire ill-conceived war on drugs is an experiment in legislating morality that borders on outright farce. As Chris Rock–probably one of the great thinkers of our time if you get right down to it–once pointed out, people will do anything to get high.

You wanna make drugs illegal? Well, people will just let their excrement ferment in the sun and then take a big whiff.

I am not making that up.

And what are parents or the government or the D.A.R.E. officers supposed to tell kids now?

That if you smoke weed, you’ll never amount to anything? You’ll never be a record-breaking Olympic swimmer? The President of the United States (”I inhaled. That was the point.”)? A published author?

Please. Somebody get me some Ben & Jerry’s.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/off-the-markley/2009/11/how-is-marijuana-still-illegal.html

Legalization of marijuana debated across cultures

admin — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:16:27 +0000

The British came to DePauw Wednesday night. They weren’t opposing independence - just the legalization of marijuana.

DePauw’s Debate Society took on the British National Debate team at the public debate in Watson Forum. DePauw senior Aaron Dicker and junior Kevin Milne supported the resolution to legalize marijuana. Graduate students from the British team, Dan Bradley from the University of Manchester and Andrew Tuffin of King’s College London, took the opposition. Geoff Klinger, professor of communication and theatre, moderated the debate.

Dicker began by stating legalizing marijuana would contribute to ending the war on drugs.

“If legalized, it would be easier to focus on hard drugs, not just marijuana,” he said. “Brands could safely regulate marijuana and gangs and drug cartels will not be able to operate as much, because marijuana is the greatest cash flow.”

Bradley spoke next on the dangers of marijuana, saying its legalization would be detrimental to the health of the nation.

“Marijuana is more dangerous these days as compared to the 1960s,” he said. “Marijuana legalization could cause an increase in cancer. Being stoned is not a good state of mind to be in, and it would increase drug use and involvement in drug culture.”

DePauw’s representatives responded by arguing the legalization of prostitution, which is prohibited in Britain and the United States, has been successful in places like Holland. They also maintained people can keep a drug use a secret even if marijuana is legalized.

“Holland has legalized prostitution and prostitutes are living a better life,” Milne said. “It does not necessarily mean that executives’ secret lifestyles will be discovered.”

Milne and Dicker also said the use of marijuana is less dangerous than hard drugs, making it easier to regulate.

The British debaters countered, saying marijuana users typically don’t have the means of escaping the cycle they are caught in.

“Marijuana is less bad than heroin, but so is jaywalking,” Tuffin said. “People use drugs, alcohol and the like to escape. Many drug users are not lucky enough to have the opportunity to escape their life.”

After audience members asked questions of both teams, Bradley delivered the opposition’s closing argument, directly addressing a point made by DePauw’s team.

He said the legalization of marijuana would “not make drug empires collapse. Instead, they will take advantage by selling dangerous drugs. We don’t make dangerous things legal, do we?”

DePauw closed with a strong argument by Dicker, but in the end, a standing vote declared the British National Debate Team the winner, with 35 voting in favor of the British National Debate team and 15 in favor of DePauw’s team.

Bradley said the British team defeated Wabash Tuesday night in a landslide vote.

“We beat Wabash 55 to nil last night,” he said.

The four participants said, regardless of the outcome, the debate went well. Bradley said he thought the debate members from DePauw did a good job, and the audience was fully engaged.

“The competition was very good. The audience was watching and thinking at the same time,” he said.

Government arguments

Legalizing marijuana will not increase the number of people smoking because the U.S. already has one of the highest percentages of pot use

It will refocus the drug war to harder drugs like cocaine and heroin.

Legalizing marijuana will eliminate the drug cartels who traffic it.

Opposition arguments

Legalizing marijuana will increase the number of people using it, which has been shown to either make them non-productive or increase risks of paranoid schizophrenia.

It won’t stop the drug trade (just switch to more drugs).

It leads to dangerous, high doses of tetrahydrocannabinol.

http://media.www.thedepauw.com/media/storage/paper912/news/2009/11/20/News/Legalization.Of.Marijuana.Debated.Across.Cultures-3838516.shtml

Legalize medical marijuana - The Phoenix

admin — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:13:49 +0000

Since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, cannabis, also known as marijuana, has been federally classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no legally accepted medical use and has the same classification as, for example, heroin. Over the last couple of decades, however, that classification has started to be challenged, especially at the state level.

Currently, 13 states have passed some form of legislation allowing the use of medical marijuana. California was the first, passing the Compassionate Use Act in 1996 that legalized medical marijuana and ostensibly set regulations for the production and distribution of the drug. In recent months, New Mexico has begun “breathing life,” to quote an Associated Press report, into its own 2007 legislation that legalized medical marijuana. That New Mexico has taken so long to formalize the systemization of medical marijuana is indicative of a larger national resistance to the notion of legal weed in the United States.

Before further discussion, the fact that marijuana does indeed have undeniable and considerable medical benefits must be made clear. Marijuana is unparalleled in its propensity for alleviating the side effects endured by chemotherapy patients, and in general the drug has well-chronicled benefits for chronic pain relief such as combating migraines and nerve pain in HIV patients. As Dr. Donald Abrams, a cancer specialist at San Francisco General Hospital, said, “I can recommend [this] one drug for all those [pains], instead of writing five different prescriptions.”

In fact, even the American Medical Association, or AMA, agrees with the need to reclassify marijuana. The current classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug puts it on par with drugs like heroin and LSD, which clearly have no medical use. On November 10, the AMA called for a federal review of marijuana’s status under the Controlled Substances Act, stating its hope for “the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines, and alternate delivery methods.” The AMA was promptly ignored by the relevant federal authorities.

This dismissal speaks again to the long-standing unwillingness of our nation to enter proper dialogue concerning medical marijuana. The recreational and cultural use of marijuana, most prominently associated with the flowery 70s, has stigmatized the drug to the point where, it can be argued, many are unable to delineate between supporting the legalization of medical marijuana and supporting the legalization of marijuana for, simply put, getting high.

Nevertheless, there is indeed a distinction. Marijuana has scientifically supported medical benefits, ones that are so persuasive that even the AMA felt compelled to call for its reclassification. But marijuana seems doomed by its negative connotations.

To resist the legalization of such a positive social good for reasons extraneous to its inherent medical benefits is simply a fundamentally flawed approach to enacting progress.

Detractors say that there is a high probability that the legalization of marijuana for medical use will lead to rampant abuse. And a Sept. 23, 2007, “60 Minutes” special on California’s notorious “pot shops” seemed to confirm this worry. Essentially, as long as a patient — and this term is used in the loosest fashion imaginable — can convince the doctor that marijuana is necessary to relieve his pain (“You know, all I can do is take my patients’ statements as factual,” said one doctor), he can easily gain access to marijuana.

But this lack of discipline can be partly attributed to the incoherence of medical marijuana’s legalization. The aforementioned “60 Minutes” feature highlighted the blatant conflict between marijuana’s legal status as a medical drug and the virtually arbitrary raids that federal authorities conducted on California’s pot shops. This summer, furthermore, New Hampshire’s governor vetoed medical marijuana legalization, citing its inconsistency with federal regulation. But clearly, the evidence says the current federal regulations are wrong.

Unless the government — and this country — are willing to approach marijuana reasonably, we will not even get the chance to attempt proper systemization of medical marijuana. California’s marijuana policy, the state’s doctors readily admit, is of course not stringent enough, but that does not mean the law needs to swing back to the other extreme.

In New Mexico, then, cautious steps are being taken to define a template for the production and distribution of legal medical marijuana. There are 15 qualifying conditions for medical use of the drug and there are five nonprofit organizations permitted to produce it. Each producer is limited to 95 plants. The success of New Mexico’s scheme is far from guaranteed, but it represents a willingness to at least explore the potential and limitations of a properly regulated system of medical marijuana.

Nobody is denying that marijuana, as a product, has its downsides. Science is not yet sure of its lung cancer-inducing properties as well as its addictive properties. But these risks are analogous to (which, to pre-empt the decriers, does not mean “are equal to”) the risks of other drugs that the federal authorities seem willing to condone — Vicodin and Valium come to mind. Why should marijuana be treated any differently?

What is needed is a paradigm shift, one that allows us to look at marijuana not as some taboo indulgence but as a legitimate medical product. Condoning medical marijuana is not the same as condoning marijuana for other purposes.

To use the words of one of New Mexico’s approved marijuana producers, “The faster we move away from a paranoid drug dealer model to a normal business model, the better it’s going to be [for medical marijuana].” Fortunately for its proponents, medical marijuana seems to have a strong ally in the current administration. Obama’s stance on state legalization, as of February, is that the federal government will no longer interfere in the form of raids and other similar attacks.

But for real change to be enacted, there still needs to be a fundamental rethinking of whether it remains appropriate to oppose medical marijuana based on concerns peripheral to its merit as a medical drug. Until then, the question of how best to maximize its medical usefulness through regulation and systemization remains a theoretical one.

http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/2009/11/19/opinions/legalize-medical-marijuana

Wisconsin looking to legalize medical marijuana

admin — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:27:56 +0000

Great news for those in Wisconsin…

It is time to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. As one who is recovering from several surgeries, and the accompanying pain that goes with them, marijuana should be available for pain relief under doctor’s supervision.

For years, doctors were stingy with the amount of pain medication given in the hospital and later at home. That seems to be changing, in recent years, painkillers are much more liberally administered to those who need them. Good pain management is proven to speed up the healing process.

Although I am not a marijuana user, I’ve read reports that people with certain types of cancers and other types of debilitating diseases find pain and anti-nausea relief when smoking marijuana. If we could devise a low cost way to deliver it to appropriate patients through prescription from a doctor, and purchased from a legal outlet, like a pharmacy, I am all in favor of it. Users would have to obey the existing traffic laws and would not be able to resell it to family and friends.

Many of the current drugs we take come from plants. In this case, you would get the relief directly from the plant itself, rather than in pill or liquid form.

If you agree with this point of view, contact your Wisconsin legislator. They are currently discussing this issue.

http://www.biztimes.com/blogs/milwaukee-biz-blog/2009/11/18/legalize-medical-marijuana-in-wisconsin

California lawmaker holds hearing on legalizing pot

admin — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:18:52 +0000

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

44 Percent Support Marijuana Legalization in Latest Poll

admin — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:52:53 +0000

A new poll from Gallup shows that 44 percent of Americans now support legalizing marijuana, with 54 percent opposed. This is the highest-ever support for legalization in the Gallup poll.

The poll comes on the heels of the announcement by the Obama administration yesterday telling federal prosecutors not to focus on medical marijuana users and suppliers in states where medical marijuana is legal.

Gallup reports that support for pot legalization was in the 25 percent range during the 1970s through the 1990s, but jumped to 31 percent in 2001 and has been rising throughout this decade. In the most recent CBS News poll on the subject, conducted in July, 41 percent said they thought marijuana should be made legal.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Marijuana Nation
Medical Marijuana Arrest Guidelines Eased
Cannabis Shops Still Fear Long Arm of Law
Andrew Cohen: New Pot Policy Is Not Yet a Turning Point

The Gallup poll also reveals some interesting statistics on attitudes about marijuana legalization based on regional and demographic information. In the West, a majority (53 percent) say they would support legalization in their state as a way to generate revenue through taxing marijuana. Support for such a plan is only in the 30s in the South and Midwest, however, with the East coming in at 44 percent on the question.

When it comes to age, younger people, not surprisingly, are more likely to support pot legalization. According to the poll, 50 percent of those 18 to 49 support legalization, which represents an 11 percent jump since 2005. But just 28 percent over the age of 65 do, with 45 percent support by those between 50 and 64.

When it comes to ideology, the poll finds that liberals are overwhelmingly in favor of legalization (78 percent) and conservatives are overwhelmingly opposed (72 percent). Moderates as a group are just slightly opposed, with 46 in favor and 51 percent opposed.

Marijuana legalization bill gets a hearing in California

admin — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:49:13 +0000

By Jim Sanders

The Sacramento Bee

Legislation to make California the first state to legalize marijuana for recreational use lit up a Capitol committee hearing Wednesday with three hours of lively but mellow debate.

No joint consensus was reached.

Dozens of people crammed into the Assembly Public Safety Committee session to discuss potential impacts of the proposal to allow pot to be taxed and sold openly to adults 21 and older.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat who proposed the measure, Assembly Bill 390, contends it could generate much-needed revenue and free peace officers to focus on worse crimes.

“Prohibition results in chaos, which is pretty much the situation we have now,” Ammiano said shortly before the hearing.

But John Standish, president of the California Peace Officers’ Association, testified that approving public pot use could exacerbate problems from illnesses to absenteeism.

“There is no way marijuana could protect and promote our society,” he said. “In fact, it radically diminishes it.”

Phillip Smith, 55, described himself as a pot smoker who otherwise abides by the law.

“All I want is to be left alone,” he said.

Medical marijuana use already is legal in California, but not recreational use. More than 78,500 people were arrested in 2008 on pot-related offenses, state records show.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken no position on AB 390.

To read the complete article, visit www.sacbee.com.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1306052.html

Obama Isn’t Plotting to Legalize Marijuana. But Everyone Else Is

admin — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:47:27 +0000

Whenever matters of marijuana policy make their way into the national spotlight, you can count on coming across some really ridiculous analysis from folks who haven’t exactly been paying attention. There are many ways to misunderstand the marijuana debate, my favorite of which might be the theory that — even though it’s all over the news — it’s actually part of a secret conspiracy.

Here, we have the editorial board of The Washington Post speculating that Obama’s recent medical marijuana announcement could be part of a plan to legalize marijuana without anyone noticing:

Yet this policy shift leaves significant questions unaddressed, including whether the Justice Department’s decision essentially constitutes a first step toward legalizing marijuana. Such an immense policy decision should not be ushered in surreptitiously, but should be tackled head-on, with a full-throated public debate about the possible benefits and consequences.

This is just completely delusional on multiple levels:

1. The administration leaked the story to the AP on a Sunday night, which is the opposite of secretive. That’s what you do when you want a week’s worth of intensive media coverage.
2. Telling the DEA not to arrest sick people is a far cry from supporting legalization for everyone. It’s very possible – and very common – for people to support the former and not the latter. For example…
3. The Obama Administration is opposed to legalization. They’ve said so before and after last week’s medical marijuana announcement. That question is not “unaddressed” even remotely.
4. There’s a “full-throated public debate” about marijuana legalization going on right now. And The Washington Post has been participating in it with numerous recent stories and editorials. You want us to send more op-eds?

I can’t even begin to fathom how The Post came up with this craziness, but if they want more debate, I’m ready to rock. I’ll show up at your office tomorrow morning with 15 awesome ideas for marijuana stories that I guarantee you The New York Times hasn’t thought of yet. And I ask for nothing in return, except some acknowledgement that marijuana legalization is not a secret conspiracy, but rather a defining issue at this moment in American politics.

Update: Pete Guither has more.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2009/oct/27/obama_isnt_plotting_to_legalize_

Marijuana Legalization Reader’s Thoughts

admin — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:18:43 +0000

Two new reader opions today. Thanks you both. If you’d like to have your opinion posted on our website, please send us your thoughts on our “contact us” page. - Admin

“I believe marijuana should be legalized. Consider the fact that alachol kills, cigarettes kill, but have you ever heard of or seen of a death from marijuana? You can’t overdose, or anything. America needs money. Leglization of marijuana is the best for this problem. Sure medical marijuana is a step forward, but what about us who do it to relax? Such as myself. Marijuana eases pain, cigarettes cause future pain. Cancer, and even death. Over…well a lot of damn deaths from marijuana. Im smokin whether its legalized or not. But god forbid it should be legalized. God made it, “the all healing plant” Man made beer, god made Pot, who do you trust?” - Michael

“I think that the government should legalize marijuana for many reasons. There is no way that weed can kill you, the amount it would take to overdose is impossible to smoke, literally. There are also no long term effects, if anything its helping everyone with their eyes and to feel better! I mean smoking may make you a little more forgetful and lazy but people do that on their own. If the government would sell weed first off they could make a shit load of money,because of taxes, they would put a lot of dealers out of business, make them get REAL jobs…I mean the list goes on and on however im in class and must go! Thanks for reading “- Delia

Is Justice paving the way for legalizing marijuana?

admin — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:22:19 +0000

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.)

Did we just legalize marijuana?

admin — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:20:30 +0000

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

States Pressed Into New Role on Medical Marijuana Issues

admin — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:17:37 +0000

But it’s not a proposal that any of the five leading candidates for governor is willing to embrace.

“If the whole society starts getting stoned, we’re going to be even less competitive,” Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown - who as governor signed a 1975 law reducing possession of small amounts of pot to a $100 misdemeanor - said on a recent radio show.

“Like electing Jerry Brown as governor, the idea of legalizing drugs is one more bad idea from a bygone era,” said Jarrod Agen, spokesman for Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner, the state insurance commissioner.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom says the state needs “a new direction in drug policy,” but opposes legalizing marijuana -though he welcomes an “open dialogue” on the subject as he seeks the Democratic nomination.

Ammiano’s bill

The candidates’ views pose one more obstacle for Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, who has acknowledged that his bill to legalize and tax marijuana, AB390, is a long-term project.

Ammiano has yet to enlist any legislative co-sponsors. Winning majority votes appears to be a distant goal, despite Democratic control of both the Assembly and state Senate. Persuading a governor to sign the bill won’t be easy, and at the end of the gantlet, federal law still prohibits marijuana possession, cultivation and distribution.

At least people are talking about the subject, said Ammiano spokesman Quintin Mecke. “The deeper the economic hole becomes for California, the further the conversation will progress,” he said.

The debate could also shift to the ballot box, as legalization advocates hope to sidestep the Legislature and put an initiative before the voters next year, when they will also be choosing the next governor.

California has been a leader in liberalizing marijuana laws. The state was one of the first to end felony penalties for possession 34 years ago, and became the first, in a 1996 ballot initiative, to legalize the medical use of marijuana.

Legalization for personal use, however, is a much tougher sell.

Police groups strongly oppose it, politicians fear being seen as soft on drug dealers, and federal law, if enforced, could make state legislation an exercise in futility. It’s unlikely to be a major issue in the governor’s race, but it’s a revealing subject for several candidates.

Republican Tom Campbell, for example, has denounced the government’s war on drugs in past campaigns, saying the billions of dollars that go to eradication and imprisonment would be better spent on treatment. Opponents, including Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whom the former South Bay congressman unsuccessfully challenged in 2000, have attacked him as soft on drugs and a would-be legalizer.

Organized crime

Campbell, however, says he opposes legalizing marijuana because it could open the door to organized crime. Law enforcement contacts, he said, have warned him that Mexican marijuana distributors also dominate the methamphetamine trade, and “if you legalize the one, you run the risk of creating a distribution mechanism for the other.”

Brown, a still-undeclared candidate for the office he held from 1975 to 1983, uses 1960s lingo to take a top-cop stance.

Asked July 18 on Oakland radio station KKGN about taxing legal pot sales to help balance the state budget, Brown replied, “As far as telling everybody to - what did Timothy Leary say, ‘Tune in, turn on, and drop out’? - that will not be the recommendation of the attorney general.”

New revenue sources are worth considering, he said, but a stoned society means “more broken families and more angry husbands and wives. … We need more discipline, we need more focus, and we’re going to have to work harder.”

Newsom takes a different tone, in keeping with his need to appeal to young voters as he challenges Brown for the Democratic nomination.

The war on drugs is “an abject failure,” the mayor says, consuming “precious, limited public safety dollars” by treating nonviolent offenders the same as violent felons. But when pressed on legalizing marijuana, spokesman Nathan Ballard said Newsom doesn’t think it’s a “responsible way to balance the state’s budget.”

On the Republican side, Meg Whitman, the former chief executive of eBay, said she opposes legalizing marijuana for any reason. “We have enough challenges in our society without heading down the path of drug legalization,” she said in a statement.

Attack on opposition

Poizner turns his opposition to legalization into an attack on Brown and the “bygone era” of the ’60s as well as raising taxes on marijuana or anything else.

“Only those who are smoking something think tax increases will lead to economic growth,” said Agen, Poizner’s spokesman.

One advocate of legalized pot shrugs off the candidates’ positions.

“Supporting legalization probably risks losing the support of law enforcement,” but “I think opposing it is going to turn off some younger voters,” said Dale Gieringer, California coordinator of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

On this issue, he said, “the public’s perceptions are always ahead of the politicians.”

What gubernatorial candidates have said about pot policy

Meg Whitman: “I am absolutely against legalizing marijuana for any reason. We have enough challenges in our society without heading down the path of drug legalization.”

Gavin Newsom, whose campaign spokesman says he opposes legalization: “I welcome an open dialogue in California on the relative merits of legalization of cannabis. … While marijuana has positive medicinal properties, it also has adverse effects.”

Attorney General Jerry Brown: “If the whole society starts getting stoned, we’re going to be even less competitive. And we’re going to have more broken families and more angry husbands and wives.”

Former Rep. Tom Campbell: “The principal (Mexican) distributors of marijuana are also dominant forces in meth. If you legalize the one, you run the risk of creating a distribution mechanism for the other.”

Jarrod Agen, spokesman for Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner: “The idea of legalizing drugs is one more bad idea from a bygone era. Nor can California smoke its way out of the structural budget deficit.”

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

SF Chronicle

Activists planning pot legalization ballot measure for 2010

admin — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:27:37 +0000

Activists have launched a campaign to legalize marijuana in California, but the path could provide difficult.

An Oakland-based group filed papers with the state and now has to collect more than 430,000 signatures to get its measure on the November 2010 ballot. The campaign is being spearheaded by legalization activist Richard Lee. It’s one of several efforts to legalize pot in California, including legislation being proposed in Sacramento.

According to the Lee’s group, the proposal would allow people 21 and over to possess up to an ounce of the drug and also would allow property owners to grow a certain amount of pot.

There has been much talk in recent months of legalizing marijuana and perhaps taxing it as a way of generating needed revenues for the cash-strapped state. But it’s unclear how much support there is for the issue, and there’s debate about how much money such a move would actually raise. Some law enforcement organizations believe legalization would cause more crime and drug trafficking.

–Shelby Grad - LA Times

Marijuana - Science tells us it’s not as bad as we thought

admin — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:25:24 +0000

Growing up in the ’60’s, marijuana was the preferred recreational drug of my generation. While beer and other alcohol may have been the choice of the fraternity crowd, the cool kids recreational drug of choice was marijuana.

Living close to Santa Monica Bay, my wife and I frequently stroll the Venice boardwalk to soak in the flavor of the beach and witness the antics of the wacky local Venetians. For the last several years, we couldn’t walk the boardwalk without being approached by a local vendor inviting us to meet with a local doctor to get our marijuana prescription filled. “Whatever ails you, marijuana will cure you”.

I always considered the prospect of decriminalization of marijuana as a positive step since its use was no worse than alcohol or cigarettes and enforcement of antiquated marijuana laws were a waste of resources. I really didn’t believe that marijuana had a legitimate medical use but, with a wink and a nod, I supported initiatives designed to legalize its use.

Well, it looks as though current marijuana research may be changing my original opinion of its medical benefits. According to an L.A. Times article, recent research points to the following benefits and risks of marijuana consumption:

THE GOOD

Pain:

Marijuana has been shown to be effective against various forms of pain ranging from chronic low grade pain to severe pain and seems to be effective against nerve pain that’s resistant to opiates.

Cancer:

While no one is arguing that marijuana will cure cancer in humans (at least not yet), it has been shown to be effective in combating pain, nausea and loss of appetite in cancer patients undergoing traditional cancer treatments. According to an October 2003 review article in the journal Nature, marijuana may even have a positive effect on blocking the growth of tumors in lab animals.

Other Potential Benefits:

Multiple Sclerosis

AIDS wasting syndrome

Muscle spasms

Tourette’s syndrome

Glaucoma

THE BAD

Addiction:

The same National Institute on Drug Abuse that has yet to determine whether marijuana increase the risk of lung and other cancers, says that repeated use could lead to addiction and heavy users may experience withdrawal systems such as irritability and sleep loss if they stop suddenly.

Respiratory disease:

Several studies in New Zealand and Australia have concluded that smoking one marijuana joint is at least 2.5 times more harmful to the lungs than one cigarette and that pot smoking can lead to one type of lung disease 20 years earlier than cigarette smoking.

Psychological effects:

It appears that heavy pot smoking affects the parts of the brain that controls memory, attention and learning. (Those readers who have partaken in this herb can relate to that last sentence). Also, studies have showed loss of tissue in two areas of the brain, the hippocampus and amygdala which are areas of the brain that are rich in receptors for marijuana and are a vital memory and emotional region of the brain.

THE ANSWER

Perhaps a way to overcome the adverse health concerns that will allow consumers to reap the benefits of marijuana is to not smoke marijuana (as a joint or in a pipe) but to inhale its vapor. According to a study published in 2007 in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vaporizing is a safe and effective way of getting THC, the active ingredient, into the blood-steam and does not result in consuming toxic carbon monoxide.

While inhaling marijuana vapor and not its smoke will help alleviate the adverse physical affects; regular, heavy non medicinal pot smoking or THC vapor ingestion should be avoided. It’s not good for your brain. Otherwise, contrary to the original conventional wisdom, for some of us marijuana may offer more benefits than risks.

UPDATE:

For those Southern California readers who are interested in finding a doctor to prescribe medical marijuana, the can check out this Cannabis center site.

The Examiner - Fred Gober

TV Networks Profit From Pot, But Won’t Talk of Legalization

admin — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:10:34 +0000

Marijuana legalization is the hottest topic in the media these days. MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, FOX, NatGeo, and CBS News have presented special features on marijuana business, medical marijuana, and the marijuana legalization movement. Google Trends is showing double the interest in searches and news hits for the term “marijuana legalization”. Showtime’s hit series Weeds, about a suburban mom turned pot dealer, is entering its fifth season. Everywhere you look, corporate media are happy to profit from America’s most popular herb.

Unless you want to address marijuana’s illegality and the lives that are shattered by the effects of marijuana prohibition. In that case, the corporate media cannot have anything to do with you, even if you want to pay to broadcast the message of ending adult marijuana prohibition.

Case in point: CBS. At the end of June, CBS’s new internet radio venture, ChatAboutIt.com, contacted NORML. One of our advisory board, Ann Druyan, advertised her podcast in Talkers Magazine, an industry journal for talk radio. ChatAboutIt was interested in hosting Druyan’s show, but Druyan wasn’t interested in the offer.

This is where I come in. I am a talk radio professional, having hosted my show (The Russ Belville Show) on XM Satellite Radio and AM 620 KPOJ in Portland, for almost two years. I have guest-hosted for the extremely popular Bill Press Show in Washington DC. For the past year and a half, I have hosted NORML’s Daily Audio Stash, the organization’s daily news and interviews podcast. I contacted ChatAboutIt to discuss creating a new live talk radio show dedicated to this incredibly popular phenomenon around medical marijuana and marijuana legalization called NORMAL SHOW LIVE.

Throughout the negotiations, the salesman from ChatAboutIt was fantastic. He joined me and NORML’s executive staff by conference call. We emphasized that we are NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. We told them that we would have advertisers involved with promoting marijuana - legally, as they are co-ops and dispensaries in California and Colorado - marijuana-themed magazines, doctors, clinics, authors, musicians, and so on. We told them we would be talking about marijuana legalization, our web page would have marijuana leaves on it, callers would be talking about marijuana, and, oh, by the way, did we mention that the show was about marijuana?

It’s all good, we were assured by the salesman. He said he’d run it all by his VP and this was fine. He said we’d own all our content and we could run all our ads. We verbally agreed this was a go and all we needed to do was to raise the $6,000 necessary to pay for the first two months of broadcast. We explained that we’d need to produce some press releases to raise the money. To be sure we weren’t saying or promoting anything in any way that CBS would not approve, we submitted our release to CBS, which did make some changes. They approved of our revised release and we posted it on the NORML Blog and front page on Wednesday.

Thursday morning I receive a call from the salesman at ChatAboutIt. “People higher up” had seen the release “on the blogs” and they “will not green light your show.”

Now, CBS has all the right in the world to decide what to put on their airwaves or cyberstreams; I’m not crying “censorship”. If they want to pass up affiliation with the most recognized brand in marijuana and a professional live call-in show dealing with the hottest topic in the media, that’s their call.

What I am crying, though, is “hypocrisy”.

See, CBS owns Showtime. That very same Showtime that’s aired for the past five years the tale of Nancy Botwin, suburban pot-dealing mom on Weeds. A show that films many scenes in the legal marijuana clinics and dispensaries in California that would be our advertisers. A show that just this year signed contracts with NORML to allow display of our trademark in the scenes where it is shown in Weeds.

And it cannot be that CBS is OK with airing a dramatic interpretation of marijuana culture, but afraid of airing a serious news program about marijuana culture. CBS News has an entire web special feature entitled “Marijuana Nation” (not-so-coincidentally the tag line of NORML SHOW LIVE) devoted to all their news coverage about marijuana dating back to Mike Wallace in 1968.

CBS will show Weeds to make money off of people who like marijuana, but won’t allow its banner advertisements for Weeds to be seen on any website trying to keep those marijuana lovers from arrest and a criminal record. CBS will pepper their news coverage and websites with cannaporn* and cannabusiness, but won’t allow a non-profit organization attempting to legalize those industries to have a voice on their networks.

Case #2: In addition to hosting NORML’s podcast and social blog, I am NORML’s Outreach Coordinator. In this position I recruit activists from all across the country (even the US Virgin Islands) to organize NORML chapters. These independent affiliates host events, gather petition signatures, and provide education to the community to counteract the anti-marijuana propaganda from the government (such as our “drug czar” recently proclaiming - in California, no less - that “Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit.”)

I was contacted by the tour manager for the “Blazed and Confused” Tour. The artists performing in the most pro-marijuana concert of the summer are Mickey Avalon, Bob Marley’s son Stephen Marley, San Diego rockers Slightly Stoopid, and Snoop Dogg, probably the most recognizable person alive associated with marijuana aside from Willie Nelson. They, particularly Slightly Stoopid, wanted NORML chapters to host marijuana information tables for the concerts and offered us the opportunity for free.

I combed through my chapter listings and got them NORML booths for over half the shows. At the show in Portland I got to interview Miles from Slightly Stoopid and wander around backstage. The props for the Stoopid show were two massive five foot skulls with pot leaves on the forehead. Snoop’s show featured a huge backdrop reading “Tales from the Crip” and marijuana leaves were all around. Everyone performing at or attending this concert was very pro-marijuana legalization.

Yet this morning I’m contacted by the tour people who tell me they need to cancel the booth we have scheduled for the show last Saturday in Orlando. It seems the venue is the Hard Rock, and “because they are a Universal owned company they are much more conservative than your typical venue.”

This Universal, of course, is NBC Universal, the parent company to the MSNBC and CNBC networks that reported their highest ratings ever for their marijuana-themed news reports on the burgeoning cannabis business in California. The same NBC Universal that is happy to sell you Cheech & Chong’s Next Movie, Dazed & Confused, and Half Baked on DVD. The same NBC Universal that has no problem allowing Snoop Dogg to get the crowd at the Hard Rock in Orlando to chant “Legalize It”, but somehow can’t let a couple of college kids in NORML T-shirts hand out educational fliers about why we should legalize it.

Case #3: Another marijuana legalization organization, Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), produced an excellent TV ad calling for passage of a bill to tax and regulate cannabis for adults. The governor had recently called for an open debate about legalization and MPP created this thirty second ad to begin that debate:

Certainly a sober and non-sensational way to debate the issue. Yet when MPP offered the ad to California stations, Los Angeles’ KABC (ABC) and KTTV (FOX), San Francisco’s KGO (ABC), and San Jose’s KNTV (NBC) refused to accept the ad. KNTV said their standards department wouldn’t approve the ad. KGO issued an official “no comment.” KABC and KTTV didn’t even bother give the courtesy of a “no comment” - they would not respond to MPP’s inquiries.

I’ve detailed NBC’s and CBS’s profiting from cannabis culture. You’d think ABC, being a part of the Walt Disney Corporation, would generally shy away from profiting from cannabis culture. But a little digging shows they own Miramax films, which this year released Adventureland, a comedy about teenagers smoking and dealing weed while working at an amusement park and in 2001 offered Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, the adventures of two inveterate stoners who wrote a stoner comic book. FOX for eight years aired That 70’s Show, a ratings hit whose signature sight gag was teenagers sitting in a smoke-filled basement passing around a joint or bong (never seen, however), with the camera focusing on each character as they “passed the dutchie on the left hand side.”

So it is OK for the corporate parents of CBS, NBC, ABC, and FOX to profit from movies and TV shows that satirize marijuana culture, but they have a “standards and practices” problem with their broadcast affiliates showing 30 seconds of a 38-year-old woman suggesting we should tax and regulate marijuana.

Keep in mind in these cases, we are talking about one part of the big media company raking in huge profits with shows about the marijuana community, while another part of the big media company refuses the free educational fliers, paid advertisements, and pay-to-play broadcasts BY AND FOR the marijuana community. Marijuana is the modern day minstrel show - we’re allowed on the air as long as we keep on our “greenface”, shuck and jive (or would it be “smoke and pass”?), and never forget our proper place.

By the way, the NORMAL SHOW LIVE mentioned in Case #1 will still be going on the air, as promised, on Labor Day Weekend. Unlike CBS, we keep our promises to our customers. The money raised will go into promotions and producing our show through the facilities of BlogTalkRadio.com, which was happy to accept our business, and quite frankly, offers us a better production technology at one-sixth the price. Tune in every Saturday Night at 9pm Eastern for two hours of intelligent discussion about marijuana legalization.

* Cannaporn is the news specials that like to show lots and lots of pictures of big green sticky buds and the people smoking them, usually the same stock footage they’ve run for years with the most stereotypical “stoner” types they can find, lots of pictures of bongs and tie dyes, some b-roll from a music festival, or body-armored police helicoptering in to chop down marijuana plants, while intoning the reefer madness du jour about increased potency, psychosis, or clandestine cartel grows and violence that wouldn’t exist in a legal market. In other words, not what you will find onNORMAL SHOW LIVE.
Normal.org

Where will Christians fall when the marijuana debate lights up?

admin — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:06:46 +0000

EVERY YEAR around the 20th of April, the press is infiltrated with a surge of pot-related stories, complete with as many tongue-in-cheek headlines as editors will allow. This year’s coverage was somehow different, mostly in that it didn’t evaporate into thin air (now even I’m doing it) after the “holiday.” Rather, it seems, the coverage around marijuana picked up steam over the week of April 20 and is carrying on even now, well into the summer.

One explanation is that in the midst of a recession, America is willing to consider hitting the pipe, toking the spliff, bonging the, um, bong. Mainstream politicians like California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are actually considering the legalization of marijuana (though it won’t happen this year). Congressmen like Barney Frank from my home state of Massachusetts and Ron Paul from Texas are also on board. Reversing the Bush administration’s policy, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Federal law enforcement will not pursue medical marijuana users in California, where the drug is legalized for medicinal purposes.

American culture seems to have moved on a long time ago. References to marijuana use are so breezily tossed around that one might assume that the stigma related to this still illegal drug has gone the way of lava lamps. In the Christian world, weed legalization is mostly absent from the conversation, but there, the silent assumption about marijuana’s legality probably goes the other way.

But younger Christians might be a different story. This week, 21 people were arrested for marijuana possession at a Christian concert in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. In late April, the evangelical blog Burnside Writer’s Collective quizzed its young-ish readers on a series of pot-related questions. Should marijuana be legalized? Fifty percent of responders thought so, and the next largest percentage said it should at least be decriminalized. Have you ever smoked marijuana? Fifty percent said yes, 40 said no. The 10 percent in the middle respond, in uniquely young evangelical fashion, that they have smoked once or twice. (Doesn’t that just mean “Yes?”) Finally, an overwhelming majority claim that even if weed was legal, they still wouldn’t smoke it.

Like many other Western political dilemmas, Scripture doesn’t have an entry on cannabis—not even general statements on hallucinogens. Without the comfort of “the Bible tells me so,” it seems that Christians take an array of positions on their consumption, from “it’s awesome” to “it’s illegal” to “it’s witchcraft.” With so little on the subject in our texts, Christians must consider the same questions as any public official: would the legalization of marijuana be good for our economy? Would it be bad for the youth? Are the hurt it might cause drug cartels and the lessened burden on the penal system more convincing arguments than the claims that it is a gateway drug or will drastically increase drug use?

Perhaps the two most convincing arguments for marijuana legalization are the fiscal benefits of legalizing and taxing the sale of marijuana, and the impact that decriminalization would have on the overrun justice system. Just as the government slaps a tremendous tax on the sale of tobacco products (it’s over $5 in New York City), taxes on marijuana products could create a much-needed stream of income for all levels of government. Additionally, if marijuana use became legal, the resources, monetary and otherwise, spent on arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations of minor drug offenders could be redistributed to other, arguably more pressing endeavors.

Rather than admitting defeat in the never-ending War on Drugs, legalization could in many ways, be a means for the United States to score a major victory. The blow to drug dealers, gangs and cartels that are substantially fueled by illegal marijuana sales could be nearly incalculable and, again, the government could focus its energies on stopping the flow of harder drugs. Finally, by legalizing the production and sale of marijuana, the Federal Drug Administration and other government agencies would have the opportunity to regulate it, ensuring that users don’t become seriously ill due to tainted or laced pot.

For the time being, however, the seemingly more influential arguments are those in favor of marijuana’s continued illegality. Without a doubt, the most common argument against legalization is the assertion that marijuana is a “gateway drug.” The gateway drug theory postulates that those who use pot eventually find their way into other, more serious drugs. Though it is often pointed out that this is nearly impossible to measure, it still remains the most influential line of reasoning against marijuana use, both legally and illegaly. It is also argued that legalization would make it easier for children and teenagers, for whom the drug would presumably be illegal, to gain access to pot.

There is one other argument for legalization that may tip the scales: the fact that the marijuana’s illegality is a major inconsistency in government policy. Selling or smoking weed is a criminal offense, while alcohol and tobacco products are freely produced, sold and consumed by Americans. Sure, we need the FDA to regulate and restrict drugs that have been proven far more harmful than beneficial, but marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol when both are used in moderation, and when given the choice, I’d prefer to be around someone who smoked too much pot rather than drank too much. Of course people will abuse marijuana as they do alcohol, but we don’t accept that as an argument for prohibition.

No one should be surprised when, sooner rather than later, the real possibility of legal marijuana becomes even more ubiquitous in the news and in everyday conversations. Changes like this don’t come quickly, nor should they. The fact that this debate has been going on for decades and continues with no end in sight is not necessarily a bad thing. Let us consider all points of view and, in the end, make the choice that is best not only for our economy and government, but, indeed, for our citizens as well. With no easy answers in sight, perhaps this is what it means to work out our faith with fear and trembling. And you know what they say is good for calming that trembling don’t you …

Patrol.com

Move to legalize marijuana takes root

admin — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:03:12 +0000

Dan Neil hits the nail on the head (”" July 7). The relatively minor negative consequences that Olympic swimming champion Michael Phelps had to endure for being outed for his marijuana use is Exhibit A that the war on marijuana is coming to an end. The American people are tired of the hypocrisy and extremism inherent in the war on (some) drugs.

In a 1969 Gallup poll, only 12% of Americans supported making marijuana legal. By 2005, support had grown to 36%. And in a Zogby International poll taken earlier this year, 44% of Americans said marijuana “should be taxed and legally regulated like alcohol and cigarettes.” The most interesting information, however, is in the demographic breakdown.

Fifty-eight percent of Americans in Western states, and 48% in East Coast states, support taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol. Of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29, 55% say marijuana should be legalized; 53% of Democrats support legalization (as do 45% of independents and about one-third of Republicans). Fifty-three percent of Latinos say tax and regulate, according to the Zogby poll (45% of African Americans, 42% of whites and 41% of Asian Americans agree). And poll numbers are rising.

Both California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and New York Gov. David Paterson recently said marijuana legalization should be considered and debated. Arizona Atty. Gen. Terry Goddard, citing evidence that Mexican drug-trafficking organizations get 60% to 80% of their revenue from marijuana, has suggested that members of Congress at least debate legalizing marijuana as a way to undermine crime syndicates. A bill pending in the California Legislature to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol (AB 390) is garnering national attention. Meanwhile, some San Francisco Bay Area activists aren’t waiting for Sacramento to act; they have drafted a voter initiative and may begin gathering signatures to qualify it for the 2010 ballot.

In Congress, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Rep. Ron Paul (R- Texas) have introduced legislation to decriminalize possession of marijuana for personal use. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said at a recent hearing, “There’s no question that with the limited resources we have … that we ought to decriminalize” marijuana.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) argues for decriminalization in a new book. He introduced legislation to create a national commission to study the U.S. criminal justice system and make recommendations on how to reduce the number of Americans behind bars, with a particular emphasis on reforming drug laws. More than one-third of U.S. senators are co-sponsors of the bill, and it is expected to pass the Senate sometime this year.

President Obama said a few years ago that marijuana should be decriminalized, although he doesn’t speak about it now. It’s hard to see, though, how Obama can reach his goal of “shifting the paradigm, shifting the model, so that we focus more on a public-health approach” to drugs, without some degree of decriminalization or legalization. At a minimum, he needs to end the criminalization of people who use drugs. No other health issue is dealt with by the criminal justice system.

In February, the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, a high-level commission co-chaired by former presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, called for a “paradigm shift” in global drug policy, including decriminalizing marijuana and “breaking the taboo” on open and robust debate about all drug-policy options. Mexico’s Congress recently decriminalized not just possession of marijuana but possession of all drugs, so Mexican police can focus on violent crime.

In a report released last week, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime cited Portugal’s decriminalization of drug use as a model for eliminating jail time for drug users, increasing access to treatment and decreasing drug-related problems. The agency recommended countries focus on violent drug traffickers instead of arresting and prosecuting people for drug use. It rejected drug legalization but concluded that “the system of international drug control has produced several unintended consequences, the most formidable of which is the creation of a lucrative black market for drugs and the violence and corruption it generates.”

Almost every measurement criteria that can be used shows the U.S. and the rest of the world trending away from prohibitionist policies. After decades of allowing drug markets to be controlled by thugs and gangsters, policymakers and voters alike are warming to legalization, which would bring control and regulation where none exists now. In fact, California has already legalized marijuana. Sure, it’s only for medical use, but all the elements of a heavily controlled system are there: regulated dispensaries, licensing and taxation. A similar system, perhaps tighter, could be developed for non-medical marijuana.

Bill Piper is the director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Legalizing marijuana gaining steam? Not in Florida which has the harshest pot laws in the country

admin — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:15:26 +0000

Many states are looking at possible reform legislation with regard to medical marijuana use and outright legalization.The Marijuana Policy Project began running an ad campaign touting the legalization of marijuana as a way to help California dig their way out of their current budget crisis. The 30 second spot features a 58 year old school teacher, Nadene Herndon, who points out that taxes could help offset cuts faced by schools, health care and police:

We have a major problem in California with our budget,” said Herndon, 58, a former state analyst who started eating marijuana-infused treats after a series of strokes three years ago left her with shoulder spasms. “We need to explore other alternatives. Source: Sacramento Bee

California is one of 13 states that have legalized medical use of marijuana beginning in 1996. In 2004, California expanded the program to allow patients to cultivate marijuana plants collectively. Over the last six months, the number of dispensaries has grown exponentially. The City of Sacramento alone has 30 such distribution centers. The growth of these pot stores has been attributed to the Obama Administration’s promise not to prosecute dispensaries as long as they adhere to state laws.

Seems like pretty exciting times for advocates of ending marijuana prohibition. Not if you live in Florida. We read about Florida’s number one ranking in prescription drug overdoses and the rapid expansion of pain clinics and wonder why that isn’t being given more attention. To combat the prescrition drug issue, the State passed a law that critics say will do nothing to curtail what has become the true drug problem in Florida.

Drug dealers come to Florida from all over the country to buy prescription drugs because the laws are so weak and yet if you are caught with marijuana, even for medical reasons, they can put you in jail. In Florida, the lawmakers seem more interested in carrying out their political agendas then in doing what is in the best interest of all of the people of Florida. Sadly, but not surprisingly, Florida’s legislature did not see fit to include any marijuana policy reform on their recent legislative agenda.

Although President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have both stated that the federal government will no longer expend resources interfering with state medical marijuana laws, Florida legislators have yet to catch on to what modern scientific research, the public, and at least 13 other states already know — sick and dying patients do not belong behind bars for using medicine that has been recommended by a doctor. Please contact your legislators today and ask them to introduce medical marijuana legislation next session. Source: MMP.org

Not only does Florida possess the harshest marijuana laws in the nation, but at a time when most of the country is coming to the conclusion that perhaps it’s time to ease off the penalties with regard to marijuana, Florida upped the ante:

On June 17, 2008, Gov. Charlie Crist (R) signed into law HB173/SB390, which carelessly lumps real drug dealers and small time offenders into the same category by creating the ridiculous judicial presumption that as few as 25 marijuana plants — one-fourth the amount the federal government considers a trafficking threshold — makes one a “drug trafficker.” Florida already had the dubious honor of having the nation’s harshest marijuana possession laws — less than 20 grams can land you in jail for a year and cost you $1,000. Even worse, possession of more than 20 grams is a felony. This new law puts Florida even further ahead of the draconian pack as the Sunshine State can now claim a trafficking standard 4 times as tough as the federal government’s! MMP.org

Whether or not the push for outright legalization of marijuana in California is successful is anyone’s guess. Between the success of the medical marijuana program and the current budgetary disaster, it certainly seems like the stage is set for a breakthrough to occur. In May, Governor Schwarzenegger stated that “it’s time for California to study whether to legalize and tax marijuana for recreational use”. That’s a pretty strong statement for a Republican Governor to make and those in favor of legalization are pulling out all the stops to continue the momentum that is building.

The timing of the Marijuana Policy Project’s ad couldn’t be better. Other states facing similar revenue shortfalls should watch carefully to see if California decides to pull the trigger on this much debated issue. If they do, they would become the first state brave enough to stop the hypocrisy that continues to exist with regard to prohibition in this country.

Economically, statistics are so one sided in pointing out the cost benefit analysis regarding legalization that 500 of our country’s top economists were moved to sign an open letter to the President in support of legalization of marijuana:

We, the undersigned, call your attention to the attached report by Professor Jeffrey A. Miron, The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition. The report shows that marijuana legalization — replacing prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation — would save $7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods. If, however, marijuana were taxed similarly to alcohol or tobacco, it might generate as much as $6.2 billion annually. Source: About.com

The Marijuana Policy Project takes a very pragmatic approach in their arguments for legalization of marijuana:

1.Prohibition does not work.

2.They would rather see a regulated industry with standards and guidelines rather than leaving it up to drug dealers and cartels as it is today.

3. With 40% of all arrests in this country related to marijuana, (over 870,000 users and growers) the police have much more important things to do.1.Prohibition does not work.

As for Florida, a local group called People United For Medical Marijuana (PUFMM) is currently circulating a petition to place a medical marijuana question on the 2010 statewide ballot. PUFFM will need to collect 676,881 valid signatures to present the question to voters.(If you are interested in signing the petition, you can click on their link above) We can only hope that enough people can convince our legislators that people who are sick and in pain shouldn’t be penalized for using a substance that eases that pain. It’s the last thing they should have to worry about.