Illinois is one House vote away from becoming the 15th state to legalize medical marijuana.

But Rep. Lou Lang, the sponsor of the measure that would enact legalization, is playing it safe. With a subject as sensitive as medical marijuana, he realizes that timing is everything.

“Many members will vote for this,” Lang told the Chicago Reader, “but they’ll only do it once. They’ll go out on a limb once.”

A new report from WBBM shows how tantalizingly close the state truly is to passing the bill. It squeaked out of the Illinois Senate almost a year ago; now, Lang says, more than 90 of the 118 members of the House of Representatives have told him they support the bill. And “he has been promised a vote by Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) if he can muster the needed votes,” the report reads.

The trouble for Lang is that private statements of support may not translate into votes. Nearly 40 of the representatives who support the bill in private say they fear the political fallout of casting an “aye” vote for it in the harsh light of day.

And the clock is ticking on passage of the bill. On January 12, 2011, a new General Assembly will be sworn in. If by that time the bill hasn’t passed the House, the Senate’s vote won’t matter any more; it will be back to square one.

The Chicago Reader’s feature on the issue points out that medical marijuana has been technically legal in Illinois since 1978. But the law passed over 30 years ago, the Cannabis Control Act, required the Department of Human Services and the Illinois State Police to enact new policies on pot before it could be legally distributed. Neither agency has.

The Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, the bill Lang is bringing to the House, would change all that. From the Reader:

It says that with a physician’s written permission, someone diagnosed with a “debilitating medical condition,” and also his or her primary caregiver, can have up to six cannabis plants, only three of which can be “mature,” or in the budding stage, when the levels of active chemicals are highest. The Illinois Department of Public Health would determine procedural specifics, and the law would expire three years after taking effect unless renewed by the legislature.

Marijuana would be used for the treatment of chronic pain. It would serve as a replacement for drugs like Vicodin and Oxycontin, both of which are addictive and can be lethal if overdosed. No tests have shown that either is the case for marijuana.

“The medical profession has no controversy on this, to speak of,” Illinois Public Health Advocate Dr. Quentin Young told WBBM.

The political profession, however, is a different matter. In that line of work, Lou Lang is still operating behind the scenes, trying to put controversy to bed before he calls for the decisive vote.

           

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

           

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.

           

If they aren’t already, elected officials in the District should be keeping close tabs on this year’s election in California.

On Wednesday, advocates for legalizing marijuana officially secured enough signatures to put a referendum on the California ballot this November asking voters to legalize and tax pot.

And, judging by recent legislation in the District, what starts in California often eventually makes it way to the left-leaning District.

San Francisco’s decision in 2007 to ban plastic bags, for example, was one impetus for the District’s recently enacted bag tax. And San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome launched the modern same-sex marriage movement when he issued marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004 — long before the District took up the issue.

And California voters approved a referendum allowing for the medical use of marijuana in 1996 - two years before voters in the District approved a similar referendum. The District’s medical marijuana law is only now being implemented because it was tied up for years on Capitol Hill.

But if California voters approve the legalization of marijuana - which remains an if, because polls show a potentially close election - how long will it be before pro-pot advocates seek to petition a similar measure onto the ballot in the District?

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, estimates it would be six years or less before the marijuana legalization debate makes its way to the District.

“California, like it or not, really pushes American politics and business in one direction or another,” said St. Pierre, noting the issue is also expected to soon land on the ballot in Nevada and Oregon. “I am going to guess four to six years after the citizens of California pass something like this, there is either an initiative here or the city council takes it up.”

Already, D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward has been grumbling publicly that some of the District’s drug laws need to be reformed because too many residents are being locked up for drug possession. But Council member David A. Catania (I-At large), the chairman of the Committee on Health, and other council members have made it clear they do not want the medical marijuana legislation pending before the council to spiral into a debate over outright legalization.

A Washington Post poll conducted in January found District residents were split on whether they supported legalizing small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Forty-six percent of residents favored the idea, but 48 percent opposed.

But while 60 percent of whites supported legalizing marijuana, only 37 percent of African-Americans felt that way, largely due to strong opposition among older black women.

A debate over marijuana legalization wouldn’t be entirely new terrain for the District. In 1977, the city council approved legislation to decriminalize possession of one ounce or less of the drug. But then Mayor Walter E. Washington vetoed the measure, citing the possible effects the law would have on city youths.

And even if legalization advocates won a referendum over the issue in the District, Congress would ultimately have the power to block it from taking place.

It’s hard to see Congress staying out of that debate. But who would have guessed six years ago that the debate over whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the District would have been such a snooze this year on Capitol Hill?

           

You may have heard there’s a push to legalize marijuana in California. You may not have heard that it’s for real.

Voting ballots in California this November will contain an initiative to legalize, tax, and regulate the sale of marijuana to adults 21 and older, and while this may sound like something that has no chance, whatsoever, of ever becoming law, the thing is: it actually might.

The organized campaign around this initiative is called Tax Cannabis, and it’s the brainchild of marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee. “Marijuana entrepreneur” sounds highly illegal, but, in California, where medical pot is sold unobstructed by the feds, it’s not: Lee founded Oaksterdam University, a school that teaches how to grow marijuana and run a marijuana business, as chronicled by Josh Green in The Atlantic last April.

This was not, mind you, originally an effort of the national marijuana policy establishment, per se. According to conventional wisdom on initiatives like this one, 2012 would be a better year to dedicate resources to a marijuana legalization campaign: it’s a presidential election year, and younger and marginal voters–voters who could be more sympathetic to legalizing pot–will come out to vote, whereas fewer people vote in the midterms. People who vote in midterms are more engaged in the process–if pollsters label respondents as “likely voters,” then the midterm turnout is made up of are even likelier voters than the electorate in presidential years–the type of people who might not, typically, support an initiative like this one. So, much like in California’s gay-marriage movement, there was some hesitation over whether 2010 was the right year to do this.

But Lee went ahead anyway, putting up money from Oaksterdam and another of his groups, marijuana provider S.K. Seymore, LLC, to obtain the 849,000 signatures needed to get on the November 2 ballot, with his donations comprising most of the roughly $1.3 million spent in 2009 on the petition drive.

Lee now has a a team of pros working for him as campaign consultants.

It includes Chris Lehane, the former Bill Clinton communications adviser and press secretary for Al Gore, both as VP and in the 2000 campaign; Dan Newman, whose firm SCN Strategies consults for Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D) reelection campaign and is heading up communications for Level the Playing Field 2010, the independent-expenditure campaign against multimillionaire GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman; and Doug Linney of The Next Generation, a firm that has worked for state and local candidate campaigns, as well as major issue-advocacy drives and marijuana decriminalization/law-enforcement-prioritization efforts in California.

In short, this will be a legitimate campaign operation. Tax Cannabis is already airing a radio ad in the state’s largest and most expensive media markets, L.A. and San Francisco, featuring a former law enforcement official.

“This isn’t some…whim of a couple of hippies,” said SCN’s Dan Newman, who is handling communications for Tax Cannabis. “It’s a serious, well crafted, well funded campaign that was put together very carefully and professionally run and hopes to win.”

The campaign will do “everything that a winning campaign does,” Newman said. That would mean radio ads, TV ads, volunteer and/or robo- phone calls, door-to-door canvasses, and direct mail. Newman would not specifically say which of those Tax Cannabis will do.

Messaging will focus heavily on invoking the support of former law enforcement officials, plus the argument that has driven so much media coverage around this push: estimates that legalizing and taxing marijuana could help California’s crippled state budget to the tune of $1 billion, including tax revenue and less spending on law enforcement.

Where will the money come from to fund this campaign? Lee infused it with cash to get the signatures, but according to state financial disclosures, Tax Cannabis has only $32,000 in the bank. The only state-registered opposition group, called “Opposition to the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2010),” has not filed disclosure paperwork, so it is unclear how much money Tax Cannabis is up against.

The campaign is reaching out to a broad coalition of donors, Newman said, including an online fundraising operation and traditional political donors.

But the elephant in the room is this: Tax Cannabis has the support of the Drug Policy Alliance, one of several major, national-level drug-policy reform groups. On its board sits liberal super-donor George Soros.

Given how expensive it is to buy air time in the Golden State–L.A. is one of the nation’s most expensive media markets–it’s not uncommon for political campaigns to wait until a few weeks before Election Day to blast the radio and TV airwaves with a major media buy. And, because California places no limits on donations and spending on ballot initiatives, it is conceivable that if things look close down the stretch, and he felt so inclined, Soros could inject millions of dollars into this initiative.

Right now, the campaign is working to secure endorsements, and the language of the ballot initiative was crafted, Newman said, with an eye toward garnering a broad base of support. It does not simply legalize pot outright: it allows individual counties to regulate the sale and possession to adults over 21, which would likely create a similar effect as “dry counties,” where alcohol can’t be sold. It does not legalize possession of marijuana on school grounds, or driving while impaired. The entire proposition is posted here.

Reformers claim legalization is popular. A major public poll hasn’t been conducted since April 2009, when Field showed 56% support out of 901 Californians polled. Newman says Tax Cannabis has conducted internal polls that show legalization polling in the mid-50s.

November is a long way off. Marijuana legalization gained significant traction in 2009, mostly because of California’s budget crisis, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s suggestion that it be seriously discussed, the drug war happening in Mexico, and the finding of the Field poll.

Although Tax Cannabis is airing a radio ad, a public messaging campaign has yet to ramp up against legalizing pot. When it does–when both sides are conducting this fight in public–look for opinion to congeal either for the ballot initiative or against it.

Until then, legalized pot remains a possible outcome in November 2010.

           

1. My husband and I are MMJ patients. I can tell you first hand I have seen the benefits of MMJ on myhusband with Lupus. With his ups and downs of Lupus and the last medication for Lupus being perscribed 50 years ago is Plaquenil, it only helps to somewhat control Lupus ( it does not help with the pain). The only alternitive for pain is strong addictive pain pill’s that leave you catatonic and unable to be involved with your family or activities you enjoy. My husband also has day’s that every muscle in his body locks up and he can’t even talk to ask for help, that’s when I give him some MMJ vapor’s from the bag then his muscle’s start to loosen up (If I had tried to give him pain pill’s he would throw them up). As for the myth that if you use marijuana you will get nothing done in life is just that “a myth”, my husband has 2 masters degree’s as well as being a engineer, I have compleated many classes for my nursing career as well as classes on despencing medication and have been in the health care field for over 10 year’s. -Michelle

2. Marijunana is more useful than harmful. It can be useful for people with anything from Cancer to anxiety disorders and with FAR less side effects. Most importantly, it’s not a potentially lethal drug like 99% of pain killers, cancer treatments, and anti-depressants. I honestly believe it is not the government keeping Marijunana illegal.. it’s the pharmaceutical companies. If one drug can replace so many other more dangerous drugs that’s bad for business. - Jenn

           

1. Marijauna sould be legalized for two resons.1) if the govenment would go back in time the Amiracan Idians was smokeing pot on peace pipes.witch is the reson they called them PEACE PIPES.2)if the government legalized weed the deficet would go away,Make a pack of weed ciggs put them on the shelf ,tax them,and must be 18 years or older to posess

2.I believe that marijauna should be legalized. There is no reason other than politics that pot should be illegal. The health risks of pot are the same as tobacco, and not nearly as catastrophic as alcohol and presciption pain killers and anti anxiety medications. You can not overdose on marijauna. And if you have to quit you won’t have withdrawl nearly as bad as alcohol and narcotic meds. Thegovernment needs to quit making pot seem so bad. There is nothing bad about it. The only reason the public thinks it is bad and a gateway drug, isbecause the government can’t figure out how to make money off of it. Once they figure that out, it wil be legal and then they will look like the hypocrites they are.

           

California could see a nearly $1.4 billion per year increase in state revenues were it to legalize marijuana, the state Board of Equalization says in an analysis of pending legislation to to do that.

The bill (Assembly Bill 390) by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, is still awaiting its first committee hearing and is likely not to be considered until next year. It would impose not only sales taxes but a $50 per ounce fee on marijuana sales, which would be licensed by the state much as alcoholic beverages are regulated.

Today, although considered illegal by federal authorities, California allows limited sales of marijuana for medicinal purposes, subject to local control, in accordance with a ballot measure approved by voters in 1996. And the state imposes sales taxes on those pot transactions. But wider sales would, under the Ammiano bill, be dependent on federal permission.

California is considered by federal authorities to be the nation’s top marijuana producing state with 8.6 million pounds a year, valued at $13.8 billion, making it one of the state’s largest agricultural crops, much of which is exported to other locales.

           

Reefer Madness! Is marijuana a medical benefit or just a high time for stoners?

And should California – where cannabis is legal for medical use and where dispensaries pay $100 million in taxes annually – legalize marijuana for everyone’s use?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who’s looking for tax money under every rock and tree trunk, says “I think it’s time for debate. I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues – I’m always for an open debate.”

Anna Boyce says the governor is blowing smoke. A longtime activist for the medical use of marijuana, Boyce says she’s not a full supporter of legalizing the herb.

“Besides, what difference would it make in California? Medical marijuana is not legal nationally and that’s where the change has to be made,” she says.

The senior activist – she won the Good Character Award from her hometown of Mission Viejo in 2009 – sees this as a senior issue.

Marijuana, derived from the buds and leaves of the cannabis plant, contains more than 400 chemicals, says a report in the magazine “This Week.” One of these chemicals, THC, works its way through the bloodstream to the brain, producing a relaxing “high.”

The herb is used to treat glaucoma, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and high blood pressure, as well as various AIDS symptoms and chemotherapy.

It can impede short term memory, physical coordination and, like tobacco, contains carcinogens. Federal law says marijuana must be a controlled substance.

Despite the federal restrictions, 14 states have voted to legalize use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, with California the leader in 1996. Today, an estimated 250,000 patients receive cannabis at various dispensaries – 180 in Los Angeles alone. Certain doctors routinely authorize marijuana for their patients.

While she’s calling for a national bill, Boyce, a registered nurse, acknowledges it will probably never happen.

“Big pharma will convince people it should not be legalized,” she says. “There’s no money in it for them. You can grow it in your back yard.”

Ah, little wonder this is a political potboiler.

State Sen. Mark Leno has introduced a resolution that urges the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama’s administration to align national policy with the state laws legalizing the herb.

State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano says legalizing marijuana for general use in California could add $1 billion to the tax coffers. His bill to do that comes up next year.

Meanwhile, the seniors keep on smoking in California.

At a recent Laguna Woods rally for medical marijuana supporters, Margo Bouer, wife of the former mayor, acknowledged she smokes cannabis for relief. She has multiple sclerosis.

“You can’t just go out and buy this stuff,” Boyce says. “You have to get an ID card from the state health department.”

Smoking cannabis is less harmful than smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol, she insists.

“Yet people shut their eyes and their ears. The refuse to investigate the full range of benefits from this magnificent herb,” she says.

“This is not ‘reefer madness’ and people have to stop thinking that way.”

California justices apparently agree with her. On Thursday, a state appeals court ruled medical marijuana growers and patients should be allowed to sue police over illegal raids of their properties.

And one medical marijuana dispenser said earlier in the week he is now making home deliveries to seniors with ID cards allowing them to use cannabis. One of the patients likened ordering the herb to “ordering pizza only better.”

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/marijuana-says-medical-2484916-use-california