Filed under: Hemp&Law, hemp in general | Tags: cannabis, Dea, drug, enforcement, ganja, hashish, hemp, marijuana, pot, skunk, weed
Oregon — By the 1930s, using marijuana was illegal in Oregon and it has remained that way — except for medicinal use — ever since. A group of local residents is aiming to reverse history.
The Legalize Ashland organization hopes to make adult marijuana use the lowest law enforcement priority and legalize the production of industrial hemp by May 2009.
Eventually the activists want to make legal recreational use of pot, giving it a similar status as alcohol, according to their Web site and MySpace page.”It is time for Ashland’s laws to reflect the priorities of its citizens. The majority of the citizens of Ashland believe that spending money on the enforcement of misdemeanor possession of marijuana is a waste of budget resources, and that public policy should reflect this,” the group’s Web site states.
Group members did not respond to e-mail messages sent to the address listed on the Web site.
The site states that the group held a meeting Sept. 13 at the Ashland Public Library to discuss putting an initiative on the city ballot next year.
A handful of cities across the country, including Seattle and Oakland, have passed similar laws.
Dan Rubenson, an economics professor at Southern Oregon University, said he would like to see a serious discussion about the implications of legalizing pot.
“I see us spending huge amounts of money for prosecuting and especially for incarcerating people for what I see as victimless crimes and so, from that perspective, I say, ‘Let’s talk about this,’” he said.
Rubenson, who is not affiliated with Legalize Ashland, endorsed a 2005 economic study urging public officials to engage in an “open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition.”
“We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods,” the endorsement states.
According to the “Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States” study by Jeffery A. Miron, a visiting professor at Harvard University, legalizing marijuana would save approximately $7.7 billion annually in law enforcement fees. Taxing pot, like other goods, would yield about $2.4 billion per year and approximately $6.2 billion annually if marijuana was taxed like alcohol or tobacco, the study states.
“I tend to look at things in terms of notions of efficiency and also there’s a little bit of a Libertarian flavor there. Why should we intervene in people’s lives unless there’s a significant reason to?” Rubenson said.
He said the benefits of legalizing marijuana could outweigh the costs.
“I think it’s something that’s worth talking about. I’m not trying to prejudge the outcome of the conversation, but anytime we’re spending so much money on something that doesn’t seem to be working, it’s time to talk about why we need to keep dong that.”
“When we look at it, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of evidence that making marijuana illegal is having a huge effect on keeping people from using it.”
Rubenson said legalizing marijuana could “put criminals out of business” by eliminating some drug trafficking and regulating distribution.
Vicki Brown, division manager for the Jackson County Public Health Department, said she doubts public health officials would support decriminalization of marijuana use.
“I think it would probably drive down the price, which would mean it would be more accessible and I think anything with widespread acceptance will become more popular. It remaining illegal and there being consequences (for using pot) definitely deters use,” she said.
Brown said the Public Health Department feels that the costs of using marijuana outweigh any benefits, unless it is being used for medicinal purposes and is recommended by a doctor.
“From our perspective, we don’t view it as harmless. It definitely has health consequences and it affects basic respiratory health if the person’s smoking it. It definitely impairs judgment and it’s definitely used abusively,” she said.
Deputy Police Chief Rich Walsh said the Ashland Police Department doesn’t focus on enforcing marijuana laws as it is.
“We don’t have the manpower or the personnel to put a huge effort into it. It’s not one of our priorities. Most of what we enforce (regarding marijuana) is just kind of because we run into it.”
It’s possible that if using marijuana was decriminalized for adults, illegal use among teens could increase, he added.
“Generally speaking, I think the more that you see adults doing whatever it is that it may be, (teens) are going to see that and think it’s OK. And then they may not have the education to know that it’s not OK. The question is, are they educated enough to make a good sound decision?
“It’s kind of like medical marijuana. You can basically go out and stub your toe and get a medical marijuana card, and say your toe hurts. And that’s just not right,” Chief Walsh said.
Source: Ashland Daily Tidings
Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: cannabis, cannabis law, Dea, ganja, hashish, hemp, Jerry Brown, marijuana, medical cannabis, medical marijuana, pot, Proposition 215, skunk, therapeutic use, weed
CA — California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s new attempt to settle the nerves of medical marijuana dispensers and patients is a weak attempt to make proposition 215 stronger.
Attorney General Brown has introduced an eleven-page directive aimed at clearing up some issues between state and federal governments. He believes his new guidelines will minimize legal worries and ease patient worries.
In 1996 when proposition 215 was passed by an overwhelming vote, medical marijuana dispensaries started popping up like Trader Joes all over the state. People started getting prescriptions for their “back pain” and everyone was happy.
At the same time, federally, this was all very illegal.
Twelve years has gone by and dozens of dispensaries have been opened, been raided, and been reopened just to be raided again. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been made from the profits and millions have been spent on trying to fight the legislation.
Brown’s eleven-page directive now gives police the ability to distinguish between criminals and legitimate marijuana sellers. It also protects patients from getting arrested unlawfully. Brown’s plan also will change dispensaries into non-profit or cooperatives, to cut out big money operations that exploit the medical label and sell to just about anyone.
One other step Brown wants to take is to change the amount of pot on the market, making it so only a patient, caregiver or dispensary could grow the small amount of medical marijuana needed. Brown’s plan has just cleaned up the legislation at the state level. It will not stop the DEA from raiding dispensaries or harassing patients.
The police should already be able to distinguish criminals from legitimate marijuana sellers. Don’t the legitimate guys usually sell during the day at a place with a sign that says medical marijuana in neon green?
As for turning these dispensaries into non-profits, they probably only report a quarter of their earnings as it is so this will be no big hurdle for them to get around. I am sure there are millions of tax-free dollars going through legitimate dispensaries.
The amount of pot on the market will not change by only allowing patients or dispensaries to grow the plants. The law now says a patient is allowed to grow up to six plants and a dispensary is allowed to grow six plants per patient it serves. There is no way a dispensary knows how many patients it has from week to week or even day to day. If they have 65 regular patients they must 65 people that try and go to a different dispensary every week. Does that mean they have 130 patients and are allowed to grow 780 plants?
Making all these changes at the state level is continuing to get the medical marijuana laws nowhere. The changes need to be made federally and only then will the dispensers be able to run their business with out fear from the DEA.
Note: Medical marijuana laws must be changed federally to have any impact.
Source: Sonoma State Star
Filed under: Hemp&Law, hemp in general | Tags: Boston, cannabis, Dea, drug, ganja, hashish, hemp, marijuana, Massachusetts, pot, skunk, war on drug, weed
Boston, MA — Backers of a pro-marijuana ballot initiative charged yesterday that 11 district attorneys from Massachusetts violated campaign-finance laws and twisted the truth about the question.
Whitney Taylor, of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, said the DAs raised and spent money to oppose the question before forming their Coalition to Save Our Streets. Campaign-finance laws require groups to form a committee before raising and spending money.
Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone brushed aside the group’s criticism, calling it a “ploy” to distract attention from critics of the ballot question.
Leone attended a rally on the steps of the State House yesterday with other district attorneys, police, clergy and community organizers to call for the measure’s defeat.
“I’m not sure what the proponents of this question were smoking when they brought this to our state,” said the Rev. Jeffrey Brown. “We don’t need more weed.”
The question would make possession of an ounce or less of marijuana a civil rather than criminal offense, punishable by a $100 fine.
Opponents say such a change in law would essentially normalize the use of marijuana, while supporters say it would reduce a burden on the criminal-justice system by sparing those found with small amounts from facing a criminal record and jail.
Taylor’s group has filed complaints with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance and the attorney general’s office, and against the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association and the public-relations firm hired to handle opposition to the question.
“This was an attempt to keep their organization as covert as they could for as long a possible,” Taylor said. The group also named Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett and Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz individually.
Taylor said state records show the district attorneys began raising money as early as July 18, but didn’t file a statement of organization with the state until Sept. 5.
An official from the Office of Campaign and Political Finance said the Coalition to Save Our Streets was originally formed as a political action committee that the district attorneys used to oppose Question 2. They changed their status to a ballot question committee on Sept. 5, after being informed that they needed to make the switch.
Taylor’s group has raised far greater sums than the district attorneys’ group, according to campaign finance reports.
The district attorneys raised just $27,670, virtually all of it from their own campaign accounts, while Taylor’s group has raised nearly $650,000.
The vast majority of the money raised by Taylor’s group came from outside Massachusetts, including a $400,000 donation from billionaire financier and liberal activist George Soros and $180,000 from the Washington D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project.
Taylor also faulted the district attorneys for using their state Web site to urge voters to oppose the question, and for misrepresenting the initiative.
In a statement on the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association Web site, the district attorneys say if the question is approved “any person may carry and use marijuana at any time.”
Taylor said if the question passed, possession of marijuana would still be illegal and anyone carrying or using marijuana would face a $100 fine.
Leone called Taylor’s accusations “a weak ploy to try to derail the public’s attention” about the negative fallout if the question failed. He said district attorneys are free to use money from their campaign accounts to support or oppose ballot questions.
At the rally, speakers said easing penalties would threaten recent positive trends in marijuana use among teens. They also said there’s a link between marijuana use and crime, car accidents and workplace safety.
“The same people dealing drugs now will be dealing drugs in the future, except they will have fewer obstacles,” said Suffolk District Attorney Dan Conley. “Why would we put another monkey on society’s back?”
The district attorneys also said that existing law is fair.
Massachusetts law requires first-time drug offenders be placed on probation and that, at the successful conclusion of probation, “the case shall be dismissed and the record shall be sealed.”
If the question is approved, Massachusetts would become the 13th state to lift or ease criminal penalties on marijuana possession.
Source: Providence Journal
Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: cannabis, Dea, drug, ganja, hashish, hemp, marijuana, NORML, pot, skunk, war on drug, weed
USA — If denial is the first sign of addiction, then Drug Czar John Walters is hooked to the gills. He’s addicted to targeting and arresting marijuana consumers, and he’ll do and say anything to keep this irrational and punitive policy in place.
Speaking earlier this month on C-Span, the reigning Czar stretched his usual deceit to outrageous new heights. Responding to a question from the Marijuana Policy Project’s Dan Bernath, Walters flatly denied the charge that over 800,000 Americans are arrested annually for violating pot laws.
“We didn’t arrest 800,000 marijuana users,” Walters proclaimed. “That’s [a] lie.”
If only it were.
According to data released yesterday in the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report, police in 2007 arrested over 872,000 US citizens – that’s nearly one out of every two Americans busted for illicit drugs — for weed.
(The raw data is available from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation here and here.)
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/index.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_29.html
That figure is a five percent increase over the total number of Americans busted in 2006. It’s more than three times the number of citizens charged with pot violations sixteen years ago.
Of those arrested in 2007, 89 percent – some 775,000 Americans — were charged with simple pot possession, not trafficking, cultivation, or sale. (By comparison, 27 percent of those arrested for heroin and cocaine offenses were charged with sales.) Three out of four were under age 30; one in four were 18-years-old or younger.
The FBI’s tally is the highest marijuana arrest total ever-reported in law enforcement history. If this pace continues, annual arrests for pot will surpass one million per year by 2010.
But to hear America’s top drug cop tell it few, if any, citizens are ever arrested for pot possession, and absolutely no one goes to jail for breaking marijuana laws.
“The fact is today, people don’t go to jail for the possession of marijuana,” Walters alleged on C-Span. “Finding somebody in jail or prison for possession of marijuana is like finding a unicorn. It doesn’t exist.”
Not true says the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, which reported last year in black and white — perhaps the Drug Czar is reading impaired – that 12.7 percent of state inmates and 12.4 percent of federal inmates incarcerated for drug abuse violations are serving time for marijuana offenses. Combining these percentages with separate U.S. Department of Justice statistics on the total number of state and federal drug prisoners suggests that, at a minimum, there are now about 33,655 state inmates and 10,785 federal inmates behind bars for marijuana offenses.
(The report failed to include estimates on the percentage of inmates incarcerated in county or local jails for pot-related offenses, nor did it take into account the number of inmates serving time for violating the terms of their marijuana-related probation, such as those who submitted a ‘dirty’ urine to their parole officer.)
No matter how one slices it, that’s a lot of unicorns.
It also begs the question: Why does the Drug Czar feel the need to go to such absurd lengths to hide this overt outgrowth of American drug policy? After all, the US Drug Enforcement Administration and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy typically issue chest-thumping press releases when they achieve record busts for offenses involving cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine? Why then do they shy away from making similar proclamations for pot?
Perhaps it’s because, deep down, even the Drug Czar knows that the use of cannabis does not pose anywhere near the health and safety threat as does the use of other intoxicants, including alcohol, and that most Americans – rightly – would be outraged to learn that our nation’s so-called war on drugs is really just an assault on young adults caught with small bags of weed.
Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director of NORML and The NORML Foundation in Washington, DC.
Note: Cannabis arrests now comprise nearly 47.5 percent of all drug arrests in the United States, 89% of them for mere possession.
Source: AlterNet
Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: California, cannabis, Dea, ganja, hashish, hemp, marijuana, medical cannabis, medical marijuana, pot, Santa Cruz, skunk, war on drugs, weed
CA — A landmark decision for all Californian’s quietly made history on August 20th in a Santa Cruz courtroom. For the first time since 1996, when the Compassionate Use Act was passed, the federal authorities have been charged with violating the 10th Amendment for harassing medical marijuana patients and state authorities.
The case of Santa Cruz vs. Mukasey, was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who said the Bush Administration’s request to dismiss a lawsuit by Santa Cruz city and county officials, and the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), wasn’t going to happen.
In a recent telephone interview with Alan Hopper, an ACLU counsel familiar with the case, I asked him what came next?
”The plaintiff will get a get a court-ordered discovery document that will allow them to get documents, and even depositions, from the federal authorities to support their claims,” he explained.
So now it’s the city, county, and WAMM’s turn to prove their case against the federal government. The court has recognized a concerted effort by the federal government to sabotage state medical marijuana laws, which violates the U.S. Constitution. The significance of this ruling, the first of its kind, cannot be overstated.
California voters may finally get what they asked for a dozen years ago. When the court said that the federal government had gone out of its way to arrest and prosecute some of the most legitimate doctors, patients, caregivers, and dispensary owners that had been working with state and local officials, it finally drew a line-in-the sand.
An example of the federal authorities violations was their pursuit of WAMM. This non-profit group has been around for many years, and has been fully supported by the city and county of Santa Cruz. They have been referred to, by officials, as the model medical marijuana patient’s collective.
The group was functioning so smoothly that the city even allowed them to hold regular meetings to distribute marijuana to its patients on the steps of city hall! The federal agents still went after them, which brought about this court decision.
When the ACLU filed this lawsuit to stop them from targeting medical marijuana providers and patients, they opened a door that may finally lead to no federal interference in California’s medical marijuana law.
We must not forget that medical marijuana brings in about $100 million each year in tax revenue. Conferring total legitimacy to the law will allow this cash flow to continue, and hopefully, increase over time.
When the judge ruled the feds were threatening physicians who recommended marijuana, he set the stage for regaining patient’s rights. The ruling clearly pointed out that the feds were also threatening government officials who issue medical marijuana cards, and interfered with municipal zoning plans.
In the summation, the court found that, “There was a calculated pattern of selective arrests and prosecutions by the federal government with the intent to render California’s medical marijuana laws impossible to implement and therefore forced Californian’s and their political subdivisions to re-criminalize medical marijuana.”
In a recent column, I mentioned California’s Attorney General Jerry Brown had passed out an 11-page directive that all law agencies were to go by. I expressed concern that the federal authorities would ignore those guidelines, but upon finding out about this recent ruling I now have some cause for hope.
It sure sounded like Hopper was looking forward to the next phase, and he seemed confident that positive change lay ahead. Asked which presidential candidate would be more amenable to upholding medical marijuana laws, he cleverly replied that he thought they both would be willing to work for change. He could be right too. This is a year of change.
This on-going battle with the federal authorities ignoring California’s laws has been well-documented in the past. Why hasn’t there been more coverage for such an epic ruling? Its potential as breakthrough legislation is something all Californian’s should know about in my opinion.
The war against medical marijuana hasn’t been won yet, but this could be the breakthrough everybody’s waited for. At the core of the war waged by the federal government against the voter’s will, is the failed War on Drugs by the Bush Administration. It’s about time someone told them to back off.
As It Stands, we can score this as a successful round for state’s rights.
Source: Times-Standard
Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: California, cannabis, Dea, ganja, hashish, hemp, marijuana, medical cannabis, medical marijuana, pot, prop. 215, skunk, weed
California — After more than a decade of roiling confusion over what California’s groundbreaking medical marijuana law and subsequent enabling legislation do and do not allow, state Attorney General Jerry Brown sought to clarify matters by issuing a long-awaited set of guidelines for patients, providers, and law enforcement. In addition to clarifying what is permissible under state law, Brown also hoped to damp down the ongoing conflict between state and federal authorities over medical marijuana in California.
Under the guidelines, medical marijuana dispensaries must operate as not-for-profit collectives or cooperatives, and are prohibited from buying marijuana from growers who are not themselves patients or registered caregivers. The only fees dispensaries can collect are those covering overhead and operating expenses.
The guidelines strongly urge patients to obtain state medical marijuana ID cards and advise police to accept such cards as proof of legitimate medical need. The guidelines also call on police to return seized marijuana to patients who are later proved to be legitimate. They prohibit medical marijuana patients from lighting up near schools and recreation centers or at work, unless employers approve.
Affirming that California’s medical marijuana law is not preempted by federal law, the guidelines further direct “state and local law enforcement officers [to] not arrest individuals or seize marijuana under federal law” when an individual’s conduct is legal under state law.
But while providing protections to patients and non-profit dispensaries organized as co-ops or collectives, the guidelines could provide a green light for law enforcement to go after the store-front dispensaries that have sprung up like mushrooms in some areas of the state. In ballyhooing a Friday raid against a Northridge dispensary by California Bureau of Narcotics Agents, Brown signaled Monday that a crackdown could be looming.
Accusing the Today’s Healthcare dispensary and its operators of criminal behavior by operating a profitable business, Brown went on the offensive. “This criminal enterprise bears no resemblance to the purposes of Proposition 215, which authorized the use of medical marijuana for seriously sick patients,” he said. “Today’s Healthcare is a large-scale, for-profit, commercial business. This deceptively named drug ring is reaping huge profits and flaunting the state’s laws that allow qualified patients to use marijuana for medicinal purposes.”
California law enforcement pronounced itself pleased with the guidelines. Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, praised Brown for promulgating them. “Since Proposition 215 was passed, the laws surrounding the use, possession and distribution of medical marijuana became confusing at best. These newly established guidelines are an essential tool for law enforcement and provide the parameters needed for consistent statewide regulation and enforcement.”
Despite the apparent threat to non-compliant dispensaries and their suppliers, most medical marijuana advocates also pronounced themselves generally satisfied with the guidelines. The medical marijuana defense group Americans for Safe Access has been working with Attorney General Brown and his predecessor, Bill Lockyer, for several years in an effort to see guidelines promulgated. ASA spokesman Kris Hermes said this week that while the guidelines are not perfect, they are a step in the right direction.
“We’ve been urging them to come out with an official statement that can direct law enforcement and stop what has been rampant disrespect for state law in some areas,” he said. “From that perspective, the guidelines are a huge step forward. They provide a blueprint for local law enforcement to develop sensible policies around patient encounters, and they recognize the validity and law-abiding nature of medical marijuana dispensaries in California. That’s huge,” said Hermes. “These guidelines are a boon for patients, police, and everyone else in the state and will greatly advance the implementation of state law.”
“Given the vagueness of the initiative and the statutes, the guidelines are pretty good,” said Bruce Mirken, San Francisco-based communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. “They establish parameters within which the distribution of medical marijuana is to be treated as legitimate and legal. That’s important because some prosecutors have been adamant that there is no legal authority for dispensaries — period. This cuts the legs out from under them,” he said.
“They were about what we expected,” said Dale Gieringer, head of California NORML. “Most of the guidelines are consistent with what our attorneys have been saying and advising their clients to do all along. There are a few problem areas, but these guidelines will help fill the vacuum.”
One problem Gieringer pointed out was that the guidelines say dispensaries may possess and distribute only lawfully cultivated marijuana, and that they cannot purchase from or sell to non-members. “There is nothing in either federal or state law against purchasing marijuana, so we don’t see any legal basis for saying it’s illegal to buy from outside vendors,” he said.
Another potential problem is that the guidelines say that co-ops and collectives should document their activities and record the source of the marijuana they purchase, Gieringer said. “That is going to be problematic until we have some assurance of protection from being arrested by the DEA, and we don’t want to see the cops come in and seize the records, and then bust the growers.”
“While there is much about the guidelines that is positive, we also have some worries about some of the dispensary language,” Mirken said. “Requiring dispensaries to be non-profit is just silly. Is Jerry Brown going to demand that Walgreen’s and Riteaid become charities, too? If society thinks private enterprise and the profit motive are a logical way to distribute goods and services, why not medical marijuana?”
Still, said Mirken, the guidelines are a step in the right direction. “Given that we have all these issues here in California, anything that moves us in the direction of an orderly system with some legal clarity is a good thing. When you have local authorities who just don’t like medical marijuana and are looking for an excuse to bust people, which some of them have been doing all along, this is going to provide protection.”
But at least one Bay Area dispensary operator was not so impressed. “Let’s see how it all plays out,” said Richard Lee, proprietor of Oakland’s Bulldog Coffee Shop and SR-71 dispensary and key promoter of the Oaksterdam scene. “Hopefully, it will help people in more repressed redneck areas and not hurt people in more progressive areas like Oakland and San Francisco.”
Although Brown’s guidelines call for dispensaries to be organized as co-ops or collectives, Lee has not incorporated in that manner and has no plans to. “We’ve been here eight years,” he said. “We were here before they even passed SB 420. Oakland has a system that allows reasonable profits; it’s set up for the clubs to run like any other business, and we are fine with that. Does Jerry Brown really want to come in and mess with Oakland’s system that works?”
While the guidelines could result in a temporary decrease in the number of dispensaries as non-compliant ones either close their doors or have them closed for them by law enforcement, the end result will most likely be more dispensaries opening in areas of that state that are currently underserved because of local law enforcement or official hostility.
“I’m not too worried about a short term decrease in the dispensaries if it brings a little more rigor,” said Gieringer. “Things have been fast and loose, and we have some rogue operators who wouldn’t normally be operating in a legal market. We will lose some of those people, which could result in a short term decrease in availability, but in the medium term, this should be balanced out by the increase in availability in currently underserved areas.”
While not everyone is happy with all aspects of the guidelines, the state of California has now taken a big step toward legitimizing its medical marijuana industry, reducing the confusion surrounding the state’s medical marijuana law, and sending a strong signal to the DEA that it intends to police itself.
Source: AlterNet (US)
Website: http://www.alternet.org/
Filed under: Hemp&Law, hemp in general | Tags: California, cannabis, Dea, ganja, hashish, hemp, marijuana, pot, skunk, weed
California — A threat from federal drug officials is forcing El Dorado County’s medical-marijuana clinic to lease a new headquarters.
The Medical Marijuana Caregivers Association of El Dorado County previously leased from a landlord who received written notice recently from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. The notice said the agency had discovered the lease agreement between the caregivers association and the landlord, and warned the arrangement violated federal drug law.
Matt Vaughn, director of the local caregiver association, said budget matters are forcing a move at the same time the DEA letter is, so it could be worse.“The consequences are minimal for us, but in general, if they did get a DEA letter, it’s going to cost a landlord a good renter,” Vaughn said.
In 2007, the agency began warning landlords, all of them in southern California.
“The goal is advice,” said Special Agent Sarah Pullen. “The Los Angeles field office sent out nearly 200 letters.”
In bold-face type, the letters warned landlords that California’s 10-year-old Compassionate Use Act legalizing use of medical pot did not protect them from federal law criminalizing the providing of space for distributing any drug named on the federal Controlled Substances List.
“Violation of this law is a felony crime, and carries with it a penalty of up to 20 years in prison,” the letters said. “In addition, federal law allows for the seizure of assets, including real property, which have been used in conjunction with the distribution of controlled substances.”
Soon, the notice program expanded to northern California.
“The DEA San Francisco Office sent out approximately 50 letters to property owners,” said Special Agent Casey McEnry..
The DEA does not recognize California’s voter-approved legalization of medical marijuana. Pullen said the DEA is out to shut down all California med-pot dispensaries by any legal means necessary.
“There are hundreds of them in L.A.,” she said. “Our resources are limited. We use them as we can.”
She declined to provide a cost estimate for the letter-writing program.
Source: Folsom Telegraph (CA)
Website: http://folsomtelegraph.com/
Filed under: Hemp&Law | Tags: cannabis, Dea, drug, ganja, hash, hashish, marijuana, pot
USA — The United States has some of the world’s most punitive drug policies and has led the cheering section for tough “war on drugs” policies worldwide, but a new international study suggests that those policies have been a crashing failure. A World Health Organization survey of 17 countries, conducted by some of the world’s leading substance abuse researchers, found that we have the highest rates of marijuana and cocaine use.
The numbers are startling. In the United States, 42.4 percent admitted having used marijuana.
The only other nation that came close was New Zealand, another bastion of get-tough policies, at 41.9 percent. No one else was even close. The results for cocaine use were similar, with the United States leading the world by a large margin.
This study is important because it’s the first time a respected international group has surveyed drug use around the world, using the same questions and procedure everywhere. While many countries have their own drug use surveys, the questions and methodology vary, and comparisons between countries are difficult. This new study eliminates that problem.
Some of the most striking numbers are from the Netherlands, where adults are permitted to possess a small of marijuana and purchase it from regulated businesses.
Some U.S. officials have claimed that these Dutch policies have created some sort of decadent cesspool of drug abuse, but the new study demolishes such assertions: In the Netherlands, only 19.8 percent have used marijuana, less than half the U.S. figure.
Even more striking is what the researchers found when they asked young adults when they had started using marijuana.
Again, the United States led the world, with 20.2 percent trying marijuana by age 15. No other country was even close, and in the Netherlands, just 7 percent used marijuana by 15 — roughly one-third of the U.S. figure.
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy tried to dismiss the study, Bloomberg News reported:
Trying to find a link between drug use and drug enforcement doesn’t make sense, said Tom Riley, spokesman for the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy in Washington. “The U.S. has high crime rates but we spend a lot on law enforcement and prison,” Riley said yesterday in a telephone interview. “Should we spend less? We’re just a different kind of country. We have higher drug use rates, a higher crime rate, many things that go with a highly free and mobile society.”
Funny, ONDCP takes precisely the opposite line whenever a state considers liberalizing its marijuana laws. In a March press release, deputy Drug Czar Scott Burns railed against a New Hampshire proposal to decriminalize marijuana, saying such a move “sends the wrong message to New Hampshire’s youth, students, parents, public health officials and the law enforcement community,” and would lead to “more drugs, drug users and drug dealers on their streets and communities.”
Back in 2002, denouncing a proposed marijuana law reform in Nevada, ONDCP distributed a list of talking points to prosecutors specifically slamming the “extremely dubious” Dutch system of regulated sales, saying, “Increased availability of marijuana leads to increased use of marijuana and other drugs.”
In fact, ONCDP’s latest excuse for the failure of U.S. drug policies — that enforcement and penalties don’t really have much effect on rates of use — is probably just about right. But it also dynamites any justification for our current marijuana laws. The WHO researchers put it this way:
“The U.S., which has been driving much of the world’s drug research and drug policy agenda, stands out with higher levels of use of alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis, despite punitive illegal drug policies. … The Netherlands, with a less criminally punitive approach to cannabis use than the US, has experienced lower levels of use, particularly among younger adults. Clearly, by itself, a punitive policy towards possession and use accounts for limited variation in nation level rates of illegal drug use.”
For this we arrest 830,000 Americans a year on marijuana charges?
Bruce Mirken is director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project.
Complete Title: The World Health Organization Documents Failure of U.S. Drug Policies
Source: AlterNet (US)
Website: http://www.alternet.org/
As Americans have become more health and environmentally conscious, the demand for hemp products has grown substantially. Hemp seed oil is one of the best natural sources of the two essential fatty acids that our bodies can’t manufacture and we just can’t live without. In addition to its health properties, hemp oil has potential as an alternative to petroleum-based fuels and plastics, and its fiber could replace trees as the primary source of pulp for paper and timber for construction. Perhaps most importantly, hemp can be grown without the use of chemical pesticides because of its natural resistance to pests.
Indeed, the future potential of hemp seems boundless, but dangerous obstacles lie ahead. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is currently working to make many hemp products illegal, including nutritional supplements and hair and skin care products. The DEA wants to ban any hemp product that is ingested or applied topically.
Since hemp products contain naturally occurring trace amounts of THC — the main psychoactive ingredient found in marijuana — the DEA says hemp products must be outlawed because they are confounding the federal drug testing programs. For the record, hemp products do not cause a psychoactive “high.” Similarly, eating poppy seeds does not have the same effect on a person that consuming heroin does, yet consumers of poppy seeds sometimes test positive for opiates.
Of note, the Department of Justice, in a letter to the DEA, reported that the THC levels in hemp products are too low to trigger the psychoactive high associated with marijuana, and they are not purchased, sold, or marketed with the intent of having a psychoactive effect.
The DEA’s main argument is that the consumption of hemp products and the use of marijuana are indistinguishable in drug tests, and that diminishes the government’s ability to identify marijuana users through current tests.
Contrary to the DEA’s position, recent evidence shows that the consumption of hemp products does not affect the outcome of drug tests. A study commissioned by the Canadian government concluded that “persons who frequently consume food items containing hemp seeds and oil are very unlikely to fail a workplace urine test for marijuana.”
Any day now, the DEA will formally propose its new regulations to ban numerous hemp products. While most new regulations must undergo a 30-day public comment period, it is unclear whether the DEA will allow any opportunity for comment whatsoever. There is no time to waste.
References: Coalition to save Hemp
