The annual Drug & Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA) conference, held in 2012 in San Antonio, Texas, looks like any other industry gathering. The 600 or so attendees sip their complimentary Starbucks coffee, munch on small plates of muffins and fresh fruit, and backslap old acquaintances as they file into a sprawling Marriott hotel conference hall. They will hear a keynote address by Robert DuPont, who served as drug policy director under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Nothing odd about any of this until you consider that the main subject of the conference is urine.

Seventy-seven years old, DuPont adopts the air of a sprightly televangelist as he outlines what he calls “the new battle lines” in the war on drugs, one that “begins with kids.” At the climax of his speech, DuPont offers “the new paradigm” of drug treatment: a program that one controversial Hawaiian judge administers to all drug-addicted probationers he oversees. “If they test positive,” he says, his voice slowly rising into a high-pitched yell, “they go to jail that day! No discussion!… No discretion! To jail that day!”

As DuPont finishes his speech, the hundreds of drug-testing company representatives in the audience rise to give him a standing ovation.

DuPont is in an expansive mood following his speech. Since the 1980s, he has been in the business of selling drug-testing services to employers. As far as he’s concerned, drug tests should be given to “anybody who receives a benefit,” from unemployment insurance to welfare. “Test ‘em all!” he exclaims.

This may sound overzealous, but Republican lawmakers around the country are already enthusiastically embracing the idea of making clean urine a condition of receiving public benefits. Since 2011, seven states have passed laws mandating drug tests for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) applicants and recipients, and in 2012 at least twenty-five other states considered proposals to tie welfare cash assistance, and in some cases also food stamps, to drug tests. In February 2012, Congress passed a law paving the way for states to urine-test the recipients of unemployment benefits seeking work in sectors where such screenings are required. Since then, sixteen states have considered laws tying unemployment insurance benefits to drug tests.

The thirst for urine can be traced to the military’s 1971 Operation Golden Flow, aimed at detecting druggies among Vietnam veterans. Launched in response to rumors of heroin addiction, the test disproportionately netted marijuana users, since one byproduct of marijuana, carboxy-THC, lingers in the body longer than that of harder drugs. (In contrast, the body flushes out the byproducts of harder drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, within a day.) Nevertheless, before long, all service members were required to urinate in a cup at least once every two years.

Then there was the executive order issued by Ronald Reagan in 1986, which warned that “the use of illegal drugs, on or off duty, by federal employees in certain positions…may pose a serious risk to national security.” The order mandated that all federal agencies implement drug-testing programs to “show the way towards achieving drug-free workplaces.” Two years later, Reagan went one step further, signing the Drug Free Workplace Act, which mandated urine tests for every employee working for a federal grantee and even those working for some contractors.

At first, the medical profession dismissed urine testing as “chemical McCarthyism”—and ineffective to boot, since a worker using cocaine several times a week was more likely to pass a drug test than a colleague who’d smoked a joint at a party the previous Saturday night. Meanwhile, most tests ignored alcohol, which is the drug most often blamed for workplace accidents.

“It’s like learning that somebody drank beer three days ago,” says Bill Piper, director of national affairs with the Drug Policy Alliance. “What’s that going to say about how functional they are at work today? It’s unscientific and discriminatory.”

But the Reagan administration saw drug tests as essential for cracking down on a population largely outside the reach of law enforcement: people smoking pot in the privacy of their own homes. “Because anyone using drugs stands a very good chance of being discovered, with disqualification from employment as a possible consequence, many will decide that the price of using drugs is just too high,” read a 1989 White House report.

In the decades since, drug-testing companies have marketed urine tests as a wise investment for all employers. They claim that any drug user is a less productive worker, and more likely to cause workplace accidents, show up late for work or simply quit. Such claims persist despite a 1994 review, by the National Academy of Sciences, of all the independent research published on workplace drug testing, which found little support to back up those claims.

Indeed, one study of employers in the high-tech sector found that drug testing “reduced rather than enhanced productivity.” Performance-based tests, researchers found, are far more effective at assessing a worker’s ability to perform safety-sensitive jobs than drug testing. Unlike urine tests, these tests detect drug impairment and a host of other factors (fatigue, stress, alcohol) far more likely to compromise a worker’s concentration than past marijuana use.

Nevertheless, the escalation of the drug war would prove more powerful than the evidence that undermined it, producing a powerful coalition of government and private industry players determined to convince employers of the wisdom of monitoring their workers’ bladders.

One of the entrepreneurs drawn to the burgeoning drug-testing industry was Elaine Taulé. A longtime DATIA board member, she says she got into the business because she wanted to test her own sons. When she told this to the staff of National Health Laboratories, a major drug-testing lab, in 1987, they were incredulous. “The lab just sort of looked at me and said, ‘What! Do you really think your 17-year-old is going to pee in a cup?’” But Taulé was insistent. “If I say, ‘It’s either your urine or your car keys,’ I may get his urine,” she said. She went on to found her own drug-testing business, NMS Management Services, in 1989.

Taulé’s timing was impeccable. Around the time she started testing her sons, other, much larger players were entering the field, including the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Hoffmann-La Roche, the manufacturer of Valium and a range of popular sleeping pills. The company established one of the first major drug-testing labs in America and won an early urine-testing contract with the Pentagon, leading to $300 million in annual sales by 1987. The following year, Hoffmann-La Roche stepped up its sales efforts with the launch of a major PR and lobbying campaign to “mobilize corporate America to confront the illicit drug problem in their workplaces.” The drug manufacturer called its new campaign “Corporate Initiatives for a Drug-Free Workplace.”

Before long, with the help of a New Jersey–based lawyer named David Evans, Hoffmann-La Roche was organizing workshops around the country to convince employers to set up drug-testing programs. In an interview with The Nation, Evans likened his role to that of “a doctor coming in to talk about how to set up a medical device.” During that first campaign, 1,000 employers signed up. “There’s clearly a momentum here,” gushed Irwin Lerner, then the drug company’s president, at the campaign’s launch in 1988. “I think we’ve tapped a chord among corporate America.”

The sleeping pill manufacturer’s enthusiasm evidently impressed Reagan himself, who delivered a keynote address at the launch of Hoffmann-La Roche’s Corporate Initiatives campaign. Reagan praised the company for making “it clear that not only are drug users not part of the ‘in crowd,’ but unless they quit taking illegal drugs they’ll be part of the out-of-work crowd.”

The drug-testing industry took aim at lawmakers as much as employers. Hoffmann-La Roche, for instance, worked “with federal and state government officials,” according to a press release issued by the PR company hired to market the campaign. Lerner told the press that the drug company also envisioned a “grassroots strategy” to prevent states from passing laws to decriminalize marijuana.

By 2006, 84 percent of American employers were reporting that they drug-tested their workers. Today, drug testing is a multi-billion-dollar-a-year industry. DATIA represents more than 1,200 companies and employs a DC-based lobbying firm, Washington Policy Associates. Hoffmann-La Roche’s former consultant, David Evans, now runs his own lobbying firm and has ghostwritten several state laws to expand drug testing. Most significant, in the 1990s Evans crafted the Workplace Drug Testing Act for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), of which Hoffmann-La Roche was a paying member. Laying out protocols for workplace drug testing, the bill—which has been enacted into law in several states—upheld the rights of employers to fire employees who do not comply with their companies’ drug-free workplace program.

Over the past decade, lobbyists like Evans have focused on what a DATIA newsletter recently dubbed “the next frontier”—schoolchildren. In 2002, a representative from the influential drug-testing management firm Besinger, DuPont & Associates heralded schools as “potentially a much bigger market than the workplace.” That year, the Supreme Court upheld the right of schools to drug-test any student involved in extracurricular activities, from the football team to the chess club. (Many in the drug-testing industry advocate testing all school kids ages 12 and up, but they have failed thus far to convince the courts.)

Like Elaine Taulé, David Evans turned to his own kids for inspiration. He helped the two New Jersey high schools where his children were students to craft drug-testing policies and then set about promoting them as models for schools across the country. In a 2004 radio address, President George W. Bush singled out one of them, Hunterdon Central Regional High School, as a sterling example of “the positive results of drug testing across the country” and proposed committing $23 million of federal education funds to drug-testing high schoolers.

Studies have shown that there is no difference in levels of drug use at schools that subject students to testing and those that do not. And some drug policy experts worry that drug testing may push students away from marijuana and toward drugs such as cocaine, heroin and alcohol—those not generally detected by urine tests.

Nevertheless, Taulé sighed contentedly in the hotel lobby outside DATIA’s 2012 meeting. “It’s like it’s come full circle,” the Florida entrepreneur says. “I started off wanting to help kids, and now I am.” Taulé, who has received two grants from the Department of Education to collect the urine of Florida school kids, somehow can’t stop testing her own sons. Now well into middle age, and both employed at their mother’s drug-testing firm, her sons walk up to us and shyly ask permission to join the interview.

Settling into an upholstered chair across from his mom, 50-year-old Marc Taulé laughs nervously, recalling the last time his mom made him hand over his urine—last year. To everyone’s surprise, he tested positive for cocaine. He’s not a cocaine user; he had been prescribed a painkiller called Lidocaine after minor surgery. “I love them, and just don’t want to see them in trouble,” Elaine Taulé explains.

How has the industry countered charges that its tests catch casual marijuana users more effectively than users of cocaine or heroin? By demonizing pot as particularly destructive. Despite having previously advocated decriminalizing marijuana, the first thing Robert (“Test ‘em all!”) DuPont did after leaving office in 1978 was to hold a press conference declaring that “in many ways it’s the worst drug of all the illegal drugs.” With that declaration, he broke from all expert opinion at the time, including his own. Only three years earlier, he was listed as a co-author of a white paper calling marijuana “a minor problem.”

DuPont, who now sells his services as a “drug-testing management” consultant, would explain his turnaround on cannabis in a PBS interview by saying: “I realized that these public policies were symbolic—all that really mattered was you were for [the decriminalization of marijuana] or you were against it…. I think about it as a litmus test.” In other words, one’s position on marijuana is, above all, a morality test—one in which the use of any illegal drug at all is understood to be a social ill, and therefore the most commonly used illegal drug in America is seen as particularly insidious.

It was not so long ago that the American Management Association published a survey showing that workplace drug testing was rapidly declining. In 2006, HR Magazine cited human resource professionals and testing experts who explained the drop-off by pointing out that drug testing “shows no demonstrable return on investment.” In other words, there was nothing to gain by spending money to ferret out employees who might be perfectly effective workers. This seemed only natural to Lewis Maltby, who in 1999 wrote an ACLU report titled “Drug Testing: A Bad Investment,” and who sees the decline in private employers’ use of drug testing as proof that “testing never meant anything to begin with.” Nearly 60 percent of the 1,000 companies who responded to a DATIA-funded survey in 2011 claimed to drug-test all job candidates. But the same study found a rise in the number of companies that do not conduct any form of pre-employment testing, with several reporting that they do “not believe in drug testing.”

Schools have been similarly reluctant to embrace testing. But industry leaders like DuPont remain optimistic about the benefits of targeting recipients of government assistance. In 2011, Elaine Taulé’s NMS Management Services was one of several companies enlisted by Florida’s Department of Children and Families to inspect the urine of welfare applicants. That year, Republican Governor Rick Scott—whose wife owns a network of Florida clinics that profit from drug tests—signed a law requiring all applicants for cash assistance through the state’s TANF program to take a drug test. Welfare applicants were required to pay the $25 to $30 charged by the drug-testing firms for the tests; those who tested negative would be reimbursed by the state.

The courts struck down Florida’s law soon after it went into effect, following a lawsuit by the ACLU. In the meantime, only 2.6 percent of applicants tested positive for a drug, mostly for marijuana use. The tests cost the state $113,000, in addition to $595,000 in court-ordered retroactive benefits for those who tested positive or refused testing. By July 2012, Florida had spent $88,783 defending the program in court—a costly legal battle that the state ultimately lost when a court ruled in February to uphold the decision striking down the law.

Undeterred, Georgia passed a law nearly identical to Florida’s, although its implementation was put on hold pending the ruling on Florida’s law. (It is unclear how Georgia will proceed now.) In all, in 2012 twenty-eight states considered instituting welfare drug-testing laws; four of them passed welfare drug-testing bills into law. Given that Arizona and Missouri had already recently mandated drug tests for some applicants for social assistance, this brings the number of states currently requiring drug tests for welfare applicants to seven.

In the meantime, several Republican lawmakers in Congress have pushed hard for the mandatory drug testing of anyone, anywhere, applying for welfare. Leading the charge in the Senate is Orrin Hatch, longtime conservative stalwart from Utah, who received a $8,000 campaign contribution in 2012 from the political action committee of Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp), a behemoth in the drug-testing industry and a Hoffmann-La Roche spinoff. Hatch has also received $3,000 from another political action committee to which LabCorp contributes—the American Clinical Laboratory Association PAC—as well as $4,000 in campaign contributions from the PAC of another company with major interests in drug testing, Abbott Laboratories. GOP Congressman Charles Boustany is among those pushing welfare drug testing in the House. In the 2012 campaign cycle, he received $15,000 from Abbott Laboratories’ PAC.

Data released by the National Conference of State Legislatures demonstrates that lawmakers’ obsession with drug-testing the poor has shown no sign of abating in the current legislative session. Twenty-nine states have proposed welfare drug testing in 2013.

A day after assuming the vice presidency of the Kansas State Senate in November 2012, Republican Senator Jeff King vowed that his state would pass a law mandating drug tests not only for welfare but also unemployment recipients. King’s proposal was approved by the House on March 26.

Drug testing for welfare recipients is also being discussed in Ohio and Texas, where Abbott Laboratories spent $133,500 on campaign donations to state politicians in the lead-up to the 2010 and 2012 elections, in addition to more than $500,000 spent by the company on state lobbying contracts since 2010.

Watts Key is the national director of service providers at LabCorp. Sitting in the hallway of the Marriott during the DATIA conference, Key says he’s confident that when the legality of urine testing for benefits is “sorted out,” it will “be a very big part of drug testing.” To him it’s inevitable that welfare becomes “a huge potential market of drug testing.”

He’s hardly the only industry leader pointing to good times ahead. “It’s a matter of time” before drug testing for welfare benefits is widespread, says Philip Dubois, DATIA’s chairman-elect. Dubois’s own drug-testing firm is now gearing up to test welfare applicants in Georgia.

As more states consider mandatory drug testing as a condition of financial help, DATIA staffers are preparing for a busy 2013. “Say Michigan proposes a welfare drug-testing law,” says Laura Shelton, DATIA’s executive director. “What we’d do is look at what we like about it, what we don’t like about it, and then provide [members] the sample text that they can then send to their legislator in support of the law, and if there’s any changes that we suggest.”

Sitting in a hotel hallway at the conclusion of the conference, Shelton says that she envisions a setup in which drug-testing for benefits “would go hand in hand with…welfare. It’s basically the same thing, when you look at it.” Because so many people must undergo drug tests “to have a job to pay taxes,” she reasons, it makes sense that “if that taxpayer money is being used for [unemployment insurance] or for welfare, that testing [should] be a part of that program as well.”

Congress agreed when, in February 2012, it amended federal rules to allow states to drug-test select unemployment applicants. The Drug Policy Alliance dubbed it a “policy [that] broadly expands and subsidizes drug testing in a way that may be difficult to reverse for many years, if ever.” Among the Republican lawmakers who pushed hard for the change was Congressman Dave Camp, who owns at least $81,000 in assets in companies that are major players in the drug-testing industry, such as LabCorp, Abbott Laboratories and Hewlett-Packard. He has also received $5,000 in federal campaign contributions from LabCorp over the past three years.

The Labor Department has yet to issue guidelines to states interested in drug-testing unemployment insurance applicants—but states are hardly waiting for guidance. With sixteen states considering such bills since 2012, the idea has found enthusiastic champions in Texas’s GOP-dominated legislature. Forcing jobless Texans to pee in cups would cost the state $30 million a year, according to the Texas legislative budget office, with $27 million of this sum going to a drug-testing company. Yet last November, Governor Perry publicly endorsed the idea at a press conference with State Senators Tommy Williams and Craig Estes, as well as State Representative Brandon Creighton. All four have recently received campaign money from Abbott Laboratories.

“What better way to shake it and move it, and drive some of ‘em outta the program, than to implement drug testing?” says Chris Williams, a vice president at ArcPoint Labs. His firm is already marketing its “welfare drug-testing services” in more than a dozen states, and providing more hands-on services to one of the lawmakers leading South Carolina’s efforts to drug-test unemployment insurance recipients.

Seated in a secluded corner of the Marriott on the final day of the DATIA conference along with several other ArcPoint executives, Williams explains that the company has been advising Republican State Senator David Thomas, the sponsor of a proposed 2010 South Carolina bill to drug-test the jobless. The bill was defeated.

In 2012, South Carolina legislators considered three separate bills to drug-test the unemployed, and the idea has been championed by the governor, ALEC alum Nikki Haley, who exclaimed at a Lexington country club gathering in September 2011, “I so want drug testing. It’s something I’ve been wanting since the first day I walked into office.” The same year, despite a statewide unemployment rate higher than 9 percent, South Carolina lawmakers slashed the duration for such benefits from twenty-six to twenty weeks.

“Initiatives like this, [which] scapegoat those who need—and are entitled to depend on—basic social insurance programs, are inconsistent with the unemployment insurance program’s purpose and history, insensitive to the realities of today’s economy, and insulting to millions who are shouldering the greatest burdens of job loss and inability to find new work,” says Rebecca Dixon, an analyst at the National Employment Law Project. But for Republican lawmakers pushing to slash a federal program that has become a lifeline for millions of Americans, scapegoating the victims of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression seems to be precisely the goal.

For decades, drug tests have disproportionately targeted vulnerable groups, such as low-wage workers, children and parolees. And everywhere these tests have been institutionalized, civil libertarians have criticized them as an infringement of privacy and rights. Yet if Republican lawmakers get their way, millions of laid-off workers and welfare recipients around the country will be subjected to the kind of intimate intrusion that Elaine Taulé imposes on her middle-aged sons.

Back at the DATIA conference, Marc Taulé, who has been rewarded for his years of subservience to his mom’s urine testing with a position as vice president of business development at NMS, remarks, “We’re still on the random drug-testing program in the Taulé family!”

“I’m sure our nieces and nephews are gonna be random-drug-tested, too!” he adds, his staccato laughter ringing out nervously through the lobby of the Marriott.

This article originally appeared in the Nation Magazine. This story was produced with support from the Economic Hardship Reporting Project.

Isabel Macdonald is AlterNet’s NYC-based publicist. Before joining AlterNet, she was the communications director at the media watch group Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, and her writing has appeared in Extra Magazine, Huffington Post, the Indypendent and Z Magazine.

Newshawk: Afterburner
Source: AlterNet (US)
Author: Isabel Macdonald
Published: April 10, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Independent Media Institute
Contact: letters@alternet.org
Website: http://www.alternet.org/

U.S. legal marijuana sales are projected to hit $1.5 billion this year, and that could look like nothing in just a few years. Data from Medical Marijuana Business Daily shows that total sales could quadruple to $6 billion by 2018 on the back of legalization efforts in Washington and Colorado, as well as the growing medical marijuana industry.

The two states both legalized the recreational use of weed in November. Elsewhere, 18 states and Washington, D.C. have made medical marijuana legal, while 10 others have formal measures pending to legalize medical marijuana, according to the National Cannabis Industry Association.

That’s reflective of a wider acceptance of the drug. A recent Pew Research Center poll discovered a majority of Americans support pot legalization for the first time in more than four decades. As many as 52 percent of Americans support legalizing weed — 45 percent do not — and nearly three-fourths say the amount of money spent enforcing marijuana usage laws is not worth the cost.

Such growing support has led marijuana-tied businesses to pitch their companies to Wall Street investors, the Los Angeles Times reported in March. Take Vincent Mehdizadeh, founder of MedBox, an automated weed dispensing machine company. He’s seeking $20 million from investors in anticipation of potential expansion.

“Everybody’s loosening up a lot because they realize the momentum has shifted and the financial world is going to have to make room for this industry,” Mehdizadeh told the LAT. “Wall Street and investment banks are going to have to come along for the ride, eventually.”

Thinking about investing in the marijuana industry yourself? Be sure to keep the risks in mind. It was reported last year that 500 of the estimated 3,000 U.S. marijuana dispensaries either had been closed by the government or shut down in the past year.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Caroline Fairchild
Published: April 8, 2013
Copyright: 2013 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: scoop@huffingtonpost.com
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Regulations for the medical use of marijuana in Massachusetts are scheduled to be adopted next month, but even then, many key details will remain unresolved, making it likely that dispensaries will not open for many months, a top state health official said Wednesday.

Dr. Lauren Smith, the interim public health commissioner, said in an interview after a meeting of the state Public Health Council that her agency has “a lot of operational challenges” to confront before dispensaries could open, including the development of an interactive, online database that will allow police to check whether patients have been authorized by their physicians to use marijuana.

Physicians would also be required to enter information about the amount of marijuana recommended for each patient.

“We are having to develop from scratch regulatory oversight at the same time an industry is developing from scratch,” Smith said.

“We need a thorough, thoughtful review process,” she said. “To do it right, it’s going to take time.”

For more than two hours Wednesday, Public Health Department staff members detailed the agency’s 45 pages of draft regulations to the Public Health Council, an appointed body of academics and health advocates that is slated to vote on the rules May 8. That would clear the way for the rules to go into effect by the end of May.

Iyah Romm, special advisor to the health commissioner, told the council that the answers to many of their questions had not been worked out and that the agency will address the concerns through a “subregulation” process after the panel’s May vote.

Among concerns is the plan to require medical marijuana dispensaries to test their products for contamination, including heavy metals and pesticides, even though specialists say it is easier to mandate testing than to do it reliably.

Another issue is whether dispensaries will be required to set aside money to compensate any patients harmed by a product. Federal regulations against medical marijuana could make it difficult for companies to obtain liability insurance.

Voters ­approved a ballot referendum in November legalizing marijuana for medical use in the state, and that measure required the Department of Public Health to issue regulations to implement the law.

Smith said the Public Health Department has no staff to oversee the medical marijuana program and would depend on money raised from dispensary licensing fees, which have not yet been set, to hire personnel.

Lack of staff was a concern raised by council member Helen Caulton-Harris, Springfield’s health and human services director. The draft regulations say the Public Health Department will inspect the facilities, including those that produce and sell edible marijuana products, such as candies and cookies.

Typically, local boards of health inspect food establishments in their communities. Harris said that in her experience, when a local business, such as a massage parlor or a barber shop, falls under state jurisdiction for routine inspections, things fall through the cracks.

“A lot of times, because of staffing shortages, those inspections don’t happen in a timely manner,” Harris said.

The state’s draft rules allow communities to pass local regulations for the dispensaries and assess local fees, as long as they do not conflict with state laws.

Among the provisions not included in the draft rules is reciprocity with other states, so patients certified for medical marijuana use in Massachusetts may not be protected from prosecution elsewhere.

A few states, such as Michigan and Arizona, allow out-of-state patients with proper registration cards to possess marijuana in their states, but most do not, and that has caused some problems, said Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access, a nonprofit that advocates for ­research and medical use of marijuana.

“It’s a question we get a lot from patients: ‘I am traveling and can I take my medicine?’ ” Sherer said. “Unfortunately, the answer often is, at your own risk.”

Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Author: Kay Lazar, Globe Staff
Published: April 11, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Globe Newspaper Company
Contact: letter@globe.com
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/

The legalization of marijuana is becoming a topic that is sweeping the nation.  Washington and Colorado recently legalized marijuana use and several other states have or are looking into the issue as well.  In Nevada, a bill introduced by Democrat Joe Hogan would allow residents 21 and older to own up to one ounce of marijuana for recreational use and up to six marijuana plants as well as taxing marijuana sales.

The group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition ( LEAP ) is hoping Nevada joins Washington and Colorado in the legalization of marijuana, though the group’s reasons may surprise you.

LEAP

LEAP is comprised of former law enforcement officers, attorneys and judges who all took part in the “war on drugs,” which President Richard Nixon began in the 70s.  But LEAP argues that the war on drugs not only hasn’t been effective, it’s actually helped fuel the illegal drug trade in the United States.

“The war on drugs causes what it was designed to prevent,” former prosecutor James Gierach said.  “It works in reverse and what seems like a good idea is a bad idea.  It keeps the price of drugs high, but simple laws of economics tell us as we increase the price of drugs, the more someone is willing to supply it so there’s more drugs instead of less of it.”

Gierach said the war on drugs is actually doing more harm than good because of some basic reasons.  The first reason is because prohibition ensures that large numbers of unregulated drugs will be available for people The second reason is because Giearch said the drug cartels themselves are in support of prohibition.  Marijuana is the most widely used drug in the world, Giearch said.  And according to LEAP, by choosing to ban all use of the drug, it drives up the demand for the cartels.

“In 2011, a drug threat assessment was issued,” Gierach said.  “The DEA said cartels are producing 25,100 tons of marijuana a year.  Sixty percent of the money that goes to cartels in Mexico is from marijuana.”

But LEAP’s reasoning for supporting the regulation and taxation on marijuana rather than its prohibition goes further.  Whether it’s gun violence, gang violence and crimes, having to build more prisons, a blanket prohibition on drugs makes those issues worse.

“You name the crisis, the war on drugs makes it worse,” Gierach said.  “It corrupts the police, the kids, we fund terrorism and put guns in the hands of kids=C2=85The law enforcement agencies are working for the cartels and gangs to ensure they are the only outlets for these substances.”

Gierach said that by prohibiting the use of substances, it has led to the creation of synthetic drugs, which can be dangerous to the user’s health.

“The substitutes are much more dangerous, resulting in death, disease and paralysis,” Gierach said.

LEAP also believes that freeing up money that is spent on by often lengthy investigations into drug charges and cases could be used else where to other types of cases.

Nevada

What action Nevada takes on legalizing marijuana remains to be seen.  In the past, people have been in favor of the war on drugs because of different entities getting to keep part of the drug bust money.  But it also needs to be stopped, Gierach said.

“Al Capone was in favor of prohibition,” Gierach said.  “The cartels are.  The street gangs are.  Prohibition is the foundation for the business and helps it become the most valuable commodity on the face of the earth.”

LEAP is optimistic that the national consciousness about marijuana use is changing and he hopes to see all states adopt regulation laws on marijuana use=C2=85and sooner rather than later.

“The pendulum is swinging in regulation control land taxation of drugs,” Gierach said.  “Nationally and locally on a state basis, we can’t pay the price tags that come with prohibition.”

Marijuana has hit White Pine County with two grows found last year with an estimated worth of more than $30 million.  But whether AB 402 will make any movement this session remains to be seen.  Opponents to legalizing marijuana say that it can lead to addiction and that it could send the wrong message to children that it’s OK to do drugs.

State Senator Pete Goicoeceha is one who opposes legalizing marijuana and said that he will not be supporting AB 402.

“I’m very concerned about it, especially the tax they’re imposing,” Goicoechea said.  “It will allow you to have one ounce in your possession and it will be decriminalized.  It opens it wide open for more illegal narcotics.  You’ve got to pay a thousand dollar a gram tax on it, we’ll start seeing black market marijuana.  It’ll throw the gates open.  I will oppose the bill.  I think it’s a gateway drug.  I know it’s for people 21 and older, but it’s illegal for kids to smoke and they find their way.  It’s just a matter of time.”

Goicoechea also expressed concerns passing a bill that goes against current federal laws.

It’s clear the debate surrounding legalizing marijuana is far from finished.  Whether Nevada joins Washington and Colorado is an issue that is likely to see strong opinions on both sides.

Pubdate: Fri, 05 Apr 2013
Source: Ely Times (NV)
Copyright: 2013 The Ely Times
Contact: editor@elynews.com
Website: http://www.elynews.com/
Author: Lukas Eggen

---

U.S. legal marijuana sales are projected to hit $1.5 billion this year, and that could look like nothing in just a few years. Data from Medical Marijuana Business Daily shows that total sales could quadruple to $6 billion by 2018 on the back of legalization efforts in Washington and Colorado, as well as the growing medical marijuana industry.

The two states both legalized the recreational use of weed in November. Elsewhere, 18 states and Washington, D.C. have made medical marijuana legal, while 10 others have formal measures pending to legalize medical marijuana, according to the National Cannabis Industry Association.

That’s reflective of a wider acceptance of the drug. A recent Pew Research Center poll discovered a majority of Americans support pot legalization for the first time in more than four decades. As many as 52 percent of Americans support legalizing weed — 45 percent do not — and nearly three-fourths say the amount of money spent enforcing marijuana usage laws is not worth the cost.

Such growing support has led marijuana-tied businesses to pitch their companies to Wall Street investors, the Los Angeles Times reported in March. Take Vincent Mehdizadeh, founder of MedBox, an automated weed dispensing machine company. He’s seeking $20 million from investors in anticipation of potential expansion.

“Everybody’s loosening up a lot because they realize the momentum has shifted and the financial world is going to have to make room for this industry,” Mehdizadeh told the LAT. “Wall Street and investment banks are going to have to come along for the ride, eventually.”

Thinking about investing in the marijuana industry yourself? Be sure to keep the risks in mind. It was reported last year that 500 of the estimated 3,000 U.S. marijuana dispensaries either had been closed by the government or shut down in the past year.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Caroline Fairchild
Published: April 8, 2013
Copyright: 2013 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: scoop@huffingtonpost.com
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

A North Shore couple hoping to receive one of the first licenses to produce medical marijuana under new federal regulations has run into a bureaucratic roadblock.

The Regional District of Central Kootenay last week denied a variance application to let the couple expand two outbuildings on their property to a combined 4,435 square feet ( 412 square meters ) – more than four times the maximum size allowed for a home-based business in a residential area – and increase the number of permitted employees from two to four.

One of the applicants, who spoke to the Star on condition of anonymity, explained that by applying for a variance rather than going through a rezoning process, they hoped to avoid a public hearing that would have made their location common knowledge.

“I didn’t want it put on the map where a large medical grow facility was,” he said.

They aren’t hiding the nature of their proposed business from the regional district or neighbours, he added, but do have security concerns if their address is widely advertised.

However, when the matter reached the regional district’s rural affairs committee this month, directors upheld a staff recommendation to reject the variance and suggested the applicants seek rezoning instead.

Committee chair Hans Cunningham said the decision was based both on the size of the proposed variance and their belief regulations to be introduced this year will insist that commercial medical marijuana operations be located in industrial or agricultural areas.

“I applaud [the applicants] in that they want to get a jump on what’s going on,” he said.  “But if we give them a variance and the government said ‘No, you have to be on agricultural or industrial land,’ they’re not going to get a license.  So it makes sense to do the rezoning.”

The decision followed a presentation by the proponents, who came with several letters of support from neighbours and a petition of 30 names.  ( A staff report also listed objections from other neighbours, but they mostly related to the operation’s size, not its purpose.  )

“They made a hell of a presentation,” said director Larry Binks.  “Letter perfect.  It was well written and well documented.” He was one of three directors who spoke against denying the variance, believing the subject of marijuana clouded the discussion.

The proponents had no obligation to disclose what sort of business they were planning, he noted.  Still, he too believes rezoning is the right path – but wishes the applicants had been warned at the outset the variance had little chance of succeeding.

‘EPICENTRE OF MARIJUANA’

The applicant who spoke to the Star said they’re considering their options and haven’t decided whether to apply for rezoning.  “I don’t feel I’ve been treated badly by the regional district,” he said.  “It turned out my variance was too big.  I was asking for a lot.”

Even so, they would still be among the smallest license-seekers, he said.

He also said this area is already home to a high density of marijuana grow-ops as part of an illicit “black and grey marketplace” and called the federal government’s new rules the first “white regulations,” which he hopes are the first step in legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

“This new well-regulated industry will simply absorb the black market in time as it takes the profit out of growing and selling marijuana in the black market,” he said.

“We believe Nelson is the epicenter of marijuana and that reputation can be exploited for the benefit of our entire community.  Our leaders should wake up to this fact and see that there is an incredible opportunity for our community in particular to reap huge benefits.”

He urged local politicians to welcome and encourage medical marijuana entrepreneurs with “open door policies, rules, zoning, and investment,” and avoid making decisions “out of ignorance, fear, and the propaganda they have been fed for years.”

WIDER DISCUSSION

The North Shore application, the first to reach the regional district, comes as local government considers its role in policing medical marijuana operations.

The new federal regulations – originally expected to be unveiled next month but apparently now delayed until October – are intended to license commercial production and distribution of medical pot while eliminating personal grow ops.

But a recent memo from RDCK planning staff asks how Health Canada’s procedures will mesh with the regional district’s permitting process and whether building and bylaw officers will inspect commercial operations.  It also wonders about the potential effect on neighbours and whether locations will be made public.

Staff consulted other jurisdictions and concluded the most practical solution is to focus on agricultural zones where licensed producers can operate in stand-alone buildings well away from homes.  They suggest existing operators not zoned agricultural could stay put but would be required to apply for rezoning.

The board referred the memo to its April meeting, when Kootenay Columbia MP David Wilks, who is helping draft the new legislation, will be present.

But the North Shore proponent said he’s disappointed the RDCK is “playing follow the leader” when he believes it should be setting the precedents.  “Our municipalities should be looking for ways to keep our cottage industry, by working with the new regulations for maximum Kootenay benefit,” he said.

Source: Nelson Star (CN BC)
Section: Front page
Copyright: 2013 Black Press
Website: http://www.bclocalnews.com/kootenay_rockies/nelsonstar/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4866
Author: Greg Nesteroff

---

For the first time, a major US poll has found that a majority of Americans support legalization of marijuana.

The Pew Research Center announced Thursday that 52 percent of Americans say that marijuana use should be made legal, versus 45 percent who say it should not. The trend line has been moving gradually in the direction of majority support for more than 20 years. In 1991, only 17 percent supported legalization, while 78 percent opposed.

As with gay marriage, which has also seen a sharp rise in support in the past few years, the Pew poll found major generational differences in views on marijuana. Among Millennials – those now aged 18 to 32 – support is at 65 percent, up from just 36 percent in 2008. Among Generation X, those born between 1965 and 1980, support has risen dramatically, from 28 percent in 1994 to 54 percent today.

Half of Baby Boomers support legalized marijuana today, and among the over-65 Silent Generation support has doubled since 2002 – from 17 percent to 32 percent.

Among other noteworthy findings in the Pew poll:

Nearly three in four Americans (72 percent) say government efforts to enforce marijuana laws cost more than they are worth.

Sixty percent say the federal government should not enforce federal laws prohibiting marijuana use in states that have legalized it. Last November, voters in Colorado and Washington state approved the personal use of small amounts of marijuana.

Some 48 percent of Americans say they have tried marijuana, up from 38 percent a decade ago.

Republicans oppose legalization, while Democrats support it. Among Republicans, it’s 37 percent favoring legalization to 60 percent opposing. Among Democrats, 59 percent say legalize it and 39 percent say don’t.

Marijuana’s image as a “gateway” drug is fading. Today, 38 percent of Americans agree that “for most people the use of marijuana leads to the use of hard drugs.” In 1977, 60 percent felt that way.

Despite the trends, those opposed to legalization are not giving up. In a column in the Washington Post, former Bush administration official Peter Wehner writes that as Republicans search for new issues to champion, fighting drug use and legalization should be one.

“Today, many parents rightly believe the culture is against them. Government policies should stand with responsible parents – and under no circumstances actively undermine them,” writes Mr. Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.

“Drug legalization would do exactly that. It would send an unmistakable signal to everyone, including the young: Drug use is not a big deal.”

But in fact, Wehner writes, “the law is a moral teacher,” and government can play a role in the shaping of character. Therefore, “Republicans should prefer that it be a constructive one, which is why they should speak out forcefully and intelligently against drug legalization.”

Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)
Author: Linda Feldmann, Staff Writer
Published: April 4, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Christian Science Publishing Society
Contact: letters@csmonitor.com
Website: http://www.csmonitor.com/

Lawmakers have introduced a measure with stricter provisions than past failed efforts to legalize marijuana sales to New Yorkers who have a “severe debilitating or life-threatening’’ health condition.

The new bill, which ends such past ideas as letting people grow their own marijuana, would have the state Health Department regulate the process, which would include allowing a certain number of private for-profits or not-for-profits to grow the plants and sell the drug under new security protocols to patients with treatment plans approved by a physician, physician’s assistant or nurse practitioner.

The measure was introduced by its past sponsors, Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, a Manhattan Democrat, and Sen. Diane Savino, a Staten Island Democrat. Savino has more political power this year as one of five breakaway Democrats who jointly run the Senate with Republicans.

The bill has 68 co-sponsors, including 10 Senate Democrats. It has previously sailed through the Assembly.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has opposed the idea of medical marijuana legalization, though advocates believe he could be flexible, especially since he is already promoting a plan to relax marijuana possession laws. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have medical marijuana laws.

Advocates say the measure will more strictly regulate the drug than prescription painkillers; patient advocates in the past have said marijuana will be cheaper, less addictive and less dangerous than many of the painkiller prescriptions they take.

The bill defines those eligible to be certified by the Health Department to obtain marijuana as someone with a “serious’’ health condition, including cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, epilepsy, diabetes, post-traumatic stress syndrome and others.

The patient would have to be under a doctor’s supervision. Patients who a doctor believes have less than a year to live also would be eligible to buy the drug. Medical marijuana also would be listed as one of the covered drugs on a new state prescription drug tracking system intended to reduce doctor and pharmacy shopping by addicts.

Marijuana could be grown and dispensed by hospitals, for-profit companies and not-for-profit corporations, and an excise tax would be imposed on the facilities, with part of the proceeds shared with local “host’’ communities.

“The bill is much more restrictive than the New York laws regulating highly dangerous drugs like morphine, Oxycontin or Valium,’’ Gottfried said.

“Anybody who ever had a family member suffer from a debilitating disease learns very quickly the limitations of modern medicine at treating pain,’’ added Savino.

The bill’s backers include the American Public Health Association, American Bar Association, New York State Nurses Association, Pharmacists Society of the State of New York, New York AIDS Coalition, the Independence Party of New York and the Drug Policy Alliance.

Critics, including some Senate Republicans and the state Conservative Party, have said marijuana could be diverted by patients to others not eligible for the drug and that the plan sends the wrong message, especially to teenagers, about a drug some call a gateway to stronger drugs.

Source: Buffalo News (NY)
Author: Tom Precious, News Albany Bureau
Published: March 28, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Buffalo News
Contact: lettertoeditor@buffnews.com
Website: http://www.buffalonews.com/

Tin foil on the windows, children’s toys that never seem to move from their spot in the front yard and neighbours who don’t seem to live in the home they own.

These are just some of the signs of a marijuana grow operation residents should look out for in their neighbourhood, police repeatedly warn.

According to a 2007 Royal Canadian Mounted Police report on drug offences, 60% of offences related to marijuana production occurred in a residence.

And an Ipsos Reid study in 2012 – prompted by the Ontario Real Estate Association – said almost a quarter of Ontario residents have “seen or know of homes in their neighbourhood that have been used as a marijuana grow operation.”

No one wants to live in a mouldy ex-drug lab.  A past history of drug production can lower a property’s value for years by 15-20%, and make home insurance a pain to maintain.

That’s why Markham realtor Cathy Innamorato did not buy a grow-op home, despite the fact that it had been remediated, leaving little concern for mould.

A conversation with her insurance company left her walking away from the home, she said, because she ran the risk of increasing premiums in the future.

“And you have no recourse,” Innamorato said.  “So because of that I decided against purchasing this property.”

Despite remediation – the process of eradicating mould and other damage done to a building following it’s use for illicit drugs – a grow house never truly shakes its drug-related stigma, she added.  Remediation reports often don’t guarantee the home’s condition 100% and insurance companies are reluctant to accept them.

“How is the buyer protected?” Innamorato said.

A central grow-op registry would have all grow-op houses listed, making it easier for realtors to be open and for buyers to be confident of their purchase.

The Ontario Real Estate Association repeated its call for the registry in early March, supporting Nepean-Carleton MPP Lisa MacLeod’s recently tabled Clandestine Drug Operation Prevention Act.

“I think that there’s an appetite to protect our community and also crack down on this illicit activity,” MacLeod said.

The theft of hydro is a major related concern, as house grow-ops steal energy by rewiring, often risking electrical safety.

MacLeod said law-abiding customers wind up footing the bill for dollars lost to hydro theft.

“It’s quite significant, its a cost to our communities,” she said.

One man has made stigmatized properties his personal mission.

Barry Lebow, a GTA realtor and an expert in real estate stigma, said grow-ops can become long-lasting problems for homeowners and landlords when they try and sell their property in the future.

“Do you realize how many houses are stigmatized in this province?” Lebow said.  “Because the law is that there’s no such thing as a statute of limitations on stigma in Ontario.  It has to be reported forever.”

While he makes it clear he dislikes stigmatizing properties for housing as few as three or four marijuana plants – therefore causing no damage done to the home – he agrees a central registry disclosing grow-op homes ruined by organized criminal behaviour can help realtors and buyers.

“Where there’s been a professional criminal organization, that’s where I draw the line,” Lebow said.  “We have to quantify what they did to the house.”

There should be a difference between a home where a person has grown pot for recreational uses without touching the structure, and a home that has to be gutted after a massive grow operation, Lebow said.  Because the two aren’t the same.

“Therefore you have a problem on your hands because you’re stigmatizing people for something that really shouldn’t be stigmatized,” he said.

Lebow said he knows the impact of grow-ops on property owners.  He’s heard many stories of landlords who have returned to find tenants have ruined their investment homes by running grow-ops.  They take a huge loss of up to 20% in property value.

“Most of the houses that I’ve come across …  have been hardcore blue-collar people who have bought a house, put all their money in, and find out that they’ve got a 20% loss in value across the board,” Lebow said.  “Nobody can afford it but these people ( can afford the loss ) even less.”

Source: Sudbury Star (CN ON)
Contact: http://www.thesudburystar.com/letters
Copyright: 2013 Osprey Media
Website: http://www.thesudburystar.com
Author: Maryam Shah

The Stone-Cold Truth

I got a good bit of reaction to my last piece on cannabis and cancer, so I want follow up on it before moving on to other subjects.  Obviously, many folks out there are suffering and seeking relief, but I don’t want to peddle false hope; there is already too much of that going on.  However, if you already have a death sentence hanging over your head then you pretty much have nothing to lose.

One of the major medicinal advantages of cannabis, the clinical name for marijuana, is the absence of significant and unintended side effects ( no major harms ) associated with its medicinal use 3/4which is a lot more than can be said for many pharmaceutical drugs that come with a laundry list of side effects, which sometimes include death.

That said, the website of the National Cancer institute has recently added a page titled “Cannabis and Cannabinoids” [cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/patient/page2].  The information on that page cites preclinical studies that indicate the following “antitumor activity” of cannabinoids ( the active substances in the marijuana plant ):

Studies in mice and rats have shown that cannabinoids may inhibit tumor growth by causing cell death, blocking cell growth, and blocking the development of blood vessels needed by tumors to grow.  Laboratory and animal studies have shown that cannabinoids may be able to kill cancer cells while protecting normal cells.

A study in mice showed that cannabinoids may protect against inflammation of the colon and may have potential in reducing the risk of colon cancer, and possibly in its treatment.

A laboratory study of delta-9-THC in hepatocellular carcinoma ( liver cancer ) cells showed that it damaged or killed the cancer cells.

A laboratory study of cannabidiol in estrogen receptor positive and estrogen receptor negative breast cancer cells showed that it caused cancer cell death while having little effect on normal breast cells.

It’s not about just a toke or two:It’s no wonder that people who have been told they are terminal are willing to try cannabis in an attempt to save themselves.  However, it is important to note that neither smoking, vaporizing nor eating cannabis-infused brownies alone can deliver an effective dose of cannabinoids to have the kind of effect patients are looking for from the plant.

That’s where something like Rick Simpson’s Hemp Oil comes in.  It’s a highly concentrated cannabinoid extract that Simpson and others claim has wondrous results, including its ability to cure many different cancers.

I can’t independently verify that claim, but when used along with conventional cancer therapy it seems to help.  After my last Higher Ground column about cannabis and cancer, a 66-year-old San Francisco woman named Michelle Aldrich contacted me.  Aldrich, and her husband Michael, have been longtime marijuana activists and received the High Times magazine lifetime achievement award in June 2011, so she’s obviously predisposed to have a favorable outlook about the herb, but her story is very compelling.

Aldrich was diagnosed with cancer in late 2011.  Further testing revealed lung cancer, three cancerous lymph nodes, a spot on her kidney and inflammation in her colon ( three polyps ) 3/4Stage 3A poorly differentiated non-small cell metastatic ad-enocarcinoma of the right lung with bulky lymph node involvement 3/4in January 2012.

Her main tumor was 30 by 31 millimeters.  The five-year survival rate for this type of cancer is about 25 percent.  Her doctors recommended that she undergo chemotherapy.  They would have added radiation except her lymph nodes were too close to her trachea for that.  The goal was to shrink the lymph nodes enough so doctors could operate and remove two lobes of her right lung.  Aldrich agreed to the course of treatment but was up front with her medical team that she was going to take what she called Milagro Oil, a variation of the Simpson extract, along with their recommended course of action.  In fact, she put together a complete holistic approach to dealing with her cancer.

“I needed to set a new course.  A course correction,” she said in a talk she gave at the sixth annual Women’s Visionary Congress in July 2012.  The talk was adapted and published in the spring 2013 edition of O’Shaughnessy’s, a journal focused on medical cannabis.”I needed to change my destiny.  I did not want to die of lung cancer.  I would do everything possible to restore my health: diet, chemo, acupuncture, and cannabis oil.  I knew I had a wonderful support group and a dream team of doctors.”

The oil she took contained 63 percent THC – she says it didn’t get her high – and she also used a CBD tincture.  Aldrich’s diet was strict: no dairy, sugar, wheat, alcohol or meat, except chicken once a month.  She said she ate a lot of fish, especially salmon.

Aldrich started chemo in early February and had the last of four courses on April 5, 2012, although she continued taking oil until mid-May.  An April 17, 2012 CT scan showed the tumor had shrunk by 50 percent.  On May 10, 2012, a PET scan showed no discernible cancer and her lymph nodes had completely shrunk.  She had surgery to remove the lymph nodes and the remains of the tumor which was “a thin rim surrounding a necrotic core.” In other words, it was dead.  Aldrich still suffered some of the bad effects of chemo such as nausea and loss of appetite, but in the end her primary doctor was amazed at the result.

“He had never seen lung cancer totally eradicated by chemo, much less in four months,” said Aldrich.  “I assume cannabis oil was the factor that made the difference.”

Cancer is not considered “cured” until it has been absent from a patient for five years, and doctors are loath to say that anyone’s cancer is cured, but testimonials such as Aldrich’s are becoming much more common.

Spread the word:Alternet, an alternative news service, picked up her story and distributed it last week; and testimonials of people’s claims of having cured several types of cancer or other ailments with some variation of Simpson oil can be easily found on the Internet.

Variations abound, with some folks adding other healing herbs that they trust to the mix, but the main ingredient is cannabis, preferably an indica strain.  They’re claiming healing or relief for Multiple Sclerosis, rheumatism, arthritis, psoriasis, eczema, diabetes, seizures, migraines and more.

“Anybody who looks at the sheer amount of these materials cannot deny that cannabis extract deserves mainstream medical attention immediately,” says Justin Kander, a board member of Phoenix Tears ( phoenixtears.ca ), the Rick Simpson organization that promotes cannabis oil.

“People don’t have time to wait for all the proper scientific channels.  We’ve been waiting years, and millions of people have died.  With pain, people don’t have a day to wait,” Kander explains.  “They don’t have 10 seconds to wait.  It’s irresponsible to hold it back.  The extract seems to work for virtually any condition.  That makes it less believable.  In theory, the reason that it works for so many things is the endocannabinoid system ( cannabinoid receptors in the human body ) maintains balance in the other systems.  All disease is some form of imbalance.  We need to investigate this further through science.”

In the meantime, a lot of people have decided not to wait.  They don’t have time.

We’ve been peddled various snake oils in the past.  So I would advise caution when treating yourself or a loved one, and it’s advisable to use cannabis oil in tandem with conventional therapies.  The bottom line is it may work, it may not work, but it won’t harm you.  And as they say on the playground – no harm, no foul.

Hash Bash: The 46th Annual Hash Bash will take place noon-1:30 p.m.  on Saturday, April 6.  Mason Tvert, who let the successful Colorado legalization drive, will headline the program along with NORML founder Keith Stroup, growing expert Ed Rosenthal and cannabis seed developer DJ Short.

Source: Metro Times (Detroit, MI)
Copyright: 2013 C.E.G.W./Times-Shamrock
Contact: letters@metrotimes.com
Website: http://www.metrotimes.com
Author: Larry Gabriel