For years, patients in Maryland with intractable pain, chronic diseases or terminal diseases have lobbied lawmakers to legalize the medical use of marijuana to ease their symptoms. And for years the state has been torn between compassion and caution about whether the purported benefits of medical marijuana outweigh the potential dangers of a drug that has not been subjected to rigorous scientific testing to determine its safety and effectiveness.

As a result, Maryland law on the issue has remained an inconsistent jumble. In 2003, the legislature approved a law allowing people charged with possession of small amounts of marijuana to claim “medical necessity” as a defense and, if they convince a judge their case has merit, to pay a $100 fine rather than go to jail.

But even under that law a conviction still leaves patients with a criminal record, and, paradoxically, despite having proven their claim in court, it is still illegal for them to buy the drug.

Last week, Maryland moved a step closer to resolving that dilemma when Gov. Martin O’Malley withdrew his opposition to a bill that would allow doctors and nurses to dispense marijuana for medical use through academic medical research centers such as John Hopkins Hospital and the University of Maryland Medical Center. Mr. O’Malley refused to support medical marijuana legislation last year after Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler expressed concerns about possible liability for those who dispense the drug under federal law.

The governor reversed his previous stand this year after seeing that the U.S. Department of Justice, while prosecuting some medical marijuana cases in other states, had not been going after state government workers who were involved in the programs. Now the O’Malley administration is backing a bill that would give Maryland the strictest medical marijuana law in the nation, and it is insisting that the bill must give the governor the flexibility to suspend the program if the federal government threatened legal action.

The approach was shaped in large part by state health secretary Joshua M. Sharfstein, who last year suggested the idea of a research-based medical marijuana system to allow the state to gather more clinical data on the drug’s usefulness. Dr. Sharfstein has opposed broader legalization efforts on the grounds that marijuana’s medical efficacy remained unproven.

We think the go-slow approach endorsed by Dr. Sharfstein is a reasonable compromise between those who oppose any legalization of marijuana for medical use and those who want to see a total decriminalization of the drug.

Maryland certainly has learned from the experience of California, which legalized marijuana for medical use in 1996 and immediately saw a proliferation of lightly regulated head shops spring up to sell the drug, along with cadres of physicians willing to prescribe it on the flimsiest of pretexts. The state later amended the law in 2003 by issuing more restrictive guidelines regarding the kinds of illnesses for which medical marijuana could legally be sold and used after it became clear that many people were abusing the drug for purely recreational purposes. Given the controls built into the Maryland bill, however, that is unlikely to be a concern here.

Indeed, the legislation, sponsored by Baltimore Democrat Del. Dan K. Morhaim, who is also a physician, has come under fire not just from law-enforcement groups that oppose any legalization of marijuana but also from advocates who claim that it doesn’t go far enough or fast enough to help people suffering from severe chronic pain. Delegate Morhaim, who has been a driving force behind the push for medical marijuana in this state, was also a sponsor of a bill that would have created a much more wide-ranging program.

But he has wisely recognized the value of the administration’s support and is withdrawing his other bill. Other advocates in the legislature should follow suit. The governor’s backing greatly increases the chances that those who are legitimately suffering and can benefit from the drug will finally be able to get it without risking jail time. And if Maryland’s program provides rigorous, scientific data on the drug’s effectiveness, this cautious step could set the stage for greater acceptance nationwide.

Our view: The O’Malley administration is right to favor a controlled, academic approach to legalizing medical use of cannabis.

Source: Baltimore Sun (MD)
Published: March 11, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Baltimore Sun
Contact: letters@baltsun.com
Website: http://www.baltimoresun.com/

A New Report Also Shows That 20 Percent of the Drug Arrests Are Cannabis-Related Despite a City Law That Makes Pot the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority.

Until US Attorney Melinda Haag launched her much-criticized crackdown on Oakland’s medical marijuana dispensaries last year, the city was held up as a beacon of level-headed tolerance toward cannabis in the pot-friendly Bay Area.  And even when the statewide campaign to legalize pot for recreational use failed in 2010, city officials were still among the most outspoken in California for large-scale medical pot cultivation.  Casual weed smokers have also found Oakland to be a welcoming place: The successful 2004 ballot initiative Measure Z made adult recreational use of marijuana the lowest law-enforcement priority for the Oakland Police Department.

However, a report released last week by the city commission that monitors OPD’s compliance with Measure Z includes troubling findings about the racial composition of Oaklanders arrested for marijuana-related crimes.  According to the Cannabis Regulatory Commission’s biennial report, roughly 20 percent of Oakland’s narcotics arrests in 2011 were for marijuana offenses – and 95 percent of arrestees were black or Latino.

“In a city as diverse as Oakland, the committee needs to take to heart that the vast majority of marijuana offenses are being enforced against minorities,” said Sierra Martinez, an environmental attorney who has been a member of the Oakland Cannabis Regulatory Commission since 2011.  “There is a history of the Drug War being enforced against low-income communities and communities of color, and this is recent evidence of that reality.”

Nationally, marijuana use is more prevalent among whites than blacks or Latinos, yet people of color are arrested far more frequently for cannabis use.  And even though more and more states are legalizing medical marijuana – and in the cases of Colorado and Washington, recreational adult use of pot – someone is arrested for pot-related offenses in the country every 42 seconds, according to an FBI report issued last fall,

Of the 452 people arrested for marijuana offenses in 2011 in Oakland, 74.5 percent were African American, 13 percent were Latino, 5 percent were white, 3.7 percent were Asian American, and 0.4 percent were Native American.  According to 2010 census data, Oakland’s population is 28.0 percent black, 25.9 percent white, and 25.4 percent Latino.

The 452 arrests in 2011, however, represented a significant drop from 711 arrests in 2010 and 736 arrests in 2009.  The lion’s share of arrests in each year was for possession of marijuana for sale – 275 in 2011, 517 in 2010, and 571 in 2009.  The arrest data was provided to the commission by Oakland Lieutenant Michael Poirier.

However, the commission’s report noted that OPD’s dramatic reduction in staffing, Oakland’s spiking violent crime rate, and the passage of SB 1449, which decriminalized the possession of less than an ounce of cannabis in California as of January 1, 2011, as other potential reasons for the numerical drop in arrests.

Michael Wilson of the Alameda County Public Defender’s office told the Cannabis Regulatory Commission in October 2012 that his office rarely sees marijuana-related offenses.  The few cases the Public Defender’s Office does deal with, Wilson told the commission, “often have several other factors involved,” and marijuana use in public spaces such as a street corner or in a vehicle often provides officers with probable cause to further engage or search that individual.

Anecdotal evidence over the years indicates that OPD officers have used marijuana offenses as a form of leverage to bring charges against suspected gang members, either through criminal court or the mechanisms of parole or probation violations.  Court documents from the city’s gang injunctions in North Oakland and the Fruitvale district showed that several of the defendants in both cases, including Abel Manzo, one of the main defendants who contested his gang status in front of Alameda County Superior Judge Robert Freedman in 2011, were contacted initially by OPD for marijuana-related crimes.

“If we detain somebody, they have numerous baggies of weed on them, they’re on probation for selling weed, we don’t consider that a medical cannabis offense and they’ll go to jail,” Assistant Police Chief Anthony Toribio told the city council Public Safety Committee on February 26.

OPD also has to contend with numerous illegal large-scale grow operations in the city.  Several grow operations are discovered each year, and some involve heavily armed individuals with links to larger criminal organizations.  In late April of last year, OPD arrested eleven people in a raid on a fortified East Oakland warehouse.  Officers seized 2,500 marijuana plants, 50 pounds of dried pot, $40,000 in cash, 7 firearms, and body armor from a building that had interior doors that were reinforced with steel.

Still, Martinez and other members of the Cannabis Regulatory Commission believe OPD is still overly concerned with a substance that Oaklanders have made clear is not a threat.  Martinez noted that 20 percent of all narcotics arrests in recent years have been cannabis-related.  “At a time when violent crime in on the rise, it’s a waste of resources to be enforcing the marijuana offenses,” he said.

The cannabis commission also recommended that the city council modify its anti-smoking ordinance to let property owners allow pot smoking “in designated rooms of hotels, restaurants, clubs, cannabis dispensaries, and other facilities, so long as they are properly ventilated and do not pose objectionable odor hazards to neighbors.” Commission members have noted that there is no evidence that smoking marijuana causes cancer or emphysema, nor is there evidence of harm from second-hand smoke.

Source: East Bay Express (CA)
Copyright: 2013 East Bay Express
Contact: http://posting.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/SubmitLetter/Page
Website: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/
Author: Ali Winston

Attorney General Eric Holder is getting plenty of conflicting advice as he tries to figure out how the federal government should respond to the decision by voters in Washington state and Colorado to legalize marijuana for recreational use.

The latest came Wednesday from Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who told Holder to focus on prosecuting larger federal crimes as he deals with the fallout of automatic spending cuts ordered by Congress.

If you’re going to be  because of budget cuts  prioritizing matters, I would suggest there are more serious things than minor possession of marijuana, but it’s a personal view, Leahy told Holder, adding that other states are sure to follow the lead of Washington and Colorado.

While Leahy urged leniency, others want Holder to use his job as the nation’s top law enforcement official to get tough with states that want to ignore federal drug laws.

On Tuesday, eight former Drug Enforcement Administration chiefs said the Obama administration should move aggressively to nullify the state legalization laws.

And on the same day, a United Nations agency said the United States would be violating international drug treaties by allowing the state laws to stand.

Holder told senators that he’s reviewing the states new laws and plans a quick decision after having already met with governors of both states.

We’ve had good communication. . . . I expect that we will have an ability to announce what our policy is going to be relatively soon, Holder said.

With the state and federal laws clearly at odds, Holder is sure to face heat no matter what he decides. And so far, he has given little public indication of what he will do.

Marijuana advocates, however, are hoping that Holder’s boss, President Barack Obama, is on their side.

When the president was asked about the new state laws in an interview with ABC’s Barbara Walters in December, Obama suggested that the federal government would be unlikely to take a hard line, saying: We’ve got bigger fish to fry.

As both Washington and Colorado continue with their plans to open marijuana dispensaries later this year, the legalization issue promises to get more attention on Capitol Hill in coming weeks.

Leahy announced earlier that he wants his committee to conduct a hearing into the differences among state and federal laws governing marijuana. He said he wants to make sure that state laws are respected and that state officials in Washington and Colorado who are charged with the licensing of marijuana retailers will not face federal criminal penalties.

Under federal law, marijuana remains a controlled substance, and possession or distribution of the drug is a criminal offense that can result in prison time.

In December, Leahy wrote a letter to the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, saying that his committee had a significant interest  in the issue and that Congress could act to end the uncertainty facing residents in Washington and Colorado.

As one option, Leahy said, the Federal Controlled Substances Act could be changed to allow for the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana, at least in places where it’s already legal under state law.

In the House, two bills were introduced last month that would end the federal prohibition against marijuana and create new regulatory systems to deal with its legalization.

One, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado, would remove marijuana from the list of controlled substances and allow it to be regulated much like alcohol at the federal level. The second, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, would create a federal excise tax on the sale of marijuana.

Source: Miami Herald (FL)
Author: Rob Hotakainen, McClatchy Newspapers
Published: March 6, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Miami Herald
Contact: heralded@herald.com
URL: http://drugsense.org/url/RmrlXUKN
Website: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/

Last fall, voters for the first time approved the legalization of marijuana for recreational use at the state level – in Colorado and Washington. Since then, much attention has focused on the conflict between state and federal law, which still classifies the drug as illegal. But state legalization also raises important questions at the personal level. Many of them center around the family.

As attorneys practicing family law in Colorado, we feel it’s important to consider these questions, especially since the push is on for recreational legalization in other states. Oregon, California, and Maine may be next. (Eighteen states plus the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana.)

Colorado’s constitutional amendment states that individuals can purchase marijuana from authorized retailers and that licensed growers can produce commercial quantities for retailers. The intent is to treat marijuana like alcohol. That’s not so easy in practice.

Based on our legal experience, we’d like to offer a scenario – fictional, but realistic – to illustrate how consequential Colorado’s change will be for families, and how far the state still needs to go to address unresolved issues.

Consider Michael and Elizabeth Jones who have two children, Ashley, age 16, and Monica, age 13. The parents are no longer such a happy couple, although they all still live in a lovely home in Highlands Ranch, a well-off suburb of Denver. Ashley is a rebel – hanging out with the wrong boys, sneaking out of the house late at night, and thumbing her nose at her parents’ authority now that she has a driver’s license and a car. Monica is just the opposite of her big sister, struggling at school socially.

‘But Honey, It’s Legal Now.’

Three to four nights a week, Michael quietly steps into the backyard or goes to the basement to smoke a joint. Elizabeth has never approved of his marijuana use, and as the children get older she has increasing concerns about their exposure to it. Michael says: “What’s the big deal? It’s legal here now. You don’t hear me complain when you have wine after dinner.”

The final straw comes when Michael decides to make some extra money to pay down credit-card bills (the perfect family vacation to Hawaii is expensive). He starts a small grow operation in the basement to sell marijuana. Elizabeth files for divorce – and she doesn’t want Michael to have the children at all because she believes that the grow operation and his recreational marijuana use are dangerous to the children.

What happens to families when pot is involved? Drug use is often an issue in divorce and parenting cases. Usually, one parent does not approve of the other’s drinking or use of illegal drugs – or addiction. Historically, it’s been fairly easy to take a case to court with proof that a parent is illegally using drugs and limit that parent’s contact with the children.

That all changed with marijuana legalization. The courts do not routinely take children away from a parent because that parent legally consumes a reasonable quantity of alcohol – a legal substance. Will the courts take the same approach with marijuana?

Nobody knows. On one hand, judges tend to represent a more conservative demographic and may continue to be shocked by a parent’s recreational marijuana use (not to mention the state law’s conflict with federal law). Yet the intention of the new Colorado law appears to be to treat marijuana as much like alcohol as possible: Legalize it, but regulate production, sale, and use to mitigate any dangers associated with it.

If we don’t penalize a parent for having a glass of wine or two after dinner while the kids are in bed, why should we penalize a parent for smoking a small quantity of pot? Can a parent handle a crisis while high? For example, what if one of the Jones children has a medical emergency in the middle of the night after Michael has smoked pot; could he handle the crisis? Are there varying degrees of intoxication from marijuana, ranging from mild (like a drink or two of alcohol) to incapacitating the user, to the point at which a court should say: “No, you can’t parent when you’re stoned!”

These are precisely the arguments raised by Michael and Elizabeth in their now-contentious custody case. Meanwhile, Ashley is invited on a camping trip with friends (including teens her mother doesn’t approve of). When Elizabeth refuses to allow it, Ashley runs away to her father’s and refuses to speak to her mother.

But Michael comes home from work one evening and finds Ashley and her car gone, along with half of his crop of marijuana. He soon receives a call from the Nebraska police. Ashley has been arrested for possession of an illegal substance. Even if she were of age, marijuana isn’t a legal substance in Nebraska.

Monica has also helped herself to her father’s stash, and is expelled from school. She didn’t use it, she says. She just wanted to show it around so kids would stop bullying her.

All Those Tricky Questions

Can safeguards be fashioned so that a parent can still have his or her children at home where marijuana is being grown? So that marijuana does not make its way across state lines? So that it does not end up in schools or other inappropriate arenas? Are locks on basement doors good enough? Parental guidance and supervision? What is good enough?

And what about drug testing? Marijuana remains in the user’s system much longer than alcohol, and there is no test available to definitively establish when or how much of the drug was used. Blood testing may be one option, but it is costly and requires a laboratory setting and trained professionals to draw blood.

And how does one determine if someone who tests positive for marijuana used it legally in Colorado – while not operating a vehicle and inside state lines – given the difficulties of testing?

One place to start answering the vast range of questions we raise is with research that aims to produce a method of testing that easily determines level of impairment. Until then, Colorado will have to work through these issues on an ad hoc basis. Other states considering legalization should realize that treating marijuana like alcohol is not as easy as it sounds.

Alexandra White and Carolyn Witkus are shareholders at Gutterman Griffiths PC in Littleton, Colo. Both attorneys specialize in high-conflict parenting litigation, including cases involving substance abuse.

Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)
Author: Alexandra White and Carolyn Witkus
Published: March 4, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Christian Science Publishing Society
Contact: letters@csmonitor.com
Website: http://www.csmonitor.com/

Eight former Drug Enforcement Administration chiefs say the federal government needs to act now or it might lose the chance to nullify Colorado and Washington’s laws legalizing recreational marijuana use.

The onetime DEA heads plan to issue joint statements Tuesday saying the Obama administration has reacted too slowly and should immediately sue to force the states to rescind the legislation. The Associated Press received an advance copy of the statement Monday.

One of the former DEA administrators, Peter Bensinger, told the AP that the more time goes by, the harder it’ll be to stop the two states. Marijuana is illegal under federal law.

Bensinger, who lives in the Chicago area, said the government must immediately sue the states or risk creating “a domino effect” in which other states follow suit.

“My fear is that the Justice Department will do what they are doing now: do nothing and say nothing,” said Bensinger. “If they don’t act now, these laws will be fully implemented in a matter of months.”

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told a meeting of state attorneys general last week that he is still reviewing the laws but that his review is winding down. Asked Monday for a comment on the criticism from the former DEA administrators, Holder spokeswoman Allison Price would only say, “The Department of Justice is in the process of reviewing those initiatives.”

The department’s review has been under way since shortly after last fall’s elections. It could sue to block the states from issuing licenses to marijuana growers, processors and retail stores, on the grounds that doing so conflicts with federal drug law. Alternatively, Holder could decide not to mount a court challenge.

The ex-DEA heads are issuing the statements though the Florida-based Save Our Society from Drugs, a national group lobbying against legalization. One of the group’s spokesmen is based in Chicago.

The former DEA administrators are Bensinger, John Bartels, Robert Bonner, Thomas Constantine, Asa Hutchinson, John Lawn, Donnie Marshall and Francis Mullen. They served for both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Holder is scheduled to appear Wednesday before a U.S. Senate judiciary committee hearing. The former DEA chiefs want senators to question Holder on the legalization issue.

Advocates of legalization have welcomed Colorado and Washington’s new laws, arguing that criminalizing drugs creates serious though unintended social problems. The ex-DEA heads say they disagree with that view.

After votes last fall, Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize marijuana’s recreational use – putting federal authorities in a quandary over how, or whether, to respond.

Washington state officials responsible for creating a regulated marijuana system have said they are moving forward with a timetable of issuing producer licenses by August.

Bensinger – who served as DEA administrator under Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan – said the supremacy of federal law over state law when it comes to drug laws isn’t in doubt.

“This is a no-brainer,” he said. “It is outrageous that a lawsuit hasn’t been filed in federal court yet.”

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Michael Tarm, Associated Press
Published: March 5, 2013
Copyright: 2013 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: scoop@huffingtonpost.com
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

When is someone too stoned to drive? The answer, it turns out, has been anything but simple in Colorado, which last fall became one of the first states in the country to legalize marijuana.

Prosecutors and some lawmakers have long pushed for laws that would set a strict blood-level limit for THC, the key ingredient in cannabis. A driver over the limit would be deemed guilty of driving under the influence, just as with alcohol.

Such legislation has failed several times in recent years in the face of fierce opposition from marijuana advocates and defense lawyers, who claim a one-size-fits-all standard doesn’t work for marijuana because it affects the body differently than alcohol.

On both sides, passions run high.

“I haven’t had a car accident since I was 18, and I’ve had marijuana in my system for most of that time,” said Paul Saurini, 39, one of numerous weed activists, or “wactivists,” who spoke out against setting a firm blood-level limit during a public hearing in the state capital this week.

“We have to create some standards to protect public safety. Not doing so, in my opinion, is reckless public policy,” said John Jackson, the police chief in nearby Greenwood Village. “Any time you legalize things like this, you’ll have more of it on the roadway. If we had vending machines with Oxycontin, there’d be more people on Oxycontin driving on the roadways. And that’s not safe.”

Since the passage of Amendment 64 in November, Colorado has been wrestling with the many questions of how to regulate the new marijuana reality, from how to tax it and monitor its growth to where people can buy it, sell it, smoke it and advertise it.

But drugged driving looms as one of the most critical and controversial issues. The outcome of Colorado’s struggle to shape marijuana-related DUI laws could have far-reaching implications, as a growing number of states approve marijuana for medical use and others consider legalizing the drug altogether.

State Sen. Steve King, a Republican who supports a THC limit, insists that driving high is no different than driving drunk. “You’re a threat and a hazard,” he said. “The consensus should be to err on the side of safety for the traveling public.”

Michael Elliott and other marijuana advocates argue that marijuana affects different people differently, and that setting a THC limit would free prosecutors from having to prove their cases and could lead to wrongful DUI convictions.

“When it comes to criminal law, we err on the side of protecting the freedom of our citizens and holding the criminal justice system to the highest standards of proof,” said Elliott, a lawyer and executive director of the Colorado-based Medical Marijuana Industry Group.

Though research and opinions vary widely, studies have shown that smoking marijuana tends to affect spatial perceptions. Drivers might swerve or follow other cars too closely, as well as lose their concentration and suffer from slowed reaction times. Such findings have led some researchers to conclude that driving high doubles the chances for an accident, and that smoking pot and drinking before driving is a particularly dangerous mix.

Every state bars driving under the influence. But convictions in drugged-driving cases generally rely on police officers’ observations rather than blood tests. The White House in a drug policy paper last year called on states to adopt blood-limit laws in an effort to reduce drugged-driving incidents by 10 percent by 2015.

But different states have taken different approaches.

In Ohio and Nevada, where medical marijuana is legal, the limit for driving is two nanograms per milliliter of blood. In Washington state, that limit is five nanograms. A dozen other states, including Illinois, Iowa and Arizona, have zero-tolerance policies for driving under the influence of marijuana and various controlled substances.

In Colorado, both sides agree that people shouldn’t drive impaired; the fight is over what should be used as proof of impairment.

Marijuana advocates argue that, unlike with alcohol, traces of the drug remain in the bloodstream long after an individual has smoked pot, and that a THC test can mistakenly suggest a person is high, especially in a regular smoker who has built up tolerance to the drug. But officials who favor a blood-level limit say tests exist that can pinpoint “active” THC in the bloodstream in the hours immediately after marijuana usage.

People on both sides cite the work of Dutch researcher Jan Ramaekers, who found that marijuana users generally are impaired at a level of five nanograms, but that many cannabis users do develop higher tolerances.

Ramaekers, in an interview, said he supports the five-nanogram limit, noting that lawmakers have long set a legal limit for alcohol in the name of public safety, even though people have different tolerances and impairment varies by person.

“Who should the law serve? The individual or the population?” he asked.

Still, some in Colorado are concerned about drawing a bright line between impaired and unimpaired when it comes to marijuana. The state Senate’s majority leader, Democrat Morgan Carroll, said research suggests that impairment can occur with anywhere from two to 20 nanograms per milliliter of blood. “My number one problem is that you could convict someone at five nanograms who wasn’t actually impaired,” she said.

Lawmakers are working on a compromise to break the long-standing impasse. A bill backed by King and other legislators would set five nanograms as the legal limit, but a test indicating that level would not automatically result in a DUI conviction. Instead, people accused of driving under the influence would be able to argue in court that they weren’t impaired. The measure is working its way through the statehouse and appears likely to pass.

Carroll is still not fond of the five-nanogram limit but says she and others might be swayed by the provision that would allow defendants to make their case in court. “It gives the accused the opportunity to come in and offer proof,” she said.

At Tuesday’s hearing, a string of law enforcement officials and a state toxicologist testified in favor of the legislation. Ed Wood, whose son was killed in a car accident caused by a drugged driver, said he supported the bill but wants an even tougher standard. “We believe Colorado deserves better,” he said.

But Saurini and other “wactivists” voiced their opposition, with some arguing that marijuana often induces paranoia and causes people to drive abnormally slowly, as opposed to alcohol, which can provide the “liquid courage” to drive irresponsibly.

King, the lawmaker who has long pushed for a legal limit, grows agitated at the suggestion by some marijuana advocates that they drive as well or even better high. It’s a reason, he said, to put a limit in place as soon as possible.

“I heard that [argument] 25 years ago with alcohol,” he said. “If you want to smoke marijuana, smoke marijuana. But smoke and walk, smoke and get a ride, smoke and take a cab. Don’t smoke and drive — that’s the point we’re trying to make.”

Dennis reported from Washington.

Source: Washington Post (DC)
Author: Brady Dennis and T.W. Farnam
Published: March 1, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Washington Post Company
Contact: letters@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/

Attorney General Eric Holder promised Washington and Colorado state attorneys general on Tuesday that the Justice Department would issue its verdict “soon” on how it plans to treat the states’ recent moves to legalize marijuana.

“We’re still in the process of reviewing both of the initiatives that were passed,” said Holder, speaking at the National Association of Attorney General annual conference in Washington, D.C.

“You will hear soon. We’re in the last stages of that review and we’re trying to make a determination as to what the policy ramifications are going to be, what our international obligations are — there are a whole variety of things that go into this determination — but the people of [Colorado] and Washington deserve an answer and you will have one soon.”

Holder was responding to Colorado state attorney general John Suthers, who asked the nation’s top law enforcement official when the DOJ would be weighing in on the state laws that have been in effect for nearly two months.

The DOJ is charged with enforcing the federal prohibition on marijuana, and the state laws run counter to the long-existing ban, creating a debate over which law should be enforced and which law is most responsive to the will of the people.

Marijuana has been a centerpiece of the federal government’s “war on drugs,” aimed at cracking down on drug use in the United States. But the growing number of people who support the decriminalization of pot — which is still legally classified nationally in the same category as heroin — has some policymakers in Washington, D.C., rethinking their approach.

On Monday, nearly a dozen House Democrats introduced several bills that would decriminalize marijuana and remove the drug from the list of controlled substances, while requiring the federal government to regulate it and impose penalties on tax-evaders.

Holder has met or talked with both governors and attorneys general from Colorado and Washington during the DOJ’s review process, posing a series of questions to the state leaders, such as how they plan to prevent marijuana produced in the state from being trafficked to other states where the drug is not legal.

Source: Hill, The (US DC)
Author: Jordy Yager
Published: February 26, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Hill
Website: http://www.hillnews.com/

The federal government says there is no such thing as “medical” marijuana. Despite that, an increasing number of states have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and a couple, so far, have okayed recreational use of marijuana for adults.

In the medical context, doctors often prescribe marijuana to manage chronic pain, and those patients must register in a confidential patient database. Registration triggers issuance of registry identification cards so recipients avoid criminal liability. Because many such patients are in the workforce, however, employers need to be aware of existing medical marijuana laws and pending legislation in each state where they employ workers.

The states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington currently legalize marijuana use for varying reasons. Washington and Colorado approved recreational marijuana use by adults, with regulations to monitor its possession, use and sale.

Expect more smoke. In 2013, Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and West Virginia introduced bills to make marijuana use lawful. On February 21 2013, for instance, Maryland Democratic Delegate Curt Anderson introduced a bill to legalize and tax marijuana use by “over 21” adults. The titles of several of these proposed bills contain words like “compassionate use” and “compassion and care” that reveal or suggest empathy for individuals with chronic pain who, with marijuana, want to function and work with less or no pain.

Some existing and pending state laws place specific restrictions on the management of employees who are registered medical marijuana users. In other states, however, regulations state that “their” laws do not deprive businesses from maintaining a drug-free workplace. Still other states have yet to address application of their marijuana laws to the workplace while their regulations remain embryonic.

In California, Colorado, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, businesses need not currently accommodate employees who legally use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Washington’s statute, for example, says that employers may establish drug-free work policies, and nothing in it requires accommodating the medical use of marijuana. Others are not so clear, forcing employers to develop what sometimes must be “best guess” workplace policies to comply with “fog-filled” laws.

Marijuana use laws in Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, and Rhode Island expressly forbid businesses from refusing to hire applicants and from disciplining and otherwise adversely affecting the employment of registered medical marijuana card holders based solely on that status. Arizona and Delaware extend that by forbidding businesses from refusing to hire applicants or disciplining employees on the basis of drug tests that reveal marijuana components or metabolites. There are exceptions to these rules where, for example, the employees are “impaired” by marijuana while on an employer’s property and/or during work hours. But in those states, employed medical marijuana card holders are not “impaired” simply because marijuana components or metabolites are “in” their systems. Even worse, there currently are no bright-line tests for marijuana “intoxication” comparable to those for alcohol intoxication. That means employers in disciplining “impaired” employees will have to rely on observations of an employee’s behavior to prove impairment and avoid liability if the employees file a charge or sue.

With the changing landscape of state regulation, businesses cannot rely on federal classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance (meaning it has no currently accepted medical use and has high potential for abuse). Instead, the federal-state “tug of war” means that every employer must be on “high alert” to ever-broadening marijuana use state laws and regulations.

Employers also need to educate law-makers as to the practicalities of employing marijuana users so any legislation passed can and does avoid unintended, harsh, and perhaps dangerous workplace consequences. Here are examples of opportunities for workplace input. In Colorado, there is a task force to propose regulations for its new use laws. Massachusetts health officials held three public “listening sessions” during February to help draft the regulations for the medical marijuana law passed by voters in November 2012.

Employers also should ensure that their human resources professionals and management teams are knowledgeable about the marijuana laws in each state where they employ workers, including updating their policies.

As more and more states relax the use of marijuana, perhaps, in part, because tax revenues from the sale of marijuana can help solve budget woes, business owners will also need pain management.

* Barbra Diallo also contributed to the content of this article.

Source: Forbes Magazine (US)
Author: Roxanne Wilson, Contributor
Published: February 26, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Forbes Inc.
Contact: readers@forbes.com
Website: http://www.forbes.com/

As states of a more liberal bent battle the federal government over the legalization of medical and even recreational marijuana, another cannabis battle has reemerged in the farm states. But if pot smoking raises troubling moral and safety questions, industrial hemp does not.

Activists have been struggling to legalize hemp for decades in the U.S., but only recently has the issue seemingly caught fire in Congress. Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell signed on to legislation that had for years been championed by Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the former GOP presidential contender, and has now been taken up by his son Rand, the Republican senator from Kentucky. It would remove hemp from the federal government’s list of Schedule 1 controlled substances and make it legal to cultivate the plant.

What’s so hep about hemp? Supporters tout it as a wonder fiber with dozens of potential uses that would find a lucrative market in the U.S. But while that may be an exaggeration — hemp is unlikely to become anything more than a specialty crop for a few hundred growers supplying goods to high-end food markets and low-end textile producers — there’s no denying that it’s a highly useful weed. The global market for hemp consists of some 25,000 products, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, including fabric, paper, rope, auto parts and home furnishings. Hemp seed, meanwhile, is an alternative protein source used in a variety of food and beverages, and can be pressed to make body oils, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

Despite all this, it is illegal to grow hemp anywhere in the U.S. without permission from the Drug Enforcement Administration. There are currently no active federal licenses, so all hemp products produced here are made from imported material.

Based on its classification under the Controlled Substances Act, one might suspect that hemp provides a cheap high for pot fiends, but one would have to smoke an absurd amount of rope to catch a hemp buzz. The plant seems to have been deemed guilty by association with marijuana because both come from the same species, Cannabis sativa. But just as some mushrooms are magical while others are only good in a salad, not all varieties of cannabis are the same. The intoxicating chemical in marijuana, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is heavily concentrated in the marijuana plant: anywhere from 10% to 30%. The THC content of hemp, by contrast, is less than 1%, and in the varieties legally cultivated in the European Union and Canada must be less than 0.3%.

Historically, hemp was an important crop in the U.S. before it was caught up in an anti-marijuana crusade in the 1930s. When the Controlled Substances Act was approved in 1970, it took the definition of marijuana from the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which considered all varieties of Cannabis sativa to be dangerous and narcotic. Despite court challenges, the DEA continues to insist that any plant containing THC, no matter how little, must be tightly controlled.

Legalization opponents, including the California Narcotics Officers Assn., argue that legalizing hemp would complicate the enforcement of laws against cultivating marijuana because the plants are almost indistinguishable from each other; marijuana growers, in other words, could easily conceal their plants in hemp fields. The association opposed a 2011 state bill to create pilot programs for hemp cultivation, which was approved by the Legislature but vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown because hemp production violates federal law.

Of course, few sensible growers of marijuana would raise their plants in a hemp field. The two varieties would cross-pollinate, severely lowering the pot’s THC content and rendering it all but useless medicinally or as a recreational drug.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether marijuana should be legalized. But the dangers of growing industrial hemp are next to nonexistent. To date, nine states have approved its cultivation, but none has any active fields because of a refusal by the DEA to grant growing permits.

Enough. Hemp is a rare issue that Republicans and Democrats, and members of Congress from both rural and urban states, ought to be able to agree on. Legalize it.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Published: February 25, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/