The Imperial Beach City Council
voted 3-2 Aug. 1 against a city-prepared ballot measure that would have
competed in the November election with a citizen-drafted measure to
repeal the city
posted on August 9, 2012 by
No Competing Marijuana Measure for Imperial Beach
posted on August 9, 2012 by
Bill to stop medical cannabis dispensary seizures introduced in Congress
With recent federal crackdowns on medical
cannabis dispensaries across California, a bill that would stop the
federal government from seizing lawful dispensaries
posted on August 8, 2012 by
Putting DEA on the defensive
This might be the big one for medical
marijuana and marijuana legalization advocates. The U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals in Washington, D.C., has agreed to hear Americans for Safe
Access vs. Drug Enforcement Administration, which challenges the federal classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug.
The
Schedule I classification is one of the biggest arguments against
medical marijuana nationwide because Schedule I drugs are defined as
having no accepted medical use. Marijuana, heroin, ecstasy, LSD and GHB
(the so-called date rape drug) are all classified as Schedule I
substances. Marijuana was placed in that classification of the
Controlled Substances Act in 1970 on the advice of Assistant Secretary
of Health Roger O. Egeberg. In 1972, President Nixon’s National
Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse reported "there is little proven
danger of physical or psychological harm from the experimental or
intermittent use of the natural preparations of cannabis," but it didn’t
make any difference. Ignoring the wisdom of his commission, Nixon kept
pot on Schedule I and created the War on Drugs to get at political
opponents and bolster his stance as the law-and-order guy.
Now
the government is going to have to prove in court that marijuana
deserves to be a Schedule I drug. Oral arguments are scheduled to start
Oct. 16.
This appeal stems from a 2002
petition by the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis
posted on August 8, 2012 by
Oakland Congresswoman Fights Crackdown
Last week was one of the the darkest for the medical marijuana movement, with the federal Justice Department picking two
of San Francisco’s best-known and best-behaving licensed medical
cannabis dispensaries for closure. This came mere weeks after U.S.
Attorney Melinda Haag moved to close Harborside Health Center — the nation’s biggest pot club and Oakland’s second-biggest taxpayer.
Could things get much worse? Well, sure — Haag could close all of
San Francisco’s dispensaries, as she is rumored to be considering to do
by Christmas, according to sources.
Enter Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the Oakland Democrat who is mad as
hell. She introduced legislation in Washington that would halt Haag and
her three California counterparts in their tracks.
Lee on Thursday introduced a bill that would prohibit the Justice
Department from using asset forfeiture laws against the landlords of
state-legal medical marijuana clubs, according to Americans for Safe
Access.
The bill would remove from Haag’s arsenal her most reliable weapon —
shutting down clubs with nothing more than a letter sent via certified
mail. It would also force her to escalate or abandon the war on those
pot patients who suffer from AIDS, cancer, or chronic pain.
The forfeiture laws employed by Haag and her counterparts in
Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego were crafted in the 1980s to
punish narcotics traffickers, but have been handy tools in the statewide
crackdown on medical marijuana,which began last fall.
About a dozen dispensaries have been shut down in the Bay Area since
Oct. 7, 2011, and "hundreds" more across the state have moved
voluntarily or been evicted by landlords, according to ASA.
In very limited public comments made since the crackdown began,
Haag has said that clubs are being targeted for vague and inconsistent
reasons: They’re too close to kids, they’re violating some unspecified
part of state law, or, in, Harborside’s case, they’re simply too big.
Lee’s bill, H.R. 6335, is called the Medical Marijuana Property
Rights Protection Act. It would prohibit the feds from using asset
forfeiture proceedings to threaten, intimidate, or otherwise close
state-legal cannabis dispensaries, and "begin to align federal law to
states’ laws that allow for safe access to medical marijuana," she said
in a statement.
Will it be too little, too late? Or will it even make it out of
committee? In any case, Lee’s is the first direct reaction by a member
of the federal government to the Justice Department’s arbitrary
crackdowns.
posted on August 8, 2012 by
The problem with insuring medical marijuana
If your house burns down, you can file an insurance claim for the
cost of your expensive artwork and jewelry. But even if you
posted on August 7, 2012 by
Feds Should Allow Medical Marijuana
Starting on Oct. 1, medical marijuana will be legal in Connecticut.
Although our state’s medical marijuana law was carefully designed to
minimize the risk of federal invention, the legal reality is that the
federal government can still prosecute anyone growing, selling or even
using marijuana in compliance with state law. Our state leaders should
act to protect Connecticut’s citizens, and call on President Barack
Obama to allow medical marijuana at the federal level.
Despite
the president’s 2008 campaign promise to not interfere with states’
medical marijuana programs, his administration has shown it is all too
willing to crack down on dispensaries
posted on August 6, 2012 by
Hoaxes, Satire, Art: What Crosses The Line Legally
Last week, news organizations in San Diego received a press release
from the U.S. Attorney’s office that turned out to be a hoax put on by
the medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access.
Then, The North County Times reported
the creation of that hoax was inspired by a workshop hosted by the San
Diego Museum of Art. The political activist and artist group "The Yes Men" spoke at the workshop to give local groups tips on what they call "telling lies to reveal the truth."
The museum quickly issued a statement denying a direct role in the hoax.
"The San Diego Museum of Art did not pay for or support any component
of this hoax, nor any other programs created by workshop participants,"
the statement said.
But Eugene Davidovich, a spokesman for Americans for Safe Access,
told The North County Times his group received $100 from the museum to
cover the costs of the projects.
The U.S. Attorney is now investigating the incident. Glenn Smith, a
constitutional law professor at Cal Western School of Law, told KPBS
impersonating a federal official is a federal crime.
But, he said, the legality of hoaxes depends on the context.
"When you have the element of political speech and outrageousness and
the kinds of falsity and drama we traditionally in First Amendment law
allow room for, it gets a little more complicated," he said.
"There are no absolutes in freedom of speech and rarely in law," he added.
Smith said you have a right to make false statements and pretend to be someone to make a political point.
"But when it collides against a law, like impersonating a federal
officer, or no one has the right to extort money from someone under
false pretenses even if it’s for a political reason," he said.
He said the San Diego Museum of Art could also theoretically be
liable for "aiding and abetting" the hoax, but said that issue is even
more complicated.
KPBS asked Americans for Safe Access, the San Diego Museum of Art and Yes Men for interviews, but all groups declined.
posted on July 26, 2012 by
Dispensary issue placed on Imperial Beach ballot
Amid thunderous applause and cheers,
the Imperial Beach City Council voted 4-1 last week to let voters
decide in November whether they want to lift the city
posted on July 25, 2012 by
Mother Earth lives to dispense another day
The only medical-marijuana
collective operating with the county
posted on July 25, 2012 by
Marijuana Dispensary Ban in L.A. Could be Overturned by Voters: Signature Drive Ahead
The pro-medical marijuana group Americans for Safe Access announced
that it will launch a signature drive in an attempt to overturn the city of L.A.’s looming ban on cannabis shops.
The group made the promise late yesterday in a statement to the media. The City Clerk’s office tells the Weekly
the organization would need 27,425 valid signatures from registered
voters by Sept. 21 to make the March 5 ballot; the next deadline is Dec.
7 for the May 21 mayoral election.
There are a lot of what ifs in this scenario, however:
ASA spokes Kris Hermes tells us they’re going to wait for the City
Council ordinance to become law before it makes a move: The council,
which voted 14-0 to enact the ban, still has to confirm its vote in a
week, the mayor has to sign the law, and it has to be "published" for
the public to soak it in. This could take a few months.
However, the group does appear to have the resources to gather that many signatures in a short amount of time. Hermes:
We file a referendum, then gather signatures, just under 31,000 signatures. That doesn’t sound too tough.
If it’s successful, the City Council would either have to repeal the ban or let the voters decide.
There are other options that could still save dispensaries in L.A.
One, Hermes notes, is taking City Hall to court to challenge the ban.
There is the option of litigation against the city for its
completely inadequate and ill-advised ordinance that it did pass. There
is the possibility we could take legal action. We’re just reviewing our
options at the moment.
One other possibility: The council yesterday also approved an
alternative proposal, which needs some vetting, that would allow 182 pot
shops that existed before a 2007 city moratorium on dispensaries to
continue operating under stricter rules. Hermes:
We’re strongly in favor of a proposal that would regulate a certain number of dispensaries in the city.
