In a crucial win for patients in Michigan, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the state’s zero tolerance driving under the influence law does not apply to medical marijuana patients when it is based on the mere presence of THC in a patient’s blood stream. Because THC can remain in a person’s system for days after it is consumed, the only other result would have meant that thousands of medical marijuana patients would be driving illegally simply for having used their medicine hours or days earlier.

Rodney Koon

Rodney Koon — a medical marijuana patient — was stopped while driving and later accused of a DUI because he had THC in his system. He said he had not used his medicine in six hours. The state Supreme Court found that under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act — which was drafted by MPP — a registered patient cannot be penalized or arrested for the “internal possession” of marijuana, so long as the patient complies with the requirements of the law. The initiative’s protections trump the state’s zero tolerance law for registered patients. The court noted the law does not allow patients to drive when they are under the influence of marijuana.

Last Friday, the Organization of American States (OAS) gathered in Bogotá, Colombia for the release of its $2 million report, ”The Drug Problem in the Americas,” which characterized marijuana as a relatively benign drug.

The 400-page study concluded that if the United States was sincere in its desire to reduce drug violence in the western hemisphere, then it would have to seriously rethink its stance on marijuana and look into more rational drug policies:

“It would be worthwhile to assess existing signals and trends that lean toward the decriminalization or legalization of the production, sale, and use of marijuana. Sooner or later decisions in this area will need to be taken.”

Jose Miguel Insulza

The discussion is long overdue, according to OAS Secretary-General José Miguel Insulza, and most Latin American leaders – “whose countries suffer the bloody brunt of the largely failed U.S.-led drug war” – agree.

This is not the first time the Obama Administration has been asked by its neighboring governments to consider adopting more lenient marijuana policies in order to help combat the violent drug cartels that plague Latin America. The question was raised at last year’s Summit of the Americas.

The response from American officials was typical: making marijuana legal is not an option they will consider.

Rafael Lemaitre, spokesman for the White House’s drug czar, said in response to the report that “any suggestion that nations legalize drugs like heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and methamphetamine runs counter to an evidenced-based, public health approach to drug policy and are not viable alternatives.”

It is hardly “evidence-based” to lump marijuana in with the other drugs mentioned in that statement. Studies have conclusively shown that marijuana is objectively safer than all of them, including legal alcohol. Nor is it in the interest of public health to continue allowing the marijuana industry to be controlled by violent criminal organizations.

Latin America can attest to the fact that this drug war has a real body count. The United States needs to take responsibility for its failed policies and be willing to listen to its neighbors.

THE first time I talked to Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert at U.C.L.A., was in 2002, and he explained why legalization of marijuana was a bad idea.  Sure, he said, the government should remove penalties for possession, use and cultivation of small amounts.

He did not favor making outlaws of people for enjoying a drug that is less injurious than alcohol or tobacco.

But he worried that a robust commercial marketplace would inevitably lead to much more consumption.  You don’t have to be a prohibitionist to recognize that pot, especially in adolescents and very heavy users, can seriously mess with your brain.

So I was interested to learn, 11 years later, that Kleiman is leading the team hired to advise Washington State as it designs something the modern world has never seen: a fully legal commercial market in cannabis.  Washington is one of the first two states ( Colorado is the other ) to legalize the production, sale and consumption of marijuana as a recreational drug for consumers 21 and over.  The marijuana debate has entered a new stage.

Today the most interesting and important question is no longer whether marijuana will be legalized – eventually, bit by bit, it will be – but how.

“At some point you have to say, a law that people don’t obey is a bad law,” Kleiman told me when I asked how his views had evolved.

He has not come to believe marijuana is harmless, but he suspects that the best hope of minimizing its harm may be a well-regulated market.

Ah, but what does that look like? A few places, like the Netherlands, have had limited legalization; many jurisdictions have decriminalized personal use; and 18 states in this country have approved the drug for medical use.  ( Twelve others, including New York, are considering it.  ) But Washington and Colorado have set out to invent a whole industry from scratch and, in theory, to avoid the shortcomings of other markets in legal vices – tobacco, alcohol, gambling – that lurched into being without much forethought, and have supplied, along with much pleasure, much misery.

The biggest shadow hanging over this project is the Department of Justice.  Federal law still makes felons of anyone who trades in cannabis.  Despite the tolerant drift of the polls, despite evidence indicating that states with medical marijuana programs have not, as opponents feared, experienced an increase in use by teenagers, despite new moves toward legalization in Latin America, no one expects Congress to remove cannabis from the list of criminal substances any time soon.  ( “Not until the second Hillary Clinton administration,” Kleiman says.  ) But federal authorities have always left a lot of room for local discretion on marijuana enforcement.  They could, for example, declare that they will prosecute only drug producers who grow more than a certain amount, and those who traffic across state lines.

Attorney General Eric Holder, perhaps preoccupied with scandal management, has been slow to come up with enforcement guidelines that could give the states a comfort zone in which to experiment.

One practical challenge facing the legalization pioneers is how to keep the marijuana market from being swallowed by a few big profiteers – the pot equivalent of Big Tobacco, or even the actual tobacco industry – a powerful oligopoly with every incentive to turn us into a nation of stoners.

There is nothing inherently evil about the profit motive, but there is evidence that pot dealers, like purveyors of alcohol, get the bulk of their profit from those who use the product to excess.  “When you get a for-profit producer or distributor industry going, their incentives are to increase sales,” said Jonathan Caulkins of Carnegie Mellon, another member of the Washington consulting team.  “And the vast majority of sales go to people who are daily or near-daily consumers.”

What Kleiman and his colleagues ( speaking for themselves, not Washington State ) imagine as the likely best model is something resembling the wine industry – a fragmented market, many producers, none dominant.

This could be done by limiting the size of licensed purveyors.  It would help, too, to let individuals grow a few plants at home – something Colorado’s new law permits but Washington’s does not, because polling showed Washingtonians didn’t want that.

If you read the proposal Kleiman’s team submitted to Washington State, you may be a little boggled by the complexities of turning an illicit herb into a regulated, safe, consumer-friendly business.  Among the things on the to-do list: certifying labs to test for potency and contamination.  ( Pot can contain, among other nasty things, pesticides, molds and salmonella.  ) Devising rules on labeling, so users know what they’re getting.

Hiring inspectors, to make sure the sellers comply.

Establishing limits on advertising, because you don’t want allowing to become promoting.

And all these rules must account not just for smoking but for pot pastries, pot candies, pot-infused beverages, pot lozenges, pot ice cream, pot vapor inhalers.

One of the selling points of legalization is that states can take a cut of what will be, according to estimates, a $35 billion to $45 billion industry and earmark some of these new tax revenues for good causes.  It’s the same tactic used to win public approval of lotteries – – and with the same danger: that some worthy government function comes to depend on creating more addicts.

And how do you divvy up the revenues? How much goes to offset health consequences? How much goes to enforcement? How do you calibrate taxes so the price of pot is high enough to discourage excessive use, but not so high that a cheap black market arises?

All this regulating is almost enough to take the fun out of drugs.

And then there is the issue of drugged driving.

Much about the chemistry of marijuana in human beings remains uncertain, in part because the government has not supported much research.

So no one has come up with a pot version of the breathalyzer to determine quickly whether a driver is impaired.

In the absence of solid research, some legalization advocates insist stoned drivers are more cautious, and thus safer.  ( Hands up if you want Harold and Kumar driving your taxi.  Or piloting your airplane.  ) On this and much else, Washington and Colorado will probably be making it up as they go, waiting for science to catch up.

And experience tells us they are sure to get some things wrong.

New York decriminalized possession of small amounts of pot way back in 1977, with the condition that there be no “public display.” The lawmakers meant to assure that you partied at home, not in the parks or on the sidewalks.

They did not envision that this provision would create a pretext for throwing young black and Latino men in jail.  When police in New York City stop and frisk, which they do a lot in rougher neighborhoods, they order their targets to turn out their pockets and – whoa, public display, come with us, son! Gov.  Andrew Cuomo is promoting an amendment to curb that abuse of power.

On the opposite coast, California demonstrates a different kind of unintended consequences.  The state’s medical marijuana law is such a free-for-all that in Los Angeles there are now said to be more pot dispensaries than Starbucks outlets.

Even advocates of full legalization say things have gotten out of hand.

“It’s a bit of a farce when you can watch people come out of a dispensary, go around the corner and resell their drugs,” said Gavin Newsom, the lieutenant governor and former San Francisco mayor, who favors legalization.  “If we can’t get our medical marijuana house in order, how do we expect voters to deal with legalization?” He is now part of a group discussing how to impose more order on California’s medical marijuana market, with an eye to offering broader legalization in 2016.  And, he told me, his state will be paying close attention to Washington and Colorado, hoping somebody can, as Mark Kleiman puts it, “design a system that gets us to ‘orderly’ without getting us to ‘way too stoned.’ ”

Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2013 The New York Times Company
Contact: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor.html
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Author: Bill Keller

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that medical marijuana users aren’t automatically breaking the law if they’re caught driving after using the drug.

The court unanimously overturned an appeals court decision in the case of a Grand Traverse County man, Rodney Koon. He was stopped in 2010 for speeding — going nearly 30 mph over the limit. Koon admitted having smoked medical marijuana earlier, and a blood test revealed the drug in his system.

It’s illegal for Michigan drivers to consume marijuana. But the state high court said medical marijuana users have some protection. The court says police must show that a driver actually was “under the influence” of marijuana for a charge to stick.

Michigan voters approved medical use of marijuana in 2008.

The medical marijuana law “shields registered patients from prosecution for the internal possession of marijuana,” the judges said.

At the same time, the law prohibits driving “while under the influence of marijuana.” But it fails to specify what level of marijuana in the body constitutes being “under the influence,” the opinion said.

The court suggested lawmakers consider setting a marijuana limit, similar to a blood alcohol level.

“It goes almost without saying that the (medical marijuana law) is an imperfect statute, the interpretation of which has repeatedly required this Court’s intervention,” the justices said. “Indeed, this case could have been easily resolved if the (law) had provided a definition of ‘under the influence.’”

Ruling: http://drugsense.org/url/9bqm5UTK

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Published: May 22, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Associated Press

San Diego Mayor Bob Filner took the unusual step this week of injecting
himself into a federal criminal prosecution, encouraging jurors to find
the former owner of medical marijuana dispensaries not guilty of drug
charges if they believe prosecuting such cases is unjust.

Filner, a supporter of medical marijuana use who wants the city to adopt
regulations allowing outlets to provide the drug, spoke at a news
conference Monday outside the federal court following a hearing in the
case prosecutors have brought against Ronnie Chang.

Chang faces 60 charges, including conspiracy to manufacture and
distribute marijuana and money laundering, stemming from two medical
marijuana dispensaries he owned in San Marcos and Wildomar.

He has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers have argued his prosecution is
unjust because Chang was complying fully with California law, which
allows medicinal use of marijuana. They

The overwhelming approval of
Proposition D on Tuesday’s ballot – and the rejection of two competing
proposals – could result in the shutdown of hundreds of marijuana
dispensaries around Los Angeles, but exactly how and when that would
happen remains undetermined.

One thing is known, however, and that is the pot shops aren’t likely
to go quietly. They have already shown a tendency to fight the city
through initiative and lawsuit, and some say they are continuing to
weigh their legal options now.

Proposition D, written by the City Council, imposes a cap of 135 on
dispensaries in Los Angeles – the facilities that were already open and
registered with the city before a moratorium was put in place in 2007.

Clinics that were shut out of the 135 had proposed Initiative
Ordinance F to regulate dispensaries, but not cap them. A third measure,
Ordinance E, also capped the number at 135, but offered fewer other
restrictions. Voters supported D with 62.57 percent of the vote, but
rejected F and E.

An estimated 800 to 1,000 dispensaries or more are believed to fall
outside the cap and would have 30 days after the measure takes effect in
about three
weeks to close down. But whether the city’s enforcement action would
actually begin that quickly remains unclear. A Los Angeles Police
Department spokesman said it was too early to detail the enforcement
plans.

Garry South, the consultant for Ordinance F, said he suspects there
will be a period of reflection by clinics facing closure and then they
will decide whether to challenge the measure in court.

"Proposition D has the same deficiencies as previous ordinances in
that it bases the right to stay open on the interim control ordinance
that already has been ruled a violation of due process," South said.

He predicted that many clinics that believe they will be able to stay
open will be pressured by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration
and forced to shut down.

David Welch, attorney for Ordinance F, said those discussions are
already underway among clinics on whether to challenge the measure.

"We think there’s a strong possibility we would prevail in a
lawsuit," Welch said. "A lot of the issues have been decided already and
we think we could prevail. We will be talking over the next month to
decide what course of action to take."

Art Aza, the co-owner of Green Kiss Collective, a dispensary in North
Hollywood, argued Measure D was more about limiting competition in the
market.

"This is not about marijuana being illegal or legal, it’s about
controlling the number of shops and keeping the market exclusive for the
lucky shops who just happened to get their license before me," Aza
said. "I’m not a supporter of having too many shops, but even at 135 it
still seems like a monopoly to me."

Aza, who opened his clinic at 6356 Vineland Ave. in 2012, argues that
it’s unfair that the reason his clinic will close and others can stay
open is that they were opened before 2007, rather than basing it on the
quality of their operations.

"Go ahead with regulations and close the shops that don’t follow the
rules," Aza said. "But if you’re operating in the right place and doing
good business, whether you opened before 2007 or not, there’s no reason
to shut down."

Incensed by the issue, Aza called it "the worst thing that I’ve seen
in Los Angeles," but said as a businessman he’ll likely be OK,
ultimately looking for another type of business to open.

Proposition D received 193,969 votes, or 62.57 percent, with 72,070, or 23.43 percent, opposed to it.

Ordinance E was rejected by a margin of 97,499 in favor, or 34.55 percent, and 184,681 opposed, or 65.44 percent.

Ordinance F received 117,305 votes, or 40.88 percent, and was rejected by 169,629 voters, or 59.11 percent.

The vote was receiving statewide attention as the first test of
efforts to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries since the state
Supreme Court upheld the right of local jurisdictions to ban the
clinics.

City Council President Herb Wesson said he was pleased with the
outcome and hopes it will resolve the disputes that have raged for the
past several years.

"I think this was important for us to be able to let people know how and where they can operate," Wesson said.

Wesson added the measure will put into place regulations for the city
and the remaining clinic operators to follow, but he would oppose any
effort to actually shut them all down.

"There are only a couple of members on the City Council who want to
close them all down, and I’m not one of them," Wesson said. "I had
family members who suffered with AIDS and the only way they got through
it was with medical marijuana."

Welch said he is not sure the city is able to say which clinics are legal and can continue to operate.

City officials are reviewing a list of operating marijuana
dispensaries and expect to have an updated one by the end of the week,
said city attorney special assistant Jane Usher.

"Because of the legal uncertainties under which the industry has
been operating, shops currently try to fly under the radar through a
great amount of fluidity – they open, close, move, reopen, and so
forth," Usher said. "The beauty of the new law is that this shuffle will
become a thing of the past."

Don Duncan, California director of Americans for Safe Access – a
pro-medical marijuana group that supported Proposition D – said the vote
helps bring some clarity after years of uncertainty over the issue in
Los Angeles.

"At long last, after more than seven years of trying to establish
reasonable regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries in Los
Angeles, patients can now expect safe and legal access to their
medication," Duncan said.

"The vote, however, does not entitle the city to aggressively shut
down disqualified dispensaries using criminal enforcement," he added.
"The city should allow dispensaries to voluntarily comply with the new
law and rely on civil enforcement only if necessary."

Duncan said the regulations contained in the proposal will require
dispensaries to operate as nonprofits, pay local taxes, and locate at
least 600 feet from public parks, libraries and other facilities. It
also includes a 6 percent tax on any sales.

TLMD, a cannabis clinic at 12458 Magnolia Blvd. in Valley Village,
supported Proposition D and is among the 135 clinics licensed before
2007. Avery York, a manager at TLMD, is hopeful that the measure will
help weed out the unlawful collectives that have made it hard for the
industry to maintain a respectable reputation in local circles.

"We don’t want to see anyone have to close their doors because we
knew there are new collectives that operate under state law," York said.
"But there are plenty other who made a bad name for us, the ones who
have tried to do it right from the beginning."