Last week, legislators in the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services heard compelling testimony on Assembly Bill 351. This modest and sensible bill would exempt Nevada’s medical marijuana patients from the state’s unscientific limit on how much THC they can have in their systems while driving.

For medical marijuana patients – who can legally consume marijuana – prohibiting small amounts of THC from showing up in blood tests is patently unfair. Active THC can remain in the bloodstream for days after consumption, even when it does not affect a person’s ability to drive. In effect, many medical marijuana patients are prohibited from driving because of this unfair law. Assemblyman William Horne aims to change this in his bill.

Assemblyman William Horne

Nevada’s patients should not be prohibited from driving simply because they benefit from the use of medical marijuana. DUI’s should be based on impairment – not whether drivers have a legal substance in their bloodstream.

If you are a Nevada resident, please send a message to members of the Senate committee and voice your support for this bill!

Gov. Shumlin

State lawmakers gave final approval Monday to a measure that will decriminalize possession of limited amounts of marijuana in Vermont. The bill will now be transmitted to Gov. Peter Shumlin, who is expected to sign it into law in coming weeks, at which time Vermont will become the 17th state in the nation to decriminalize or legalize marijuana.

H. 200, introduced by Rep. Christopher Pearson (P-Burlington) with a tripartisan group of 38 co-sponsors, will remove criminal penalties for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana and replace them with a civil fine, similar to a traffic ticket. Those under age 21 would be required to undergo substance abuse screening. Under current state law, possession of up to two ounces of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail for a first offense and up to two years in jail for a subsequent offense.

The Vermont victory marks another big step toward ending marijuana prohibition in our country, but there’s still a lot more work to be done. Marijuana policy reform bills have been introduced in 30 state legislatures this year, and even more are expected next year.

Vermont’s legislature on Monday approved a bill that would decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana, a measure the state’s governor expects to sign into law in the coming weeks.

The move sets up the New England state to be the 17th in the United States to remove criminal penalties for having small amounts of pot. It does not go as far as Colorado and Washington, which in November became the first states to legalize possession, cultivation and use of marijuana by adults for recreational use.

Vermont’s House of Representatives on Monday gave final approval to a proposal to remove criminal penalties for adult possession of up to one ounce (28.3 grams) of marijuana and instead penalize with a civil fine, similar to a traffic ticket. Persons under age 21 caught with pot would be required to undergo substance abuse screening.

The House’s action upheld changes to the bill last week by Vermont’s Senate, including a provision that decriminalized possession of up to five grams of hashish, a potent pot derivative.

“I applaud the legislature’s action to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana,” said Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin. “Vermonters support sensible drug policies. This legislation allows our courts and law enforcement to focus their limited resources more effectively to fight highly addictive opiates such as heroin and prescription drugs that are tearing apart families and communities.”

A spokeswoman said the governor will sign the bill into law “within a few weeks.”

Currently in Vermont, possessing up to two ounces of pot is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail for a first offense and up to two years in jail for later offenses.

The measure was introduced in early February by state Representative Christopher Pearson of Burlington, with 38 co-sponsors from the Democratic, Republican and Progressive parties. A similar proposal also was introduced in the Senate.

The latest proposal is similar to “decriminalization” laws in California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island, where private, non-medical possession of marijuana is treated as a civil, non-criminal offense, said NORML, a group that supports marijuana legalization.

Five other states — Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio — treat marijuana possession as a fine-only misdemeanor offense, NORML said.

Alaska also imposes no criminal or civil penalty for the private possession of small amounts of marijuana, after action by its state Supreme Court, said NORML.

Vermont already had legalized pot for medical use in 2004.

Editing by Scott Malone and Nick Zieminski

Source: Reuters (Wire)
Author: Zach Howard
Published: May 13, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Thomson Reuters

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder delivered the
commencement address to UC Berkeley School of Law students on Saturday
morning at the Greek Theatre.

Holder gave his speech amid protests from human rights and medical
marijuana activists. In his remarks, Holder touched on some of
protesters

Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon said she is in favor of a bill allowing the medical use of marijuana, explaining Sunday that testimony from seriously ill veterans and other patients helped change her mind.

“As a former prosecutor my first reaction was, ‘I’m not interesting in changing our laws on medical marijuana,’” she told The Associated Press in an interview Sunday. But she said that after hearing from patients and reading up on the bill, she’s convinced the regulations are strict enough. Backers of the measure, which has cleared the Illinois House and awaits a Senate vote, have said the same thing.

The plan, touted as the strictest in the nation among states that have legalized medical marijuana, would authorize physicians to prescribe marijuana to patients with whom they have an existing relationship and who are living with at least one of more than 30 medical conditions, including cancer.

The proposal creates a framework for a pilot program that includes requiring patients and caregivers to undergo background checks. It also sets a 2.5-ounce limit per patient per purchase and sets out state-regulated dispensaries.

Supporters say marijuana can relieve continual pain without the detrimental side effects of prescription drugs. But opponents say the program could encourage recreational use, especially among teenagers.

The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police and the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association are opposed to the measure, saying there’s no sure way to figure out whether a motorist is driving under the influence of marijuana.

But Simon told the AP the bill is strict enough to prevent misuse.

“It does a good job of both getting medical marijuana to people who need and keeping it away from those who don’t,” she said.

Gov. Pat Quinn, a Chicago Democrat, has been noncommittal whether he would sign the bill, saying instead that he is open-minded to the idea.

Simon is weighing a run for another statewide office instead of seeking another term as lieutenant governor. The Carbondale Democrat declined Sunday to say which office she will run for, saying she will wait to see how other shape up.

Simon is likely choosing between Illinois’ attorney general, comptroller or treasurer. In recent months, Simon has played up her law-related background and accomplishments including as a pro bono lawyer and prosecutor.

Her decision comes as the 2014 governor’s race is heating up and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is weighing a possible challenge to Quinn.

The bill is HB1.

Online: http://www.ilga.gov

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Sophia Tareen, Associated Press
Published: May 10, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Associated Press

If American society’s tolerance for marijuana is now growing, then what happened in Montana illustrates just what can happen when the government decides things have gone too far. Pot advocates were running caravans, helping hundreds of residents in a day get medical marijuana user cards. Some doctors who conducted cursory exams on scores of people were fined. As the number of users quickly grew, so did a retail industry that led some to dub the state “Big High Country.”

Today, thousands of medical pot providers have gone out of business, and a health department survey showed that the number of registered users have fallen to less than a quarter of their 2011 numbers.

The drop was driven in part by a tougher 2011 law on medical marijuana use and distribution. But more than anything, marijuana advocates say, the demise of the once-booming medical pot industry was the result of the largest federal drug-trafficking investigation in the state’s industry.

The three-year investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office, the Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal agencies wrapped up last week when the last of 33 convicted defendants was sentenced. That allowed its architect, U.S. Attorney Michael Cotter, to speak publicly for the first time on the crackdown.

“For a long time, we were hearing complaints from local law enforcement and from citizens … that they were tired of marijuana and they were tired of it next to schools, to churches, people smoking it openly on the streets,” Cotter said in an interview with The Associated Press.

“It was just something that had to be done,” he said. “And the result of doing it the way that we did, it was a strong statement that marijuana wasn’t going to be tolerated in Montana.”

Cotter said he believes he is on the right side of history, regardless of what is happening in the country. Last fall, voters in Colorado and Washington state passed laws to legalize recreational pot use, and a Pew Research Center poll released last month found 52 percent of Americans think marijuana should be legal.

The Justice Department has yet to decide whether to sue in federal court to block Colorado and Washington’s laws under the legal argument that federal laws outlawing any use, possession or distribution of marijuana prevail over state laws.

In Montana, what started out as a system to provide marijuana to those with health problems turned the state into a source for drug trafficking, Cotter said. The industry had ballooned so much and so quickly that drug traffickers were operating under the guise of medicinal caregivers, and the pot was being sent to users in New Jersey, Virginia, Colorado and other states, he said.

Now, marijuana is still in Montana, but it’s manageable, he said.

The investigations were split geographically into three parts: Operation Smokejumper, Operation Weed Be Gone and Operation Noxious Weed. They targeted medical marijuana providers dealing in more than 100 plants and came away with 34 indictments, from a longtime state lobbyist to a former University of Montana quarterback.

Most of those arrested argued at first that they were following the state’s medical marijuana law. When federal prosecutors, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thaggard, successfully squelched that argument in court, all but three of the providers made plea deals.

The federal Controlled Substances Act, which bans any distribution or use of marijuana, trumps state law, Thaggard said. Besides, the investigation found that none of the defendants was following state law, he added.

“I think that we were confident that if we had to go down that road, we would show just how out of compliance these people were,” Thaggard said.

The final scorecard: 33 convictions. Thirty-one made plea deals, two went to trial and lost and the case against the accountant of a provider was dismissed.

Federal prosecutors in other states watched closely as the probe unfolded in Montana, and was widely seen as a success and possibly a model for others, Cotter said.

“Speaking through enforcement action does have the deterrent effect that is needed,” Cotter said. “It had the effect that we were looking for, and that was to deter the trafficking of marijuana.”

Montana Cannabis Information Association spokesman and Marijuana Policy Project lobbyist Chris Lindsey — who also was one of the 33 providers convicted in the probe — agreed the federal investigation was the main driver in changing the shape of the industry.

But a federal crackdown won’t stem the tide of the public will, he said.

Montana residents are increasingly in favor of improving the medical marijuana laws so there is better regulation and better access for those who need it, Lindsey said. “In Montana, it seems our options have only been the wild, wild West or no activity at all. Ultimately, we will be in the middle,” Lindsey said.

Cotter and DEA Agent in Charge Brady MacKay, who led much of the investigation, dispute that medical marijuana is beneficial for the seriously ill. They say patients who need the relief that marijuana provides should get it from Marinol, a prescription drug that contains some of the properties of marijuana.

“I think it’s Madison Avenue marketing, the person who dreamed up tying medical and marijuana together,” Cotter said. “It’s a powerful marketing tool. But the fact of the matter remains that marijuana is a dangerous drug and it’s harmful to people,” Cotter said.

Source: Billings Gazette, The (MT)
Published: May 12, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The Billings Gazette
Contact: speakup@billingsgazette.com
Website: http://www.billingsgazette.com/

Many California that have
taken a stand on the medical marijuana question have given firm "no"
answers to those wishing to operate cannabis dispensaries, but this
suburb has been an exception.

Diamond Bar, in contrast to many of its neighbors, has an ordinance
that allows a single medical marijuana dispensary to operate within city
limits. That privileged position is currently occupied by a dispensary
calling itself Farm Assist Caregivers, which did not make anyone
available to comment for this article.

Diamond Bar’s 2006 ordinance was adopted at a time when California’s
marijuana laws were less clear than they are today. Despite the federal
prohibition of marijuana, California’s Proposition 215 and S.B. 420
respectively allowed state residents to use marijuana for medicinal
purposes and allowed those patients to obtain identification cards to
distinguish themselves from recreational users who enjoyed marijuana
outside of the bounds of state law.

The seeming contradiction between state and federal law led to some
doubt as to whether cities had the power to forbid medical marijuana
dispensaries from operating within their limits. That in turn led to a
strange situation in which some cities, such as San Bernardino, had bans
in place while dispensaries have operated openly so long as officials
could not be sure their efforts to enforce those bans would ultimately
be upheld in court.

The California Supreme
Court ended much of that doubt Monday when justices handed down a
unanimous opinion upholding cities’ power to prohibit dispensaries.
Justices determined that state law allows medical marijuana patients to
escape punishment for using a controlled substances, but state laws do
not go as far as to make marijuana 100 percent legal.

In light of the new ruling, Diamond Bar Mayor Jack Tanaka said it may
be time to reconsider the city’s law. Although he has not been informed
of any problems around Farm Assist Caregivers, Tanaka said Diamond Bar
adopted the ordinance at a time when he and other city officials were
not certain they had the power to forbid dispensaries.

"When it first got started, I wasn’t happy with it," Tanaka said last week.

In the immediate aftermath of the court’s ruling, however, Tanaka
said there is no movement to create a ban on dispensaries and said "I
think it’s relatively soon" to look at changing Diamond Bar’s law.

Diamond Bar Councilwoman Carol Herrera, like Tanaka, also said there
has yet to be any talk of instituting an outright ban of dispensaries in
her city. She said her opinion may be different if city officials faced
the challenge of controlling several dispensaries, but a single
dispensary is something she can live with.

"So, far the ordinance has worked well and all is peaceful in the city," Herrera said.

Unlike Diamond Bar, inland cities that have banned dispensaries
include Upland, Ontario, Redlands and Riverside. Inland Empire Patient
Health & Wellness Center and its legal dispute with Riverside over
its ban was at the center of the case leading to Monday’s state Supreme
Court opinion.

Besides Diamond Bar, California cities where officials have chosen to
regulate dispensaries instead of banning them include Northern
California liberal havens such as San Francisco, Oakland and Eureka,
according to Americans for Safe Access, an organization in favor of
medicinal cannabis.

Americans for Safe Access’ list also includes Palm Springs, where the
city code allows a maximum of three dispensaries, and the San
Bernardino County desert town of Yucca Valley. Yucca Valley Town Clerk
Jamie Anderson said, however, the policy of allowing a single dispensary
to operate is scheduled to expire in August.

Americans for Safe Access spokesman Kris Hermes said there is less
worry within the organization that cities that have chosen to allow
dispensaries will switch to banning them as there is concern localities
that have instituted temporary bans will move to make them permanent.
The group supports legislation to establish statewide medical marijuana
regulations and clarify marijuana collectives’ immunity from
prosecution.

Read more: http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_23226046/diamond-bar-finds-peace-one-local-dispensary#ixzz2TCDFHOBk

The regulation of medical marijuana in Los Angeles is a mess and has been ever since Proposition 215 was approved by California voters in November 1996.

Repeated state and city efforts to bring the chaotic situation under control have had little effect. A move by the City Council in 2007 to register medical marijuana dispensaries, for instance, led instead to an unexpected proliferation. An attempt to limit them in 2010 drew 66 lawsuits and a court-ordered injunction. An ordinance to ban them outright in 2012 was quickly repealed after marijuana businesses gathered enough signatures for a referendum to overturn the measure. Court decisions designed to clarify the murky laws have instead contradicted one another.

Today, there are an estimated 850 dispensaries — or maybe it’s 1,000 or 1,600 (no one seems sure) — operating in Los Angeles despite the city’s position that they’re illegal. Everyone knows that medical marijuana can be easily obtained by recreational users who aren’t truly sick. The “medicine” is not monitored by the government for potential health or safety problems; the dispensaries, by many accounts, are not nonprofit “collectives,” as state law requires (although it’s not really clear what a nonprofit collective is or isn’t). Residents in some neighborhoods complain that they are being overrun by dispensaries, and that many pot shops serve as hubs for crime.

A mess, like we said. And on May 21, Angelenos will have the opportunity to muck it up even further, if they’re not careful. On the ballot will be not one or two but three competing marijuana initiatives: Measures D, E and F.

It would be easy enough to urge a no vote on all three, and to call on the city to impose a full-scale ban instead. After all, The Times opposed Proposition 215 from the outset, partly because it was sloppily written and partly because it set up an inevitable conflict with the federal government, which continues to classify marijuana as illegal and dangerous.

But voting no solves nothing. The people of Los Angeles, like the people of California, overwhelmingly support making medical marijuana available to cancer patients, glaucoma sufferers and others. A ban would be unlikely to pass, and besides, denying marijuana to truly sick patients who can benefit from it would be a step backward. Given that, and given that the status quo is entirely unacceptable, the city’s best hope is to try to carry out the will of the voters with minimal confusion and maximum control to ensure that medical marijuana remains accessible to those who need it.

Measure D will come the closest to accomplishing that goal, or at least will put us on the right road.

Most important, it would impose limits on the number of marijuana businesses in the city, allowing about 135 dispensaries to remain open — those that were operating and registered under city laws in 2007 and that sought to re-register in 2011. Limits are essential. Even people who support easy access to medical cannabis can see that there need to be rules and oversight, as with bars and liquor stores. But resources are limited, and the city can’t police an infinite number of establishments.

Measure D is backed by both mayoral candidates and the current city attorney and his challenger. It applies to any organization of four or more people who cultivate, process, distribute or give away medical marijuana. It hikes the gross receipts tax on their operations — to $60 per $1,000 of gross receipts — and establishes the distances they must keep from schools, parks, one another and residential neighborhoods. It sets hours — they must be closed between 8 p.m. and 10 a.m. — prohibits the consumption of marijuana on the premises and requires background checks on managers, among other provisions.

It is far from perfect. For one thing, it is somewhat arbitrary. Why should a handful of dispensaries that got in under the wire in 2007 be the ones that now get to stay open? There’s no reason to think those particular establishments are more responsible than any other. For another, if it is passed, the city will be required to close hundreds of existing dispensaries, which could prove difficult, legally and practically. Here’s another thing: Measure D doesn’t create a process for a new dispensary to open when one of the 135 closes; that seems like an unfortunate oversight. And it would be far better if the measure could be amended or repealed by the City Council without requiring an additional vote of the people. But it cannot.

Still, Measure D is the best of the bunch.

Measure F, by contrast, sets no limits. It includes some strong rules and protections — in some cases stronger than those in D. But the city simply can’t sustain an unlimited number of dispensaries. Supporters of F say there would be de facto limits as a result of the requirements about how close dispensaries could be to schools, parks and one another, and that the final number would be in the hundreds. But what guarantee is there? Certainly nothing in the law.

As for Measure E — ignore it. That measure became moot after its supporters agreed to throw their support to Measure D.

No matter what you think of medical marijuana, it’s hard to deny that implementation of Proposition 215 has been unsuccessful. The Legislature and the state attorney general’s office were late to offer much-needed guidance. The federal government sent mixed messages about what it would or would not tolerate. The city of Los Angeles has flailed around, trying and failing to devise a workable set of rules.

Even if Measure D passes, there will still be no way to ensure that medical marijuana goes only to the sick people who are entitled to it, or that the product being sold is safe and untainted. Moreover, there will still be no resolution to the ongoing conflict between state and federal law. Perhaps one day the U.S. government will decide that marijuana should no longer be a Schedule I controlled substance, which means it has no medical use and is as dangerous as heroin. If that happens, perhaps the Food and Drug Administration will regulate it, doctors across the country will be able to prescribe it for patients they believe need it, and pharmacies will be able to provide it, just as they do with other medicines.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Published: May 10, 2013
Copyright: 2013 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/

Regular marijuana use does not increase one’s chances of developing lung cancer, reported UCLA’s Dr. Li Rita Zhang during the annual meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research.

Dr. Zhang dually analyzed data from six case-control studies conducted from 1999 to 2012 in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, which, when combined, tallied a subject pool of 2,159 lung cancer cases and 2,985 controls.

Dr. Zhang’s examination found that when compared with marijuana smokers who also used tobacco, habitual users (i.e., individuals who smoked one joint a day per year) had no notable increase in cancer risk. There were also no significant differences among marijuana-only smokers.

Pulmonologist and chief medical officer of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla. Dr. Michael Alberts stated that although other published studies have shown a correlation between smoking marijuana and lung cancer “the conventional wisdom is that cannabis smoking is not as dangerous as cigarette smoking.”

He then argued that while smoking anything is not ideal for the respiratory system, when it came to medical marijuana, the benefits could outweigh the risk, a sentiment supported by multiple studies such as those conducted by the Temple University School of Pharmacy, researchers at Harvard, and the California Pacific Medical Center.

The state Supreme Court’s
decision upholding local governments’ right to ban medical marijuana
dispensaries left pro-marijuana advocates to rely on legislative action
to ensure patients access to marijuana.

Although the court recognized the legality of medicinal marijuana
use, they did uphold the constitutional rights of the nearly 200 cities
and counties throughout the state to ban dispensaries.

"I think the take-home from the court’s decision wasn’t a big
surprise, it just really underscored the need of the state to step up
and provide comprehensive regulations which is in everybody’s interest,"
said Tamar Todd, senior staff attorney with Drug Policy Alliance’s
legal affairs office in Berkeley. "The patients need access. Law
enforcement needs clarity, and localities need help in regulating. "

The decision written by Justice Marvin R. Baxter, concluded by
saying, "Of course nothing prevents future efforts by the Legislature,
or by the people, to adopt a different approach. In the meantime
however, we must conclude that Riverside’s ordinances are not preempted
by state law. "

The decision was made in the case involving the city of Riverside and
medical marijuana dispensary Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness
Center, which questioned the city’s ordinance banning dispensaries.
Although the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 decriminalizes the use of
marijuana for medicinal purposes, it did not set up a legal system for distributing medical marijuana.

The Medical Marijuana Program, approved by the state Legislature in
2004, established a medical marijuana identification card program, but
does not require municipalities to allow dispensaries for patient
access.

Lanny Swerdlow, founder of Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness
Center, which has closed, is now working with the Brownie Mary
Democratic Club of Riverside – the first political party affiliated
cannabis club in the state, according to the club’s website.

"The name of the game is paying off politicians," Swerdlow said.
"Either with time, volunteering or money. We’re going to have to join
that game or be on the short end of the stick. "

Swerdlow also plans to work with Americans for Safe Access and
legislators trying to enact legislation, such as Assemblyman Tom
Ammiano, D-San Francisco, who has authored a bill that would create a
regulatory agency under the state’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control. It would establish statewide standards for cultivation,
testing, manufacturing, transportation, distribution and sales of
medical marijuana and medical cannabis products.

The bill does not address the abilities of cities and counties to ban
dispensaries, but the assemblyman’s hope is the reassurance that
dispensaries can operate safely, legally and without threat to public
safety.

The intent is also to show the federal government that it is not
necessary for them to crack down on well-regulated and non-criminal
enterprises, according to a spokesman for Ammiano.

"It is Mr. Ammiano’s hope that by doing this he can take away a
great deal of the anxiety that some of the jurisdictions feel with
respect to allowing medical marijuana dispensaries," said Carlos Alcala,
communications director in Ammiano’s office. The bill has made it
through its first committee.

State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, has a
bill in front of the Senate that would protect operators of medical
marijuana dispensaries that meet security standards set by the state
attorney general from being prosecuted for marijuana possession or
sales.

Scott Chipman, co-chair for Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana in
Southern California, said his group will continue to push back against
pro-marijuana groups attempting to get marijuana legalized for
recreational use.

"We know that there are many people in California that are addicted
both chemically and financially to marijuana," he said. "We’re going to
continue our efforts to keep marijuana illegal and to convince the
citizens of California, marijuana is harmful and should not be
legalized. "

Chipman said he does expect pro-marijuana groups to push for legislation and legalization despite the Supreme Court’s decision.

"Is this issue over? No," he said. "I think we’re just right in the
middle. This decision marks a turning point because over 90 percent of
the cities and counties in California have already passed or are
prohibiting dispensaries. "

Chipman said he does not believe localities will reverse their bans
because they have seen the impact dispensaries have on the community.

"So they all think and see what they are and how they operate and
made the decision they’re a public nuisance and health hazard risk for
public safety and the health and welfare of citizens of their cities and
counties," he said.

Jack Pitney, a politics and government professor at Claremont McKenna
College, said the real solution would have to come at the federal
level.

"Whatever else California does, possession is still a federal crime.
And as long as it’s a federal crime its legal status is questionable,"
Pitney said.

Pitney said medical marijuana legalization on the federal scale would
be unlikely to pass a Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

"This administration seems to put less emphasis on prosecution, but
that could change with another attorney general or another president, so
the settlement of the issue involves federal government, not states or
localities," he said.