“The social sharing of a small amount of marijuana” by immigrants lawfully in the United States does not require their automatic deportation, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

“Sharing a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration, let alone possession with intent to do so, does not fit easily into the everyday understanding of trafficking, which ordinarily means some sort of commercial dealing,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for a seven-justice majority, partly quoting from an earlier case.

The case arose from a traffic stop in Georgia in 2007 during which Adrian Moncrieffe, a Jamaican citizen, was found with 1.3 grams of marijuana — “the equivalent,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “of about two or three marijuana cigarettes.”

Mr. Moncrieffe pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute, a felony under Georgia law, and was sentenced to five years of probation. Saying the conviction established that Mr. Moncrieffe had committed an “aggravated felony,” federal authorities sought to deport him.

Tuesday’s decision was the third in a series of Supreme Court cases considering whether a given state drug crime amounted to an aggravated felony under the immigration laws. If it does, the government has no choice but to deport the defendant. If it does not, the attorney general has the discretion to show leniency.

The question in all of the cases was how to understand state drug convictions in light of a part of the immigration laws that defines aggravated felonies to include drug offenses that would be punishable by more than a year in prison under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

The act generally calls for a maximum term of five years for possessing controlled substances with an intent to distribute them. But it contains an exception for the distribution of “a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration,” which judges may treat as a misdemeanor subject to no more than a year in prison.

Justice Sotomayor wrote that it was not clear whether the formal elements of Mr. Moncrieffe’s state conviction fit within the federal exception. The ambiguity, she said, counted in his favor, sparing him from automatic deportation.

The federal government said the actual facts of the case mattered and should be determined during immigration proceedings. Justice Sotomayor rejected that approach, saying that “our nation’s overburdened immigration courts” would have difficulty making such determinations based on stale or missing evidence presented by immigrants who may be in detention and have no right to a lawyer.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the majority’s approach “has the effect of treating a substantial number of state felonies as federal misdemeanors, even when they would result in federal felony convictions.” The only theme that unites the court’s decisions in this area, Justice Thomas added, “appears to be that the government consistently loses.”

In a second dissent in the case, Moncrieffe v. Holder, No. 11-702, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the majority’s approach was “analytically confused.” It will, he said, allow people working for “some of the world’s most dangerous drug cartels” to escape automatic deportation. “The court’s decision,” Justice Alito added, “also means that the consequences of a conviction for illegal possession with intent to distribute will vary radically depending on the state in which the case is prosecuted.”

Justice Alito said that Mr. Moncrieffe had had the opportunity to show immigration authorities that he would have been eligible for lenient treatment under the federal drug law. But the “petitioner, for whatever reason, availed himself only of the opportunity to show that his conviction had involved a small amount of marijuana and did not present evidence — or even contend — that his offense had not involved remuneration.”

Source: New York Times (NY)
Author: Adam Liptak
Published: April 23, 2013
Copyright: 2013 The New York Times Company
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/

In a 7-2 vote on Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that deportation is not mandatory if a legal immigrant is convicted of possessing a small amount of marijuana.

The ruling was in response to Moncrieffe v. Holder. Immigration officials automatically deported Adrian Moncrieffe, a Jamaican citizen who has lived in the United States since he was three years old, after he was convicted under Georgia law for possession and intent to distribute 1.3 grams of marijuana.

Justice Sotomayor

“Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the majority that a conviction for marijuana possession does not rise to the level of an aggravated felony if it is a small amount and the defendant was not being paid for it,” reported Reuters.

Moncrieffe could still face deportation, but Tuesday’s ruling means that he and others like him can contest the decision in further immigration proceedings.

The U.S. territory of Puerto Rico has entered debate over marijuana. Sen. Miguel Pereira filed a bill last week that would permit adults 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, arguing that 80 percent of inmates are serving time for non-violent crimes and that possession cases cost the government money.

Sen. Miguel Pereira

The actions of the former federal prosecutor and corrections secretary roused mixed emotions. Supporters marched through the streets towards the Capitol building on Saturday in excitement, while critics called for his resignation.

Amidst the cheers and jeers were also voices of reason. During a press conference, Gov. Alejandro Garcia Padilla stated, “I don’t have a problem with an open debate about the possibilities, benefits or drawbacks of such a measure.” Justice Secretary Luis Sanchez Betances similarly stated that the proposal opens the door for discussion.

Marijuana possession in Puerto Rico can carry up to three years in jail and a $5,000 fine.

Officials from Connecticut’s Department of Consumer Protection (DCP), which has been charged with organizing the state’s medical marijuana program, heard compelling public testimony Monday morning as the department prepares to establish rules regarding dispensary operations.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed a medical marijuana bill into law last May, and the state began accepting applications for medical marijuana licenses in October. Unfortunately, there are no dispensaries currently operating in the state, and it is illegal for patients to grow plants for personal use.

Tracey Gamer Fanning

This loophole has left patients like Tracey Gamer Fanning in an unnerving legal gray-zone. Tracey was diagnosed with brain cancer in 2006. The myriad medication she was prescribed left her bedridden and unable to function. This all changed when her doctor recommend she try marijuana. “It gave me my life back,” she told CBS.

Despite the impact it’s had on Tracey’s cancer, every time she uses the drug she is breaking the law. Dedicating her limited time to medical-marijuana advocacy, Tracey lined up to speak at Monday’s hearing.

I want the politicians to see my face, the face of a mother from West Hartford who is just grateful to be at the dinner table in the evening instead of in bed, of someone who is so thankful to be part of her children’s lives, of someone who lost an advertising career but gained a life mission.

The DCP has composed a 70-page draft of regulations that mimics the state system that controls the distribution of such pharmaceuticals as OxyContin.

MPP’s Director of State Policies, Karen O’Keefe, expressed concerns over the expense of the system of production and distribution. “The provision that requires $2 million in an escrow for producers, that’s a huge sum of money,” Karen stated. “It could edge out the little guy.” MPP has submitted suggested changes to the state regulations.

The DCP will accept written comments until Friday.

Rep. Steve Cohen

More and more states, in conflict with federal policy, are permitting the use of medical marijuana and decriminalizing its recreational use. In order to examine this unnecessary conflict as well as the current federal policy’s broad impacts, Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) introduced legislation last week to create a National Commission on Federal Marijuana Policy.

“[I]t’s important that we understand the impact of current federal policy and address the conflict with those state laws that allow for medicinal or personal use of marijuana,” said Congressman Cohen.  “This conflict is only going to continue to grow…we must provide certainty to the millions of individuals and businesses that remain caught in a web of incompatible laws. “

Congressman Cohen is optimistic that a national commission would provide the government with the tools necessary to create sensible policy.

A similar commission was created in 1971. Released two years later, the “National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse,” which was led by former Pennsylvania Governor Raymond P. Shafer, called for the decriminalization of marijuana.

The Shafer Commission’s recommendations were disregarded and the War on Drugs nonsensically expanded. As a result, countless responsible marijuana users have been saddled with criminal records, nonviolent offenders have been crammed into our overcrowded prisons, and taxpayer dollars and law enforcement resources continue to be wasted in the attempt to impose failed marijuana policies.

The majority of Americans believe marijuana should be taxed and regulated like alcohol. Forty years of ignorance is enough; it’s time to re-evaluate federal policy.

Last week was very eventful for marijuana policy reform. The Oregon Senate approved a bill granting PTSD sufferers access to medical marijuana, the Vermont House passed a bill to remove criminal penalties for marijuana possession, and, in a victory that was years in the making, the Illinois House voted in favor of medical marijuana legislation.

The passing of House Bill 1 in Illinois is an example of public education at its finest. News organizations across the state set space aside to show their support for medical marijuana without reluctance.

Editorials in the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the Journal-Standard described the drug’s ability to alleviate suffering, and they also clearly addressed the bill’s strict guidelines to ease the fears of any hesitant readers.

Editorials like those composed in Illinois and other states such as Maine provide readers with a great service, and they can make all the difference in garnering support for marijuana policy reform.

Rhode Island, the second New England state to permit the sale of medical marijuana, opened its first dispensary on Friday.

Located on in Providence, the Thomas C. Slater Compassion Center will initially sell marijuana cultivated by growers participating in the state’s medical marijuana program; however, it plans to begin growing its own medicine to sell as soon as possible.

The state will likely add more dispensaries in the coming months in Warwick and Portsmouth.

If you want smaller government and you want the government out of people’s private lives, you need to support the legalization of marijuana.  It’s the logically consistent viewpoint for a conservative.

I write this in the leadup to the annual 4/20 marijuana marches where otherwise law-abiding citizens who consume, grow or trade the substance will take to the streets nationwide to show their love of pot.

It’s absurd that we have laws making it mandatory to toss someone in jail for six months if they have six plants or more.  And that’s one of the lighter sentences.

Let’s look at some of the data from QMI columnist Thane Burnett’s multi-part feature on pot last December.  The piece was inspired by Washington State and Colorado voting in support of legalization.

In an Angus Reid poll done at the time, 57% of Canadians supported legalization.  Only 39% opposed it.

According to Health Canada, more than 40% of Canadians have used cannabis.  In a poll on the Sun websites – though not scientific, certainly informative – 81% of readers voted for legalization.

Criminal

My view is the law criminalizes commerce.  It criminalizes gardening.  And it criminalizes your right to do what you want with your body so long as you’re not violating anyone else’s liberties.

All the arguments in favour of the status quo – or tighter laws – can be knocked aside with one hand tied behind your back.

They’re mostly about how pot can ruin a person, their family or their wallet.  Or they’re arguments about organized crime.

The first puts pot on par with booze, gambling, or any other supposed vice people can be obsessed with.  Should we make all those illegal? There are many things which, done to excess, can harm a person and their family.  But it’s up to individuals to moderate themselves, not the state.  I believe in personal responsibility, do you?

Now, organized crime arguments are all tertiary.  They’re all, “But if we legalize pot then this other bad thing might happen…” Well guess what? After pot is legalized, drug-related gang fights in the streets will still be illegal.  All the spinoff crimes that the underground drug trade produces will still be illegal.  In fact, they’ll likely decrease.

Many people who smoke, grow and sell marijuana do so in a completely peaceable way.  It’s wrong to make them criminals.

You can come up with all the technical arguments in the world to support the status quo.  But ultimately all you’re saying is you want to infringe on people’s liberties because you don’t like what’s in their garden or pocket, or because they like a joint after a hard day at work instead of a beer.

Don’t forget, billions of tax dollars have been wasted on big government pot intrusion.  It’s time to go from losing billions on pot to gaining billions via consumption taxes.

Some try to argue most drug laws aren’t even enforced anyway so who cares? Two problems with that.

The first is it’s incorrect.  According to Statistics Canada, of the more than 113,000 drug crimes across the country in 2011, 54% were for cannabis possession.  The second problem is we should always be striving to get bad laws off the books.

The NDP and Liberals want to decriminalize, if not outright legalize, the substance.  But they’re not in power.  It’s time for small government proponents to do the same.  Calling all conservatives: Puff, puff, pass the legislation!

Source: Ottawa Sun (CN ON)
Copyright: 2013 Canoe Limited Partnership
Contact: ottsun.oped@sunmedia.ca
Website: http://www.ottawasun.com/
Author: Anthony Furey, QMI Agency

Based on science and concern about young minds and the safety of our citizens, we believe that the crude drugs from the plant Cannabis should be illegal.  There are differing views on this issue.  In our democracy, divergent views are expected.  The more personal the issue, the more passionate and less logical the discussion.

Media articles support marijuana as a medicine.  This complex weed is supposed to cure insomnia, arthritis, glaucoma, nausea, loss of appetite, epilepsy, etc.; and that, if legalized and taxed by government, as with alcohol and tobacco, it could solve our financial woes.

Let’s examine some misinformation used by marijuana proponents, which is mostly based on anecdotal evidence or driven by political agenda.  Before the emotional and political issues drive a mass experimentation, using Americans as guinea pigs, we must scrutinize marijuana.

Marijuana is a crude drug from the Cannabis plant, known to contain more than 700 chemicals.  When smoked, these components produce more cancer-causing compounds than found in tobacco smoke.  Cannabinoids are chemicals found only in the Cannabis plant.  Many are psychotropic: have mind-altering effects and are fat soluble.  They are stored in and alter the brain, reproductive organs and other fat cells.  A nursing mother will pass THC and other cannabinoids to her baby through her milk.

THCis the one chemical that most people associate with marijuana.  It is an intoxicant with some medical properties.  Marijuana is not just THC.  Pure THC is a prescribed medication that has passed rigid Food and Drug Administration requirements to protect public health; whereas, marijuana will never pass any approval process.

In Florida, a 2010 survey of high school students, reported 21.8 percent of seniors used marijuana in the past month.  This is up from19.7 percent in 2008; thus, today one in five of our high school seniors are being exposed to a drug that can cause much harm.  Additionally, marijuana is listed as the primary substance of abuse for 31.1percent of treatment admissions in Florida.  Over halfwere12-17 years of age.

In December, 2012, the Government Drug Abuse Warning Network Report stated that over 45,000 American youth between the ages of15 to17 entered emergency rooms because of marijuana.  If 100 young people needed emergency room treatment because of a FDA approved drug, pro-marijuana groups and elected officials would demand the drug’s removal from the market.

As reported by the U.S.  Surgeon General, marijuana reduces the immune system’s ability to fight infections, interferes with the reproductive system, affects memory and learning, creates paranoia, and is addictive.  Marijuana reduces the IQ of young users by 8 to10 IQ points, changes depth perception and alters the ability to judge distance.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse reported in December of 2012 that “research from different areas is converging on the fact that regular marijuana use by young people can have long-lasting negative impact on the structure and function of their brains.” Want your child on pot?

Marijuana users are dangerous drivers.  There is no roadside test to detect or to determine impairment.  Highway deaths will increase if marijuana is used more frequently in Florida.

Research shows that cannabinoids in marijuana are mind altering.  They will alter the consciousness and make any disease seem less severe.  The disease is not being treated.

And, the disease can be made worse.  Will the passionate supporters of “medical marijuana” obliterate years of scientific research that has revealed the dangers of marijuana? Will Florida use its citizens as experimental objects? Hopefully, Florida voters will not have to decide.

Source: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
Copyright: 2013 Sun-Sentinel Company
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/mVLAxQfA
Website: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/
Authors: Carlton Turner and Herbert Goldstein

Dozens of medical marijuana activists rallied outside Los Angeles City Hall last week, declaring war on an enemy.

Their target was not the federal government, whose agents raided
several local dispensaries in recent days, or neighborhood groups trying
to shut down the city’s estimated 700 pot shops.

The enemy was fellow medical marijuana advocates.

Three competing measures on the May 21 city ballot have divided
L.A.’s lucrative medical cannabis industry, with each side accusing the
other of trying only to protect profits, not do what is best for
patients.

The measures may appear similar to the uninitiated, but they would greatly benefit different groups of pot businesses.

Yami Bolanos, who runs PureLife Alternative Wellness Center, is
backing Proposition D, which would shrink the number of pot shops to
about 130. Only dispensaries like Bolanos’, which opened before the
adoption of a failed 2007 city moratorium on new shops, would be allowed
to continue operating.

At the City Hall rally and news conference, Bolanos accused some
newer shops of catering to drug dealers by not requiring doctor’s
prescriptions and selling more than 8 ounces of marijuana per visit to
customers, more than twice what her store allows.

"Who needs 8 ounces, unless you’re going to break it up into dime bags and sell it in the street?" she said.

Proposition D is backed by the Los Angeles County Democratic Club and
by a labor union that has organized workers at dozens of older
dispensaries. The measure was placed on the ballot by the City Council
to counter two measures that qualified through the initiative process.

One of those initiatives, Measure F, would place no limit on the
number of pot shops but would require them to submit to city audits,
test cannabis for toxins and keep a certain distance from schools, parks
and other dispensaries. It is being pushed by a coalition of shops that
opened after the 2007 moratorium. Like Proposition D, it would increase
taxes on pot sales.

A third measure, Initiative Ordinance E, would permit only the older
shops but would not raise taxes. It was put on the ballot by a group of
older shops and the dispensary employees union, but that coalition has
shifted its support to the council-backed Proposition D.

The measure with the most votes will win, but only if it receives
more than 50% of the vote. If none of the three receives majority
approval, they all fail.

With the election a month away, the competing camps are collecting
campaign cash and stepping up attacks. An anti-Proposition D website
warns that the initiative would create a monopoly for older shops and
the rise of "pot superstores." By forcing existing dispensaries to
close, "Proposition D encourages building massive marijuana drug centers
that could greatly increase crime for nearby residents," the site says.

Grace Moore, who opened Grace Medical Marijuana Pharmacy in 2009,
said she is fighting Proposition D because market forces should
determine the number of dispensaries, not government. "The good will
succeed, and the places that are not so nice, people will not frequent,"
she said.

At her Pico Boulevard shop, customers are offered strains of pot like
Purple Cush and Blue Dream, as well as "Yes on Measure F" wristbands.

Moore has been growing marijuana for decades. As a single mother
living in West Virginia, she said she used to trade her pot for hay. Her
business has been successful, she says, because she grows cannabis
without pesticides and offers a safe environment for patients. "We are
an option for women and for truly ill people," she said.

But critics say the free-market model hasn’t worked, pointing to
heavy concentrations of pot shops in some parts of the city, including a
stretch of Mid-City known as the "Green Mile."

Michael Larsen, a member of the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council,
fought to curb the glut of dispensaries in his community. He opposes all
the pot measures. Measure F allows too many stores, he said, and the
council-backed Proposition D doesn’t ensure the safety of dispensaries
or provide a mechanism for neighbors to complain about bad operators.

L.A. has struggled for years to regulate the location of pot shops
against a backdrop of contradictory court rulings on cities’ legal
authority to regulate pot. The city is battling more than 60 lawsuits
over its earlier attempts at regulation, and many predict new lawsuits
are inevitable after the May election.

"Whoever views themselves as the loser will immediately start
litigating," said former LAPD chief and current Councilman Bernard
Parks. He wrote the ballot measure arguments against all three
initiatives, arguing that federal law prohibits the possession and sale
of marijuana even if state law allows it for medicinal use.

"You can’t regulate an illegal business," he said.

On those grounds, the City Council last year voted 14 to 0 to outlaw
over-the-counter sales of marijuana, while allowing small groups of
patients to grow the drug for their own use. But it reversed the action
after the coalition of older dispensaries and union workers qualified a
measure for the ballot that would have repealed the ban.

Attorney David Welch, who is backing Measure F, said the council has
been hostile toward medical marijuana and voters should reject the
city-backed ballot proposal. He cited a council vote last August that
instructed police to work with the federal Drug Enforcement Agency "to
deal with medical marijuana collectives."

The next month, federal agents raided several pot shops in downtown
and Eagle Rock, an area represented by Councilman Jose Huizar, a leading
dispensary opponent. The council’s Proposition D is "a Trojan horse" intended to confuse and overwhelm voters, Welch said. "They want these measures to fail."

Huizar, Parks and other council members are urging voters to reject
all three measures. But several elected officials are backing
Proposition D, including council members Bill Rosendahl and Paul Koretz
and mayoral candidates Wendy Greuel and Eric Garcetti. It is also
endorsed by City Atty. Carmen Trutanich, who in the past argued that all
for-profit pot sales are illegal.

California voters have generally supported medical marijuana. In
1996, California became the first state to legalize medicinal use of
pot, although many have complained that subsequent state laws failed to
clarify how the drug should be distributed. In 2011, Los Angeles voters
approved a ballot measure to tax medical marijuana sales.

There are no official estimates of medical pot sales in the city, but
police believe there are between 600 and 700 shops, and dispensary
owners say sales of $1 million annually are not uncommon.

Don Duncan, California director of the medical marijuana advocacy
group Americans for Safe Access, said it is unfortunate that pot
supporters are being forced to choose sides. But the ballot measure
fight doesn’t reflect a larger schism in the medical marijuana movement,
he said.

"We’re not talking about a community division, we’re talking about an industry division."

His group has endorsed Proposition D. But he hopes the infighting
doesn’t doom all the measures. "We certainly cannot afford for everybody
to lose," he said.