posted on November 26, 2012 by

Marijuana’s Foot in The Door

Small-time marijuana use will soon be legal in Colorado and Washington state. Sort of.

This month voters in those states approved ballot measures permitting possession of up to an ounce of pot. But the federal government has not changed its policy, which labels the drug an illegal substance. Members of Congress introduced legislation Nov. 16 that would allow state marijuana rules to preempt federal ones. But that, in effect, would resemble federal legalization, and it’s unlikely to pass anytime soon.

So the states’ leaders are asking for guidance from President Obama’s Justice Department, which, NPR’s Carrie Johnson reports, has a few options. It could enhance its own anti-marijuana enforcement in the states. It could sue to halt the laws’ application.

Or the Justice Department could keep its hands off, perhaps continuing the approach the feds have largely taken for some time — focusing scarce resources on major violators, such as big growers that might serve multi-state markets, cultivators using public lands or dispensaries near schools. The last option is clearly best.

There is reason for caution about ditching federal pot restrictions. Marijuana can be harmful, and the Drug Enforcement Administration reports that potency levels are higher than ever. The possibly major effects on public health of more driving under the influence of marijuana is a particular concern. If the federal government removed its restrictions, other states would find it easier to follow Colorado and Washington’s path. Dismantling current federal law, meanwhile, could have a range of effects on the U.S. relationship with Mexico that lawmakers should take time to consider fully, as drug cartels’ involvement in U.S. medical marijuana markets indicates.

But it’s unrealistic and unwise to expect federal officials to pick up the slack left by state law- enforcement officers who used to enforce marijuana prohibitions against pot users and small-time growers. Unrealistic, because it would require lots more resources. Unwise, because filling prisons with users, each given a criminal stain on his or her record, has long been irrational. For the latter reason, we favor decriminalizing possession of small amounts of pot, assessing civil fines instead of locking people up.

Also, for that reason and others, the Justice Department should hold its fire on a lawsuit challenging Colorado and Washington’s decision to behave more leniently. And state officials involved in good-faith efforts to regulate marijuana production and distribution according to state laws should be explicitly excused from federal targeting.

It’s not yet clear how a quasi-legal pot industry might operate in Colorado and Washington or what its public-health effects will be. It could be that these states are harbingers of a slow, national reassessment of marijuana policy. Or their experiment could serve as warning for the other 48 states.

For now, the federal government does not need to stage an aggressive intervention, one way or the other. It can wait, watch and enforce the most worrisome violations as they occur.

Source: Washington Post (DC)
Published: November 25, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Washington Post Company
Contact: letters@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/

Filed Under: National News
posted on November 20, 2012 by

Irv Rosenfeld’s 30th Anniversary of Getting Marijuana from the Feds

Today is a notable occasion. It is the 30th anniversary of a Florida man gaining the ability to use marijuana for medical purposes and of the beginning of a bafflingly hypocritical stance by the federal government.

One of the strangest ironies in the government’s war on marijuana is demonstrated by a man named Irv Rosenfeld. The federal authorities still officially maintain the legal fiction that marijuana has no accepted medical use; the substance is still classified in Schedule I, and medical marijuana providers are still raided and prosecuted by the DEA. Yet, the federal government has been producing and delivering marijuana to Rosenfeld for decades. Rosenfeld suffers from a rare bone disorder, multiple congenital cartilaginous exostoses, in which cancerous spurs of bone grow outward through his body, causing extreme pain and necessitating six surgeries to date. To treat his condition, he receives approximately 300 pre-rolled marijuana cigarettes from the federal government every 25 days.

The marijuana is produced at the University of Mississippi as part of the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program. This program, administered by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, was first established in response to the successful lawsuit against the government on behalf of Robert Randall. Randall, a glaucoma patient, was arrested for growing his own medicine in 1975, but successfully employed a “medical necessity” defense. Since it was established that marijuana was the only medicine that worked to control his glaucoma, it was argued that any sensible person in such a situation would violate the marijuana laws rather than allowing themselves to go blind. The program currently supplies medical marijuana to only four known surviving patients; it was closed to new applicants by the first Bush administration in 1991, rejecting hundreds of already filed applications.

Rosenfeld works as a stockbroker. Contrary to official innuendo about the incapacitating effects of the marijuana “high,” he shows all signs of being fully functional while smoking 10-12 joints per day. Federal anti-drug authorities show no interest in studying his case, while simultaneously complaining of the lack of evidence for the medical efficacy or safety of smoked marijuana. They are apparently also not concerned with the 1988 ruling of the DEA’s own Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young, who found that “marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people” and is “one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” The federal government even holds a patent for the medical use of cannabinoids, chemicals found in marijuana.

Rosenfeld will be in Illinois from Tuesday through Thursday of next week, in support of the medical marijuana bill under consideration in the state legislature. Anyone interested in interviewing him should contact Morgan Fox, either through email at media@mpp.org or by phone at 202-905-2031.

Filed Under: National News
posted on November 19, 2012 by

New medical marijuana initiatives haven

With the passage of a ballot initiative this month, Massachusetts became the latest state to allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes, joining 17 others and the District.

But for patients who use marijuana to alleviate chronic pain,
nausea or to stimulate their appetite, among other uses, legalizing
marijuana is only part of the battle. Health insurance rarely if ever
covers its use; some patients spend hundreds of dollars a month or more
on the drug. The situation may not change anytime soon, some experts
say.

Along with heroin, LSD and some other drugs, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 substance
under the federal Controlled Substances Act. That means the drug is
considered to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for
abuse.

In October, consumer advocates presented oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
to remove marijuana from that list. Reclassification would make it
easier to conduct research on therapeutic uses for marijuana, say
advocates, and ultimately make the drug more accessible to patients.

Last year, the Drug Enforcement Administration denied a request to reclassify the drug, following an evaluation by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Proponents of medical marijuana argue that research shows marijuana to be effective
or show promise in treating a variety of medical problems, from cancer
pain and nausea to spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis. They point
to the drug Marinol,
which is approved to stimulate appetite in patients with AIDS and
contains a synthetic version of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), one of the
active ingredients in marijuana. But health insurers remained
unconvinced.

There are

Filed Under: National News
posted on November 18, 2012 by

Rep. Adam Smith Asks DOJ to Respect MJ Laws

U.S. Rep. Adam Smith and 17 other U.S. Congress members formally asked the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration not to enforce federal drug laws against marijuana use in Washington and Colorado in a letter released Friday.

Though both states have made regulated, recreational use of marijuana legal, federal agencies still have the power to enforce a federal ban on the drug.

“We believe that it would be a mistake for the federal government to focus enforcement action on individuals whose actions are in compliance with state law,” says the letter addressed to Attorney General Eric Holder and Drug Enforcement Administrator Michele Leonhart.

According to the letter, the Department of Justice made assurances in 2009 that it would not prioritize criminal charges against those who are in compliance with state law. But the Congress members are concerned about whether those assurances still stand.

The letter then goes on to ask federal drug law enforcers to allow states such as Washington and Colorado to be “laboratories of democracy” that help progress drug policy nationwide.

“These states have chosen to move from a drug policy that spends millions of dollars turning ordinary Americans into criminals toward one that will tightly regulate the use of marijuana while raising tax revenue to support cash-strapped state and local governments,” the letter says.

“We believe this approach embraces the goals of existing federal marijuana law: to stop international trafficking, deter domestic organized criminal organizations, stop violence associated with the drug trade and protect children.”

From The Seattle Times Blog

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: Alexa Vaughn
Published: November 16, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: opinion@seatimes.com
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/

Filed Under: National News
posted on November 18, 2012 by

Counting The Days Till Marijuana’s Legal

Stoner humor just got a lot more complicated. Back in the days when Cheech and Chong were more risqué than wrinkled, it wafted along as one of those cultural subgenres, with its own nudge-and-wink punch lines. If you got it and laughed, you implicated yourself — and laughed again. The police mostly kept their faces straight.

But now the prospect of legalized marijuana in small amounts for personal use — approved by voters in Washington State and Colorado on Election Day — is creating a buzz of improvisation, from local law enforcement agencies up through state government.

Devising from scratch a system for legal sales and informing the public about the law are both tasks, state and local officials say, that require the turning over of a new leaf.

And the Seattle Police Department — through blog posts written by Jonah Spangenthal-Lee, 29, a former crime reporter for a Seattle alternative weekly called The Stranger — is leading the charge. Bilbo Baggins from “The Lord of the Rings” lends a hand too, shown in a film clip on the police blog relishing a smokable product of uncertain provenance called Old Toby, which Bilbo says, with a blissful sigh, is “the finest weed in the South Farthing.”

The goal: official communications in language that the hip, young, urban and quite possibly stoned audience that Mr. Spangenthal-Lee wrote for at The Stranger might actually want to read.

Worried about what happens if the police pull you over after Dec. 6, when the law, I-502, takes effect, and you are sober but they smell that bag of Super Skunk in your trunk? Mr. Spangenthal-Lee’s “Marijwhatnow” post has the answer. “The smell of pot alone will not be reason to search,” he writes.

Another question: “December 6th seems like a really long ways away. What happens if I get caught with marijuana before then?”

Answer: “Hold your breath.”

Question: “SPD seized a bunch of my marijuana before I-502 passed. Can I have it back?”

Answer: “No.”

“There’s no handbook for any of this,” Mr. Spangenthal-Lee said in an interview. Meanwhile, the “Marijwhatnow” post has gone closer to viral than perhaps any official police communication in history, with 26,000 Facebook “likes” and more than 218,000 page views as of Friday.

Whether full legalization will actually occur as envisioned by the law — up to an ounce is allowed for use by an adult — is hazy. Possession remains a federal crime, but Gov. Christine Gregoire, after meeting with Justice Department officials last week, said federal prosecutors gave her no clear indication of what they would do either before or after Dec. 6.

“We are following the will of the voters and moving ahead with implementation,” Ms. Gregoire said in a statement.

“Implementation” presents some high hurdles. The law allows only one year for the state to create a system of licenses for growers, processors and sellers, and to resolve equally confusing issues like the potency levels of the various products and the prices. Teams began meeting right after the election at the Washington State Liquor Control Board, which has been assigned to create and administer a marketplace.

Mr. Spangenthal-Lee, who has been writing for the Seattle Police Department’s crime blog, SPD Blotter, since March, said he tried to imagine all the questions people would ask about the new law and then follow his own nose as a newsman in getting the answers.

Will, for example, police officers be allowed to smoke marijuana?

“As of right now, no,” he wrote.

“Marijuana legalization creates some challenges for the Seattle Police Department,” the post said, “but SPD is already working to respond to these issues head on.”

A version of this article appeared in print on November 18, 2012, on page A20 of the New York edition with the headline: Counting the Days Till Marijuana’s Legal.

Source: New York Times (NY)
Author: Kirk Johnson
Published: November 18, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The New York Times Company
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/

Filed Under: National News
posted on November 17, 2012 by

Feds haven’t weighed in on Washington, Colorado pot legalization

In October 2010, with a quixotic marijuana initiative leading in
California polls, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder answered an urgent
letter from retired heads of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration.

"Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19," Holder wrote, declaring he would "vigorously enforce" federal law if California voters passed the measure, which would have legalized recreational marijuana use for adults over 21 and allowed retail sales of pot.

This
year, Holder notably declined to respond as the retired DEA
administrators sent him another anxious letter expressing opposition to
marijuana legalization efforts. This time, voters in two states,
Washington and Colorado, voted 55 percent to 45 percent to legalize
marijuana beyond medical use, upping the stakes in America’s marijuana
debate.

California, which passed America’s first medical marijuana initiative
in 1996 and pushed the envelope on legalization in 2010, has become an
also-ran in the discussion. The state also lags in regulation of medical
cannibis.

"It feels like you guys are still going through the
awkward step of adolescence, and Colorado and Washington have gone on to
the next step," said Sam Kamin, a professor at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law who researches marijuana policy.

In
California, where Holder’s letter was widely publicized and flipped the
polls as Proposition 19 went down to defeat, marijuana advocates hope
successful legalization votes elsewhere will at least persuade the
Legislature to regulate the state’s existing medical marijuana industry,
which operates in an amorphous legal haze.

"This is called a game-changer," said Ellen Komp, California deputy director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
The group backed failed legislation this year to license California
medical marijuana dispensaries and growers in hopes that stricter state
oversight would help repel an ongoing federal crackdown.

"No one
thought we were going to get a full legalization measure anywhere

Filed Under: National News
posted on November 17, 2012 by

Many options in sentencing of Upland’s Aaron Sandusky

Aaron Sandusky’s potential
sentence of 10 years to life for growing, possessing and intending to
sell marijuana may seem severe, but his is one of only a handful of
similar cases to have made it to the courtroom.

Sandusky, president of a medical marijuana dispensary based in
Upland, was convicted in October in federal court of eight drug charges.

Proponents of medical marijuana say Sandusky’s case is one of
only four in recent years where the defendant has fought prosecutors to
trial.

According to Kris Hermes, spokesman for Oakland-based
Americans for Safe Access, only three similar cases have been tried in
recent years – Charles C. Lynch of Arroyo Grande, a former Morro Bay
medical marijuana dispensary owner; Montana resident Christopher
Williams; and Michigan father and son Gerald and Jeremy Duval.

"Very few cases go to trial," Hermes said.

That being the case, it’s difficult to predict just how much time Sandusky might get.

Former U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Larson cited federal
sentencing guidelines and suggested that in a case like Sandusky’s the
sentence will likely be closer to the minimum.

He noted, however, that federal judges have considerable latitude in meting out sentences.

"I’m not predicting what the federal judge is going to do," he said.

He also noted that unlike most crimes, which carry a maximum
but no minimum sentence, drug offenses often carry mandatory minimum
sentences.

"The particular charges for Mr. Sandusky, conspiracy to
manufacture marijuana plants, possession with intent to distribute and
other charges, those charges carry a mandatory minimum sentence of 10
years in prison," Larson said.

Lynch, the former Morro Bay medical marijuana dispensary
owner, faced up to 20 years for selling more than $2.1 million in
marijuana in one year at the Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers
dispensary.

Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided Lynch’s medical
marijuana dispensary in March 2007 after he operated it for 11 months.
He and his employees were also charged with selling marijuana to 281
minors during the same year.

U.S. District Judge George Wu sentenced him to a reduced term
of a year and a day in prison in June 2009 after finding that Lynch
merited an exception to a mandatory minimum five-year sentence as
prescribed by the sentencing guidelines.

Wu added he was bound by law to give at least a one-year sentence.

The conviction on five marijuana-related offenses was one of
the first in the nation to be challenged in federal court after U.S.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced earlier that year that the
federal government would only target medical marijuana dispensaries when
it appeared they were using state law as cover for illegal narcotics
operations.

During the case, Wu indicated that the Justice Department’s
clarification of its newly stated position on medical marijuana
prosecutions would not change Lynch’s conviction but could affect his
sentence.

Additionally, Wu seemed to ponder whether Lynch could be
sentenced for an activity that he believed to be legal under Morro Bay
municipal codes.

Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los
Angeles, said both sides are appealing the Lynch verdict, with federal
prosecutors appealing the sentence and the defense appealing the
conviction.

As in Lynch’s case, Larson said it’s possible Sandusky’s judge
could disregard the statutes and guidelines and make his own sentence.

"Ultimately, a federal judge will impose the sentence they
feel," he said. "If it’s contrary to the statute, the government will
appeal and go to the appellate court. But at the end of the day, federal
judges are independent."

In Montana, where medical marijuana is also legal, federal
prosecutors successfully charged Christopher Williams, who was convicted
in September of eight counts of conspiring to grow and distribute
marijuana, possession with intent to distribute and possession of a
firearm during a drug-trafficking offense.

Williams faces a mandatory minimum sentence of more than 80 years in prison.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office has offered to dismiss six of the
eight counts, which would lower Williams’ minimum sentence to 10 years,
but has demanded in return that Williams waive his right to appeal the
remaining convictions.

Williams has rejected the offer. His attorney, Michael
Donahoe, a senior litigator for the Federal Defenders of Montana,
declined to comment for this report.

In Michigan, father and son Gerald and Jeremy Duval were
convicted of growing marijuana in greenhouses, and while they claimed it
was for medicinal purposes, the judge at sentencing found their
operation suggested otherwise.

"When you’re in compliance with state law I believe they
should leave you alone," Gerald Duval said of the federal government on
Wednesday in a phone interview while waiting to be imprisoned.

Gerald Duval, 52, said he uses medical marijuana for diabetes,
glaucoma and other health problems. He was sentenced to 10 years in
prison.

His caregiver son, 30-year-old Jeremy, was sentenced to five years in prison.

"We were convicted because the jury was instructed to follow
this violation of federal law," Gerald Duval said. "During jury
selection, every juror was asked, `Can you find them guilty for
violating federal law?’ Even though there is licensed medical marijuana
in Michigan. Manufacturing over 100 plants, that carries a mandatory
five years. That’s why Jeremy got five years. I got 10 years because I’m
an ex-felon. I was convicted of cocaine charges in the mid ’80s."

Hermes said the Duvals were complying with state law and were
cultivators for a handful of patients when they were caught up in "what
amounts to a series of federal attacks across the country on marijuana.
Well over 200 raids have been conducted by the DEA since (President
Barack) Obama took office and those raids have resulted in around 100
indictments."

Filed Under: National News
posted on November 17, 2012 by

Medical marijuana and states rights: Pot dispensary owner faces 10 years in jail for violating federal laws

While Aaron Sandusky and his supporters contend he committed no crime
under California state law, he stands to spend many years — and
possibly the rest of his life — behind bars.

Sandusky was president of Upland-based G3 Holistic, a medical marijuana dispensary, which in California, is legal.

In October, however, he was convicted in federal court of
eight counts related to growing, possessing and intending to sell
marijuana for profit.

His case, one of a handful in which federal prosecutors have
charged and convicted purveyors of medical marijuana in states where
such use is legal, highlights a fundamental conflict between state and
federal law at a time when public opposition to marijuana is waning.

"It really goes to the heart of federalism and the
relationship between state government and state rights and federal
government and federal power," said former U.S. District Court Judge
Stephen Larson. "It’s a classic contest between states’ rights and
federal power, and that contest needs to be resolved in courts and in
Congress."

While no meaningful challenge to federal law has been mounted,
18 states permit medical marijuana, and in the Nov. 6 election,
Colorado and Washington legalized recreational use of marijuana.

Still, dispensaries and their owners find themselves in the crosshairs of law enforcement.

California’s four U.S. attorneys in September announced they were taking aim at large-scale growers and dispensary owners
who falsely claim that their operations comply with state law. Many such
owners throughout Los Angeles County have found themselves caught in
this spotlight as has been the case for the past several years.

The conflict over state and federal law has led to confusion and
frustration by dispensary owners who believe what they are doing is
legal.

Perhaps Sandusky thought he was safe from federal prosecution
after President Barack Obama said the Attorney General would not
prosecute marijuana cases in states that had legalized it.

His attorney, Roger Diamond, attempted to make that argument in his defense, but the judge refused to consider it.

On Oct. 12, Sandusky was convicted of conspiracy to grow
marijuana, to possess marijuana with intent to distribute it and to
maintain a drug-related premises. He was also convicted of one count of
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.

He faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison
and could receive as much as a life sentence, said Bruce Riordan,
assistant U.S. attorney.

His girlfriend, Darlene Buenrostro of Rancho Cucamonga, said
Sandusky is being held in Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles.

"He has good and bad days," Buenrostro said. "He was just
shocked and didn’t anticipate (his conviction). I don’t know if you
could read the look on his face. He was still feeling positive. But once
the verdict was handed down, he was deflated."

A tangled tale

Sandusky’s story is not a simple one.

He opened G3 Holistic in Upland in November 2009, six months
after Obama, in a well-publicized interview with the Oregon
Mail-Tribune, said the government would not aggressively pursue medical
marijuana cases in states that had legalized it.

"I’m not going to be using Justice Department resources to try
to circumvent state laws on this issue," Obama said in March 2009.

In the same month, the Justice Department issued its own
policy statement, in which Attorney General Eric Holder said federal
investigators would only target suspects who appeared to be using
medical marijuana laws as a shield for illegal distribution, non-licensed distribution.

Whatever his intent, Sandusky did not receive a warm welcome in Upland.

The city, citing zoning laws banning dispensaries, sought and
obtained an injunction, forcing G3 to close less than a year after it
opened. Upland has a zoning ordinance on the books that bans
dispensaries. The city’s authority to ban dispensaries is being
challenged in state Supreme Court.

Undeterred, Sandusky opened additional clinics in nearby Colton and Moreno Valley, even as he appealed Upland’s injunction.

A few months later, in February 2011, he filed a federal
lawsuit, accusing Upland’s mayor, John "JP" Pomierski, of extortion,
bribery and racketeering.

In March, federal agents arrested Pomierski and charged him
with conspiracy, bribery and extortion, accusing him of demanding bribes
from unnamed Upland businesses that appeared to be G3 and a local
restaurant that also had filed claims against the city.

Sandusky continued to fight the city, winning a stay on the injunction from an appellate court in June 2011.

In November 2011, the court ruled that the city’s injunction
was valid on the grounds that the dispensary violated the city’s zoning
ordinances.

In December, G3 re-opened in Upland pending appeal to the state Supreme Court based on Diamond’s interpretation of the law.

A start date for the trial has not been set.

Over the past year, the dispensary has closed and opened
several times, as motions fly back and forth between the city and
Sandusky’s attorney, who contends Upland’s goal is to ban dispensaries
entirely, which is contrary to state law.

"Aaron wants that case to be pursued and I’m going to pursue
it," Diamond said in October shortly after his client was found guilty
and added nothing had changed.

"We’re waiting for oral arguments" in Supreme Court.

As for the mayor, Pomierski ultimately accepted a plea bargain
before his case could go to trial and he was sentenced in August to two
years in prison for accepting a $5,000 bribe in return for the city’s
granting of a permit to a local business.

Pomierski’s successor, Ray Musser, sought federal assistance
in the city’s fight against Sandusky, writing on May 5, 2011, to U.S.
Attorney Andre Birotte, Jr., asking the federal government to help the
city "prohibit the commercial cultivation and dispensing of `medical
marijuana."’

Agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency raided G3 in March,
and in June Sandusky and five of his employees were arrested on
suspicion of violating federal drug laws.

While his employees pled guilty to lesser charges, Sandusky maintained the prosecution was unjust.

U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson refused, however, to admit
evidence or testimony related to conflicts between state and federal law
or to consider statements made by the president or the Justice
Department. Anderson refused because the matter was a federal case.

In October, Sandusky was found guilty.

Law of the land

Sandusky’s conviction drew national attention and coverage from
publications as diverse as the Washington Times, Huffington Post and any
number of medical marijuana niche publications.

Kris Hermes, spokesman for Oakland-based Americans for Safe
Access, the largest national member-based organization promoting safe
and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research, said the
manner in which courts consider evidence is a roadblock to a fair trial
in cases such as Sandusky’s.

Federal law is such that the government doesn’t recognize the
medical value of medical marijuana, and there is no distinction between
medical use and non medical use, Hermes said.

Without that distinction, the government can effectively
exclude any evidence of medical use even if people being tried are in
compliance with local and state laws.

"That’s the situation with Aaron Sandusky," Hermes said. "As
with really every defendant that’s tried in federal court, the lack of a
defense is a huge problem. We’ve tried to introduce legislation on
several occasions to help a defendant with a reasonable defense but we
haven’t been successful on that front yet."

Hermes said his group has a lawsuit in Washington D.C. federal
court challenging the government’s position that marijuana has no
medical value and oral arguments for it were recently made.

"We’re hopeful that will begin a process that if we prevail in
court of establishing a more sensible health policy for medical
marijuana," Hermes said.

Larson, the retired federal judge, declined to speak
specifically about Sandusky’s case, but noted that in federal court,
it’s not unreasonable or unusual for arguments based on state law to be
prohibited.

"State law does not govern in federal court," Larson said.
"State law would not be admissible. It’s something the U.S. Congress
needs to resolve. The states cannot force the federal government to
change their law. This is something federal law will have to
accommodate."

Lanny Swerdlow, a Palm Springs resident and local advocate for
medical marijuana, believes that if courts could consider medicinal use
of marijuana or state laws, cases like Sandusky’s would end very
differently.

"That is the biggest," Swerdlow said of allowing the prohibited testimony.

"There is more of a likelihood that a defendant in federal
court could be acquitted by a jury if they’re allowed to present
evidence of medical necessity or compliance of state law. But it’s just a
formality for the court to side with the federal prosecution. The U.S.
Supreme Court has indicated no difference between medical and non
medical use of marijuana."

Bigger issues

The important issue Sandusky’s case reveals is not limited to medical marijuana, Larson said.

"I would hope that the courts and Congress take a longer view
on this issue and look beyond the particulars of whether or not medical
marijuana dispensaries are going to be lawful and consider the impact
this has for our constitutional form of government and what role the
states continue to play in that framework," Larson said.

Besides medical marijuana, there are numerous issues, such as
gay marriage, immigration, healthcare and energy that fall under the
same umbrella, Larson said.

"We saw that play out big time, and we see it going forward in health care," Larson said.

"The passage of Obamacare and challenge of states by the
mandatory nature of it. The federal government, the Supreme Court, found
that the tax and spending power of the federal government trumped
states rights. If you take an overview of the history of the U.S. since
the founding constitution, a general erosion of states rights and growth
of federal power, that’s been the general trend for 225 plus years. But
there are instances where there’s adjustments. It’s interesting to see
how this plays out."

Sandusky will be sentenced Jan. 7 in U.S. District Court.

Diamond, Sandusky’s attorney, said his client’s spirit was not broken despite the case.

"He feels strongly about the importance of providing medical
marijuana to people who need it," Diamond said. "He is extremely sincere
in his beliefs. And he has faith in the appellate system. I do, too."

Jeremy & Gerald Duval

Father
and son Gerald, right, and Jeremy Duval of Michigan were convicted in
May of conspiring to manufacture more than 100 marijuana plants,
manufacturing marijuana plants with intent to distribute them and
maintaining a place to distribute marijuana.

Sentence: They received 10 years in prison.

Charles C. Lynch

Charles
C. Lynch was convicted in 2009 of five marijuana-related offenses for
running a medical marijuana dispensary collective in San Luis Obispo.

Sentence: One year

Aaron Sandusky

Aaron
Sandusky of Upland was convicted in October on violating two counts of
federal marijuana laws and conspiracy to manufacture marijuana plus
intent to distribute.

Sentence: He is in custody awaiting sentencing in January, facing 10 years prison.

Christopher Williams

Christopher
Williams of Montana was convicted in September 2012 of eight counts of
conspiring to grow and distribute marijuana, possession with intent to
distribute and possession of a firearm during a drug-trafficking
offense, despite medical marijuana being legal in the state.

Sentence: Minimum of 92 years in prison.

Filed Under: National News
posted on November 14, 2012 by

Rasmussen Poll Shows Huge Majority Thinks U.S. Losing the Drug War

A new poll released on Tuesday concluded that the vast majority of Americans are not impressed with the results of the nation’s anti-drug efforts. A full 82% of respondents answered “no” to the question: “Is the United States winning the war on drugs?” This is a significant increase from a poll released in June of this year, in which 66% of respondents characterized the drug war as a failure. Only 7% answered “yes” to the most recent poll question, while 12% were undecided.

As the Huffington Post reports, several other marijuana-related questions were asked in the same poll. One of these found that 45% supported legalizing marijuana, with 45% opposed and the remaining 10% undecided. This is consistent with two earlier polls released this year on the same question. Asked which was more dangerous, alcohol or marijuana, 51% of the latest poll’s respondents answered “alcohol,” while only 24% said “marijuana,” and 24% were undecided. Contrary to the traditional image of marijuana’s legalization being an issue of interest only to its users, 88 % said that they had not smoked marijuana even once in the past year, which is similar to the national average.

Thirty-four percent of respondents agreed that the government spends too much money on the war on drugs, and only 23% of all respondents claimed that the government should be spending even more. According to the New York Times, the enforcement costs alone have been $20 to $25 billion per year over the past decade.

In the wake of the recent successful ballot initiatives in Colorado and Washington to legalize the marijuana industry, as well as Massachusetts becoming the 18th state with an effective medical marijuana law, one more question from the poll is worth noting. A full 60% said that marijuana laws should be left to the states, while only 27% said that the federal government should determine the marijuana laws in any particular state. As MPP’s Steve Fox noted yesterday in the Chicago Sun-Times, the federal government’s authority to prohibit marijuana has always been highly questionable on constitutional grounds.

The survey of 1,000 adults nationwide was conducted on November 9-10, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. The exact wording of all of the questions in the poll can be found here, and information on methodology can be found here.

Filed Under: National News
posted on November 14, 2012 by

La Mesans Will Vote on Medical Marijuana Initiative, Council Decides

La Mesans will have the chance to vote on a medical marijuana
dispensary ordinance, after the city council voted 4-1 Tuesday to
approve a resolution adding it to the ballot in November 2014.

The ordinance is based upon a certified petition that was filed with
the city clerk last month. It contains the requisite number of
signatures (3,041) needed to submit it to voters in the next statewide
election.

The council was given three options on what to do with the ordinance:
immediately enact it into law, choose to place it on the ballot for the
next election, or order a report compiled by the City Attorney with
information on the impact the ordinance would have for the City of La
Mesa.

They chose not to order a report, deeming it unnecessary and
redundant based on similar reports that already existed for other county
municipalities.

The council heard from two medical marijuana advocates, who
encouraged the council to enact the resolution right away, and to
provide safe access to medical marijuana for patients that need it.

Filed Under: National News
«Previous Page
Next Page»