Federal authorities closed a number of medical marijuana dispensaries throughout Downtown Los Angeles in September as part of an effort to cut down on the sale and use of the drug, which is legal in California for medical purposes but still considered illegal by the federal government.

This month, the Drug Enforcement Administration followed up by sending warning letters and revisiting several dispensaries. This series of shutdowns was not only unnecessary, but it was also a violation of state rights and an indication of broken promises on the part of President Barack Obama. As marijuana regulation is becoming a hot button issue in the presidential race, such an infringement on an individual state’s rights is unacceptable.

Given the size and scope of the federal crackdown operation — it began in San Diego and recently spread to Los Angeles — it’s obvious that significant planning went into these raids. Obama deliberately went back on his word and has been doing so for a long time. This is an unusual move so close to the election but, more importantly, it challenges the legitimacy of California’s laws.

Whether or not a state allows the sale of medical marijuana, the fact remains that marijuana is federally illegal, so it would seem the owners of dispensaries should have known the risks associated with their businesses. They thought, however, that under the Obama administration they could operate without having to worry about being shut down because of early campaign promises.

Beyond broken campaign promises, however, the crackdown signals a disconnect between state and federal government and also raises a larger issue on state rights. The federal government took advantage of the disconnect between California and the federal government to fine and shut down target dispensaries. This is more than just a backward step in the legalization debate, it’s a disregard for the rights of individual states and offers a critical example of overbearing federal power. To maintain a better balance between federal and state, medical marijuana regulation must be returned to states’ control.

The issue of medical marijuana has largely been ignored in the 2012 presidential election, and understandably so. Federal versus state control of medical marijuana has no bearing on the United States’ global standing or on foreign policy matters. And while marijuana’s legalization generates substantial tax revenue, there are far bigger fish to fry when it comes to solving the nation’s deficit. All in all, medical marijuana might be a hotly debated topic, but it isn’t a particularly significant one in terms of impact. For the federal government to waste time, energy and money on medical marijuana enforcement is simply inefficient. By allowing states to control the regulation of their own medical marijuana dispensaries, the time and money the federal government is currently wasting can be re-directed somewhere much more worthwhile.

If the federal government took over the regulation of marijuana dispensaries, not only would its leadership be inefficient, it would potentially take away jobs from those who own legitimate, legal dispensaries. For every illegally run collective, it’s important to remember there is a legitimate non-profit organization that employs Americans and provides free marijuana to patients who can’t afford it but need it for actual medical purposes.

We need the government to be effective and consistent. The global society and economy is at a point where America will be in a very dangerous position if some important issues are not dealt with directly and in a consistent manner. Especially considering that medical marijuana is much less consequential than many other issues currently facing the federal government, wasting resources to take away states’ rights is something the government can’t afford to be doing.

– – Burke Gibson is a sophomore majoring in economics and is the Daily Trojan’s Chief Copy Editor.

While the nation’s attention remains fixated on the upcoming Nov. 6 election, the Drug Enforcement Administration has been systematically cracking down on medical marijuana operations across California, most recently in Los Angeles — even though such operations are 100 percent legal statewide. But marijuana is still federally classified as an illegal drug, and President Barack Obama’s administration has been making renewed efforts to enforce federal law, however much they conflict with state and individual rights.

This begs the question: Should medical marijuana be regulated on a federal or state level?

Because marijuana in its legal form is a health benefit, no state should have the authority to take that away. The current administration’s crackdowns are not the right way to regulate, but they are right to take action when state regulation is not working. Medical marijuana must be federally regulated to ensure that medical access is provided for all who need it, regardless of what state they live in.

In 1970, marijuana was categorized by the government in 1970 as a Schedule I drug. Schedule I drugs must meet three conditions to be labeled as such: the drug has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and has a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Despite research that has proven all three of these conditions to be false, marijuana remains an illegal drug within the Schedule I category.

Medical marijuana, however, is legal in 17 states, including California, and measures proposing some level of legalization are currently pending in six others. The state legalization movement is growing fast, and as it does, so is the tension between the conflicting doctrines in state and federal regulation of the drug. This tension only contributes to further problems for everyone involved — business owners, medical patients and President Barack Obama himself, whose Daily Beast-dubbed “war on weed” might be angering some of his supporters. Having different laws in different states on the legality of a substance that is ridiculously easy to transport only creates chaos in the legal system and distracts from the fact that this is an issue about medical access and benefits, not governmental powers.

Federal regulation is opposed by those who see medical marijuana as a state issue that should be dealt with at a local, specific level. Nearly 1 million patients nationwide depend on medical marijuana for their health and are in accordance with state laws, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Marijuana has been proven to provide relief for serious conditions such as cancer or AIDS — relief that has not been reproduced by any other drug or medicine. So what about cancer or AIDS patients who live in the 27 states where medical marijuana remains illegal?

Should they bide their time until a ballot measure passes? Especially in incredibly conservative states, the likelihood of such a measure passing is small, considering Proposition 19 didn’t pass in liberal California in 2010. State efforts, as the past couple years have demonstrated, take too long to succeed and do not guarantee the results that patients in need deserve.

Though no debate over the regulation of marijuana can ignore the rampant recreational use and illegal sale and purchase of the drug, regulation must be re-framed as a medical issue. Medical marijuana is a health benefit that all Americans should be able to take advantage of if they need to do so — and federal regulation would guarantee that.

The current federal administration, however, has failed to acknowledge that. The DEA’s recent efforts to mend the gap between state and federal government are wrong and only perpetuate inconsistency and conflict. Raids, crackdowns, warning letters and the like are not the answer. It will take a change at the federal, not the state level, to effectively ensure safe and guaranteed use of medical marijuana for Americans in all states.

– – Elena Kadvany is a senior majoring in Spanish and is the Daily Trojan’s Editorial Director. Point/Counterpoint runs Fridays.

Source: Daily Trojan (U of Southern CA Edu)
Copyright: 2012 Daily Trojan
Contact: letters@dailytrojan.com
Website: http://www.dailytrojan.com/
Authors: Burke Gibson and Elena Kadvany

A vote for an item on the Nov. 6 ballot to legalize medical use of marijuana in Arkansas would enable cancer patients and other people suffering from chronic conditions to get relief when other drugs aren’t diminishing their suffering, backers of the measure argue.

But opponents, ranging from police organizations to the conservative Arkansas Family Council lobbying group, argue the drug would fall into the hands of people with no legitimate need it and are campaigning against the measure.

The group Arkansans for Compassionate Care organized the signature drive and fought a legal battle that followed to get the measure on the ballot.

Cancer survivors and family members of people with painful medical conditions have helped the organization get its message out that marijuana used medicinally can be of great benefit to people with pain, nausea and other chronic ailments.

Jerry Cox, director of the Arkansas Family Council, led a late drive to urge people to vote against the measure, arguing that the intent of the ballot item is to make marijuana as widely available as possible.

If approved, the measure would set a framework to allow dispensaries to provide up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana to patients who got a doctor’s approval to use the drug. The proposal would make it legal for people to grow their own medical marijuana if they live more than five miles from a dispensary.

The proposal didn’t draw organized opposition until October, when Cox started rallying groups to publicly condemn the measure.

The state Chamber of Commerce, the Arkansas Sheriffs Association, the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police and the Arkansas Pharmacists Association have all registered their opposition, as did state Drug Director Fran Flener.

Gov. Mike Beebe and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel each said they would vote against the item but said they wouldn’t campaign against it.

Arkansans for Compassionate Care has raised more than $289,000, with most of the money coming from the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project.

Dr. David Smith, a palliative care specialist with Baptist Health Medical Center in Little Rock, noted that a lot of the money supporting the measure has come from outside the state.

About a dozen doctors appeared with Smith at a news conference last week where they urged voters to oppose the measure, saying backers are citing “bad science” in arguing for the drug’s effectiveness.

“So-called medical marijuana is not a scientifically valid way to relieve pain or suffering,” Smith said.

Gary Fults, president of Arkansans for Compassionate Care, disagreed.

“We can come up with just as many reports saying its good science as they can saying its bad science,” Fults said.

Fults urged asks that voters strive to find independent information about medical uses of marijuana.

“You’ve just got to go out and get the information yourself, educate yourself about the issue. We recommend that everybody read the initiative … instead of listening to all the rhetoric that’s out there, ours and theirs,” Fults said.

The 8,000-word initiative goes into great detail about how marijuana would be dispensed and stipulates that users with a doctor’s clearance couldn’t be prosecuted under state law. Marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

Fults said the group has worked to enlist physicians to publicly support their cause but he said doctors don’t want their names associated with the initiative because they could lose their hospital privileges.

“We’re working on that right now. We’re trying to find someone who is independent of the hospitals that could speak out for us,” Fults said.

During its petition drive and subsequent campaign, the organization brought forth numerous people who said they were able to get through chemotherapy and endure other conditions only with the help of marijuana.

The ballot item has gotten the attention of Arkansas voters.

The Arkansas Poll, conducted by the University of Arkansas, surveyed 800 people and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The poll showed that 44 percent of voters favored the measure and 52 percent were opposed with 5 percent voicing no opinion or refusing to answer when the poll was taken Oct. 9-14.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Chuck Bartels, Associated Press
Published: October 29, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Associated Press

A solid majority of Americans support legalizing marijuana, either with or without taxes and regulations similar to those imposed on alcoholic beverages, according to a new survey conducted by YouGov for The Huffington Post.

The poll found that 51 percent of adults support legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol, while another 8 percent support legalizing pot but don’t want it taxed and regulated like alcohol. Only 26 percent of respondents said that marijuana should not be legalized, and another 15 percent said they weren’t sure.

Support for allowing doctors to prescribe medical marijuana for their patients was even higher than support for legalizing marijuana. Sixty-four percent of respondents said they either somewhat or strongly favored permitting doctors to prescribe small amounts of pot, and 23 percent said they were opposed. Support was highest among people aged 45 to 64 — 74 percent of whom said they favored allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana — and lowest among younger adults — only 56 percent of whom favored it.

Most other polls have found lower percentages of Americans in favor of legalizing marijuana, although they have shown a trend toward support and a few have found a majority in support. A Gallup poll released a year ago showed a bare 50 percent majority support for marijuana legalization. But a Public Religion Institute survey conducted this September found more opposed to than in favor of legalizing it. Other surveys last year, such as those by CBS News and Pew Research Center, also found higher levels of opposition than support.

The difference in the results from the HuffPost/YouGov survey and other polls may be partly explained by their methodologies. While most of the other polls used live interviewers over the phone, the HuffPost/YouGov poll was conducted online.

Differences in question wording may also be part of the explanation. Whereas most surveys have asked only whether respondents favored or opposed marijuana legalization, the HuffPost survey offered a third option of legalizing pot and then taxing and regulating like alcohol. That option may have garnered support from those inclined to favor legalization but concerned about the consequences, for example, when young people smoke it or when individuals use marijuana and then drive a car.

In the HuffPost/YouGov survey, support for legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana was steady across age groups, ranging from a low of 49 percent among those between ages 45 and 64 (roughly the Baby Boom generation) to 53 percent among those age 65 and older, with younger groups falling in between. Support for legalizing without taxes and regulations showed more variation. Those under age 29 and between ages 45 and 64 were most likely to support legalization pure and simple — 9 percent and 13 percent, respectively — while those between ages 30 and 44 and those age 65 and older were less likely to support it — 5 percent and 3 percent, respectively. Those age 65 and older were most likely to oppose legalizing marijuana altogether, with 38 percent saying no.

The poll found more variation among people of different political parties. Sixty-four percent of Democrats, 41 percent of Republicans and 47 percent of independents said they supported legalization with taxes and regulations. Eleven percent of independents, 6 percent of Republicans and 5 percent of Democrats supported legalization without regulations. Overall, opposition was highest among Republicans, but even so, more Republicans favored one of the two legalization options (47 percent) than opposed legalization entirely (44 percent).

More respondents supported some form of legalization than said they had used pot themselves. A majority (54 percent) said they had never used the drug, while 38 percent said they had. Eight percent preferred not to say. Marijuana use was higher among male than female respondents. Forty-five percent of men said they had used marijuana in their lifetime, and 44 percent said they had not. By contrast, 33 percent of women said they had used marijuana, and 62 percent said they had not.

The HuffPost/YouGov survey was conducted online on Oct. 23 among 1,000 U.S. adults and has a 4.2 percentage point margin of error. It used a sample drawn from YouGov’s opt-in online panel that was selected to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion, and church attendance.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Emily Swanson
Published: October 24, 2012
Copyright: 2012 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: scoop@huffingtonpost.com
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Federal agents bust a bunch of L.A. and Orange County pot shops.

A San Diego judge says its OK to purchase pot.

Medical marijuana news can leave you in a haze. Let

In a little over a week, we the voters will elect representatives who
will make momentous, sometimes life-or-death decisions on our behalf.
As a patient and advocate of medical marijuana, I am motivated this
election by strong, bipartisan support for this medicine — up to 80 percent
in recent polls. If you are part of the majority of Americans who
support cannabis access for medical purposes, you don’t need to be in
the three states with an initiative on the ballot to weigh in. My
organization, Americans for Safe Access,
has created a tool that allows you to make your vote for Congress a
vote for medical marijuana, by grading members of Congress on their
record on this issue: VoteMedicalMarijuana.org.

Based on their record since 1997, VoteMedicalMarijuana.org grades
Members of Congress up for reelection on a pass/fail basis. Those who
have generally voted for access to medical cannabis pass, and those who
generally vote against it fail. For example, the 72 percent of Democrats
and 29 percent of Republicans who voted this
May in favor of de-funding Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) raids
in medical cannabis states pass, and those who voted against it, fail.
VoteMedicalMarijuana.org also identifies key champions of medical
marijuana with the "honor roll" distinction, reserved for co-sponsors of
important legislation that protects state medical marijuana laws.

Our Congressional Representatives are our voice in Washington. By
voting for representatives who favor access, you are shaping public
policy. In just the last two years, medical marijuana supporters have
been key to statewide races,
defeating Steve Cooley in his race for Attorney General in California,
and electing Ellen Rosenblum as Attorney General of Oregon. Since
Congress holds the key to granting medical cannabis access nationwide,
supporters need to know whether or not their representative is on their
side.

You may have read about the federal lawsuit ASA v DEA
that was recently heard by the Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. We
are excited and optimistic that the courts will recognize the medical
value of marijuana and force the government to properly reclassify it.
Once this is achieved, Congress can get to work on developing the
comprehensive public health policy that every patient deserves. It is
Congress that funds the aggressive federal enforcement campaigns against
state law-abiding medical cannabis facilities. And it is Congress that
has the power to let patients use a currently prohibited "medical
marijuana" defense in federal criminal trials. Your vote for your
Congressperson — and every American outside of my hometown of D.C. has
one — can be a vote for a sensible medical marijuana policy.

If you care about medical cannabis access, please visit VoteMedicalMarijuana.org
before you cast your vote. This information is based on the
Congressional record, but it is not comprehensive. If you don’t see your
Congressional, State Legislature or City Council race on this list, we
invite you to ask the candidates yourself, and share their responses
with us.

Voters in Arkansas, Massachusetts and Montana have the opportunity to
vote for state medical marijuana laws, but voters in every state can
and should weigh in on medical marijuana policy. Don’t let your vote be
ignored, and Vote Medical Marijuana on November 6th!

The medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) launched a new website today — VoteMedicalMarijuana.org
— that provides patients and their supporters with the tools they need
to make informed decisions about the candidates in their districts. The
new website will give visitors a pass/fail "grade" for how their Member
of Congress has voted on medical marijuana since 1997. For example, the
website details the 72 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of
Republicans who voted in favor of de-funding Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) raids in medical marijuana states this past May.

"Given that our elected officials decide whether and how to develop
medical marijuana policy that affects millions of patients in the U.S.,
it’s important for them to have the tools necessary to make decisions
that will impact their future," said Steph Sherer, Executive Director of
ASA, the country’s leading medical marijuana group. "The choices made
by patients and their supporters at the ballot box should take into
consideration the candidates’ record on medical marijuana."

Ultimately, advocates argue, it’s Congress that funds the aggressive
federal enforcement campaigns against state law-abiding medical cannabis
facilities, and it’s Congress that has the power to grant patients a
"medical necessity" defense in federal criminal trials, a right they are
not currently afforded. VoteMedicalMarijuana.org also identifies key
champions of medical marijuana with an "honor roll" distinction,
reserved for co-sponsors of important legislation that protects state
medical marijuana laws or seeks to develop a comprehensive federal
policy.

An appeals court on Wednesday
reversed the felony conviction of a former Kearny Mesa marijuana
dispensary manager who was found guilty of possessing and selling the
drug for profit.

The court found that the trial judge should not have barred Jovan
Jackson, 34, from arguing that his conduct was permitted under
California law, which allows medical marijuana patients to associate for
the purpose of

When the San Francisco Giants and Detroit Tigers face off in game one of the World Series tonight, it will be the first time two teams from different medical marijuana states meet in the Fall Classic (The Giants and Angels played an intrastate series in ’02). There may be a smattering of Tigers fans in attendance, but unless they’re transplants living in California, they probably won’t be medical marijuana patients. When the series shifts to Detroit for game three, however, patients in California will be able to follow their team to Detroit with their medicine. Why the difference? Reciprocity.

Reciprocity is what allows patients to travel from one medical marijuana state to another. States that have it recognize the legitimacy of those out-of-state patients’ ID cards, at least for a short period of time and under some limited exceptions. For example, some states only provide protections for visiting patients who would qualify under their own laws, so a patient from California who uses marijuana to treat insomnia would not be able to use marijuana in Arizona, where insomnia is not a qualifying condition.

Here’s what Michigan’s law says:

“Visiting qualifying patient” means a patient who is not a resident of this state or who has been a resident of this state for less than 30 days.

…

A registry identification card, or its equivalent, that is issued under the laws of another state … that allows the medical use of marijuana by a visiting qualifying patient … shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department.

There are 17 states that allow patients with doctors’ recommendations to use medical marijuana, but only five—Arizona, Maine, Michigan, Montana, and Rhode Island—include reciprocity. All of those states’ laws were drafted by MPP.

So how does a medical marijuana patient travel, you might ask? It would be very risky to drive from, say, California to Michigan, since that would involve passing through plenty of states that don’t recognize any form of medical marijuana. And while you might think the T.S.A. won’t take too kindly to flying with medical marijuana, they do have an unofficial policy of deferring to state and local authorities, and there are a few examples of patients boarding planes after their medication turned up at the security checkpoint. Obviously we don’t recommend Giants fans doing so without checking with the T.S.A. in Detroit first.

So there you have it. No word on whether two-time Cy Young winner, World Series champion, and noted marijuana user Tim Lincecum is aware of the policy.