A ban on storefront pot dispensaries here won’t go into effect
Thursday after advocates for medical marijuana successfully petitioned
to block it, the latest skirmish in the battle over how local
governments around the nation should regulate pot businesses.

After years of failed attempts to
control the number of pot shops and their operations here, the Los
Angeles City Council unanimously passed an ordinance in late July that
made storefront dispensaries illegal by modifying language in the city’s
municipal code.

Last week, medical-marijuana advocates
submitted about 50,000 signatures to overturn the ban, nearly twice the
number needed, according to the Los Angeles City Clerk’s office. Once
the city clerk verifies the signatures, the council will have to decide
whether to repeal the ordinance or place the issue on the ballot next
year.

This city’s unsuccessful efforts to
regulate marijuana businesses have taken center stage in a statewide and
national debate. Even as the federal government steps up efforts to
crack down on dispensary sales of the drug, illegal under U.S. law, 17
states and the District of Columbia now allow marijuana use for
medicinal purposes, according to Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy
group.

An ASA spokesman said California was
the first state to popularize brick-and-mortar pot shops, typically
denoted with a leaf or cross symbol, and the nation’s largest state
still counts the most pot shops.

A 1996 voter-approved initiative allows
people with a doctor’s recommendation to grow and use marijuana for
medical reasons in California. According to an attorney for the city of
Los Angeles, there is no mention of dispensaries in that law.

"The state voter initiative envisioned a
kibbutz model," said Deputy City Attorney Bill Carter. "It’s morphed
into a Starbucks model."

Complicating the issue for California
cities is a tangle of competing lawsuits. Last year, the California
Court of Appeals ruled that the city of Long Beach, just south of Los
Angeles, couldn’t use a lottery system to limit the number of pot shops,
because controlling the distribution of medical marijuana violates
federal law. The state Supreme Court recently dismissed the case.

The state Supreme Court is expected to
take up other cases addressing the issue of whether municipalities can
ban pot shops, but not for several months.

Although many California municipalities
ban pot sales, about 50 jurisdictions allow sales, while regulating
things like the number of dispensaries, their locations and hours of
operation, according to Don Duncan, California director of ASA.

In 2007, when fewer than 200
dispensaries were operating in Los Angeles, city officials passed a
moratorium to block new ones from opening. But hundreds more opened
anyway, exploiting an exemption for dispensaries that could show they
faced "hardship."

There are currently about 1,000
dispensaries in the city, according to Councilman Paul Koretz, who
represents parts of the city’s west side.

On the same day the City Council passed
the ban, Mr. Koretz proposed that city attorneys prepare a separate
ordinance allowing dispensaries that were open before 2008 to remain in
business. Mr. Koretz said he hoped the new ordinance, once it proceeds
through a clearance process, would be approved by the City Council
before the ban comes up for a citywide vote.

For now, the proliferation continues.
In the east side neighborhood of Eagle Rock, about 15 dispensaries have
sprouted up recently, attracting customers from the nearby communities
of Pasadena and Glendale, where dispensaries are banned.

Michael Larsen, president of the Eagle
Rock Neighborhood Council, said he isn’t opposed to medicinal marijuana
but said the shops are a "nuisance" in the community. Loitering,
littering and reselling are serious problems around the dispensaries,
Mr. Larsen said.

"It’s easier to open a pot shop than a
yogurt shop in Eagle Rock," Mr. Larsen said. "They just do it and start
raking in the cash."

Annie Lam, a manager at Hyperion
Healing in the nearby neighborhood of Silver Lake, said a citywide ban
would be "harsh" for many of her shop’s clients who use marijuana to
curtail side effects from AIDS, cancer drugs and other conditions. State
law allows people with a prescription to grow their own cannabis, she
said, but for many that isn’t a viable option.

"They’re frustrated," she said. "Everyone still needs their medication."

Six measures

The Los Angeles City Council’s decision to ignore the fact that the
majority of their constituents support the use of medical marijuana, and
its availability through legitimately run medical marijuana
dispensaries, is already costing the financially depleted city thousands
of dollars.

The City Council’s financial throwaway has already begun to take effect, even before their ban has shut down any dispensaries.

The Council’s anti-patient political move irrefutably demonstrates
gross fiscal negligence, and a vast waste of money and resources on
their part.

While the City Council’s members are happy to shut off the millions
of dollars in tax revenues that have been coming into the city’s
financially strapped coffers from medical marijuana dispensaries, there
are other fiscal ramifications, directly emanating from their senseless
decision.

Spearheaded by Councilman Jose Huizar, their September 6 ban is
nothing less than yet another financial drain on a depressed economy in a
city that in May, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported with 10.2%
unemployment. With California’s 10.8% jobless rate, only two states have
a higher unemployment rate than CA.

The City Council is hoping to increase the number of Los Angeles
residents that are on unemployment by the thousands, as a direct result
of shutting down these establishments.

Ironically, the city’s tab will also increase, due to the exponential
cost of the City Council enlisting the LAPD’s involvement in helping to
force medical patients to purchase their meds from gang members.

When the Los Angeles City Council voted for a ban on medical
marijuana collectives and dispensaries on June 24, they certainly knew
there would be a major legal battle ensuing immediately. They were
keenly aware of the pricy legal expenses that the City of Los Angeles
and its taxpayers would be paying as a result of their witless decision
to coerce medical patients into buying marijuana from shady drug dealers
on the streets, instead of purchasing them from reputable dispensaries.

While waging their war against medical patients, the City Council has
also been conscious of the obvious fact that their ill conceived
decision to ban medical marijuana dispensaries will end up in a
referendum on the ballot.

In response to the City Council’s ban, approximately 50 thousand
signatures were turned in by advocates. The petition drive opposing the
City Council’s decision only lasted nine days. It was started on August
11.

Of the 50 thousand signatures generated, only 27,480 of the
signatures need to be valid. Kimberly Briggs, who serves as the media
specialist for the Los Angeles City Clerk’s office, told The 420 Times
that the L.A. City Council’s ban on dispensaries will be suspended once
the petitions are submitted to the City Clerk’s office.

As a result of this, "The ban will not be enforced," she emphasized. It will disempower the September 6 ban.

Briggs commented, "Once we receive the petition with the signatures on it, we have to do an official count first."

As far as how long it will take to verify the signatures, Briggs
says, "It depends on the workload at the office, what time the petition
is submitted, and when we start. So there is no guarantee specifically,
as to when we start counting."

"But we do have fifteen calendar days to start verifying the
signatures," she confirms. She explains that it is fifteen days when the
City Clerk verifies a random sampling. However, if their office decides
to verify all the signatures, it will be on a thirty-day timeline.

According to the City Clerk’s initial estimate, it will take twenty
city employees to help count and verify a random sampling of signatures.

However, if the department decides to do a full review and
verification of all the signatures, it will take thirty days, and it
will require even more people that will have to be recruited for the
process.

Briggs says of the expense of the verification process, "Be aware
that these are preliminary cost estimates. The costs of reviewing the
petition can vary, based on the quality of the petition, as well as
factors."

"If enough signatures are submitted, we will use a random sample methodology that usually takes that 15 days," she states.

Briggs says in that case, using a random sample, "The estimated cost of review is approximately $60,000.00."

According to Briggs, "If on the other hand, we have to review every
signature submitted to verify that there are enough valid signatures,
the cost would be approximately $250,000.00."

All of these expenses come from L.A. resident’s tax dollars.

Conversely, the referendum against the City Council’s ban was paid
for by The Greater Los Angeles Alliance Collective Alliance (GLACA), the
UFCW Local 770, and the Los Angeles Chapter of Americans For Safe
Access (ASA). "The Committee To Protect Patients and Neighborhoods is
the alliance of those three organizations," says longtime activist and
head of GLACA, Yami Bolanos of PureLife Alternative Wellness Center. "It
was just the three of us that raised the money, that collected the
signatures, and that will submit them" to the City Clerk.

Bolanos points to more money that the City Council is squandering money in yet another way with this issue.

"The city (Council) should deal with us now," emphasizes Bolanos,
"Instead of putting this off until March, when they’re going to have to
spend a couple millions dollars on an election."

She is emphatic as she declares, "The city should deal with this now."

Bolanos maintains, "They need to keep the pre-ICO dispensaries open
until they figure out a better way to bring access to (the city’s
patients)."

Don Duncan, California director of Americans For Safe Access, notes,
"The next time that the City Council meets, they have two choices. They
can either just repeal the ordinance when they know that we qualify, or
they could say, ‘We see that,’ and do something else, or they could put
it to a vote." He contends that such action would not likely take place
until a minimum of 110 days after the signatures have been determined to
be valid. That means the next likely time would be March. Duncan
notes, "The City Council could call for an election earlier than March,
but it doesn’t make good economic sense to call for a special election
when there’s a vote coming up in March anyway. So we just expect to put
it on the March ballot. ‘

Because of the signatures, Duncan says, "Everyone should be able to stay open until March."
"That is my understanding," he confirmed.

"Everyone should be able to stay open until the referendum," he said.

He then added that he is speaking of the City Council’s ban, and it
of course, would not include any unrelated, random raids by federal
agents.

Regarding the chaotic mess the City Council has created, Bolanos, who
runs a Pre-ICO dispensary, stresses her desire to see the City Council
make a decision before March. "The city should allow the pre-ICO
collectives, the ones that were open prior to September 14, 2007 to stay
open, to serve the community, and to serve the patients, until the city
(Council) can figure out what the hell they’re doing."
Irrefutably, Los Angeles voters need to elect a new City Council that
will stop interfering with medical patients, and that will stop trying
to force them into dealing with dangerous drug dealers.

The City Council must be replaced with one that will also stop
negligently wasting city funds and the taxpayers’ money, draining city
resources on inadvisable and inappropriate decisions.

Supporters of a contentious medical marijuana program are rallying behind a Coe Hill-area family practitioner facing medical marijuana-related fraud charges across Canada

Dianne Bruce is a vocal advocate for the Health Canada operated program and the drug she praises for enabling her to enjoy simple pleasures such as getting out of bed in the morning.  Without medical marijuana she said she would be overcome by a barrage of ailments including crippling aches and chronic pains.

Bruce’s first hand knowledge of the program is fuelling her displeasure about the scrutiny and public backlash being shown to Dr.  Rob Kamermans since news of his arrest earlier this month.

She worries that Kamerman’s ordeal could threaten the program and patients like her who depend heavily on daily dosages of marijuana – her “medicine” – to function.  Bruce credits medical marijuana for easing a range of ailments including spinal disc herniation and pancreatist.

Kamermans, 66, was subjected to myriad of restrictive conditions to which he and two sureties agreed when he was then granted bail.

His wife and co-accused, Mary Kamermans, 64, also released on strict conditions – including reporting to the Bancroft OPP detachment once per week-

The couple was charged in relation to fraudulent endorsement of Health Canada’s medicinal marijuana documents in Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia, between January 2011 and April 2012, police said.

Bruce has licences to possess and a permit to produce what’s designated by Health Canada as medical marijuana.  Proof of her participation in the program is crucial, somewhat akin to having a driver’s licence, she said.

“They want to take this program away,” she said.

The documents issued by Health Canada details whether the licence holder is permit to grow indoor or outdoor, plant limits and the amount they can possess.  Cobourg resident

“No doctor will want to go near this after what’s happened to Dr.  Kamermans,” she said.  “We have a medical doctor that has been doing the right thing.”

Bruce relies on doctors like Kamermans who have been active participants in the program.  She visited Kamermans about a year ago in an attempt to bump up her dosage and said Kamermans should not be penalized for travelling to other jurisdictions to care for patients seeking his help.

“It’s very hard to find doctors who are willing to sign,” Bruce said.  “If other doctors would take care of their patients, he wouldn’t be as needed as he his.”

Inside Bruce’s purse is handful of pill bottles containing synthetic “pot” in the form of a pill, which Bruce requires a prescription to acquire.

She takes six tablets daily to stem effects of fibromyalgia, a syndrome which involves body pains and tenderness in the joints, muscles and other soft tissues.  Fibromyalgia has also been linked to fatigue, sleep problems, headaches.  Bruce credits the pills for soothing her chronic pain issues.

“I take the pill in the morning and within 20 minutes I can get up out of bed,” she said.

Debby Smits also attributed her improved mobility and noticeable reduction in chronic pain to her consumption of the “synthetic medication.”

She said she battles a plethora of ailments, including arthritis.  She too has a licence that allows her to possess and produce marijuana and has made prior visits to Kamermans to seek assistance.

“I was there the day before his office was raided,” she said about the January raid at Kamermans’ Coe Hill office.

Smits said there is a misconception about some patients are misusing the product as a drug rather than for legitimate health reasons.

Contrary to public perception, patients like say medical marijuana does not provide the euphoria enjoyed by people who use it on a recreational basis..

“We don’t get high when we use it,” she said.

Dr.  Kamermans was charged Aug.  15, in Sturgeon Falls while his wife Mary – a registered nurse – was charged in Bancroft.  The Kamermans are scheduled to re-appear in court in Belleville on Sept.  20.

Source: Intelligencer, The (CN ON)
Copyright: 2012, Osprey Media Group Inc.
Contact: http://www.intelligencer.ca/feedback1/LetterToEditor.aspx
Website: http://www.intelligencer.ca/
Author: Jason Miller

A Montana medical marijuana provider with a history of serious illness died Thursday after his transfer to a federal prison that could give him proper medical care was delayed for months.

Richard Flor’s death came weeks after a federal judge denied an attorney’s request to release the 68-year-old Miles City resident while he appealed his five-year sentence. U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell wrote in his Aug. 7 order that it was “unfortunate” that Flor’s transfer to a Bureau of Prisons medical facility was delayed, but “it is not factually or legally significant.”

Lovell sentenced Flor in April after Flor pleaded guilty to maintaining a drug-involved premises. Flor previously was diagnosed with dementia, depression and numerous medical conditions, and Lovell recommended that he be evaluated by federal prison hospital officials to determine what facility would be best suited for him.

Flor had been held at Crossroads Correctional Facility, a private prison in Shelby, while awaiting the Bureau of Prisons’ decision on where he would serve his sentence.

He was removed from the Shelby facility Tuesday and was being temporarily held in a Las Vegas jail Wednesday when he suffered two heart attacks, renal failure and kidney failure, said his attorney, Brad Arndorfer.

Flor was hospitalized and placed on life support while still shackled to his bed, Arndorfer said. His family decided early Thursday to take him off life support.

Arndorfer said Flor’s death was a failure of the federal justice system at all levels.

“I can point the finger at everybody,” Arndorfer said. “The fault is in prosecuting a man like this. The next fault is sentencing a man like this to prison. Then you’ve got the Marshals Service taking him to a place like Crossroads, which has no medical facilities capable of taking care of him.”

Arndorfer said Flor was being held in the Las Vegas jail as a layover en route to a destination that he did not know.

Lovell released a brief statement through his staff Thursday afternoon saying, “I was sorry to learn of the passing of Mr. Flor. Judicial ethics prohibit further response.”

Neither the Bureau of Prisons nor the U.S. Marshals Service returned calls for comment. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica Fehr confirmed that Flor died Thursday in a Las Vegas hospital but said she had no further comment.

The Great Falls Tribune first reported Flor’s death.

Steven Owen, a spokesman for Crossroads owner Corrections Corporation of America, said in a statement that staff there “are firmly committed to the health and safety of the inmates entrusted to our care” and the facility is regularly inspected and audited on its “processes for delivering care.”

Arndorfer asked Lovell in July to release Flor while he appealed his five-year sentence, which Flor believed was too harsh. Flor had fallen out of a bed at Crossroads and broke his clavicle and cervical bones. He also reinjured the ribs and vertebrae hurt in a fall in detention the year before, Arndorfer said.

“He is in extreme pain and still is not being given round-the-clock care as is required for someone with his medical and mental conditions,” Arndorfer wrote in his request. “It is anticipated he will not long survive general population incarceration.”

Lovell denied the request Aug. 7, saying he checked with Bureau of Prison officials and Flor had recovered from the injuries.

“Defendant’s medical requirements have been reviewed by the Bureau of Prisons, which is able to provide any medical care needed by the Defendant,” the judge wrote.

After initially saying CCA did not know of any injury Flor suffered while housed at Crossroads, Owens later acknowledged there was a report from June that Flor fell out of his bunk. He said medical privacy rules prevented him from speaking any further about the fall or Flor’s injuries.

Flor was one of the co-founders of the now-defunct Montana Cannabis, which provided marijuana for about 300 people from locations in Helena, Missoula and Billings, and from Flor’s Miles City home. It was one of the largest medical marijuana operations to be raided by federal agents in March 2011 in a crackdown on large providers.

Three of his former partners are either facing or have pleaded guilty to similar federal drug charges after protesting that they were operating in compliance with state medical marijuana laws.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Matt Volz, Associated Press
Published: August 30, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Associated Press

Today, we’re really excited to be announcing the final list of the 2012 Top 50 Most Influential Marijuana Users! Over 3,000 of our supporters voted to help us develop the final list – which can be seen here – so thank you for your input!

The final list is a combination of MPP’s 13 automatic qualifiers (including President Obama and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, among 11 others) and the 37 individuals who received the most votes from our list of 150+ nominees. We borrowed the great definition used by Out Magazine for their “Power 50” list to rank these 50 individuals by their “power to influence cultural and social attitudes, political clout, individual wealth, and a person’s media profile.”

It was really interesting to see who made the final cut and who just missed out. Actors made up 40% of the final list with 20 people, and Morgan Freeman took the #1 spot in terms of total votes, appearing in over 33% of the survey responses. Politicians, with 11 finalists, and entertainers (with 7 finalists, including Jon Stewart, who comes in at #7 on our list), rounded out the second and third place categories.

There were a few people who I thought would make the final list who didn’t end up making the cut, including Lady Gaga (#52), Glenn Beck (#63), and Wiz Khalifa (#86). These are some pretty big names within their respective categories, but they ended up missing out. It was also interesting that only five musicians made the final list; I certainly was expecting a few more (including the two mentioned above)!

Since this will be an annual list, we’re looking forward to seeing how much changes over the next year. There are sure to be some significant names who drop off the list, as well as new additions who either just missed out this year or weren’t even eligible yet because we weren’t aware of their past (or current) marijuana use.

If you haven’t already, check out the final list, and leave a comment below with your thoughts! Who didn’t make the cut that should have? Who do you think is most likely to drop off over the next year? Was someone not even nominated who should have been? We want to hear from you, so be sure to let us know what you think! Again, thanks for voting!

An ordinance that would ban marijuana dispensaries from operating in
Los Angeles could be put on hold and possibly left to voters to decide,
if a petition on its way to the city clerk is ruled valid.

The petition, comprised of about 50,000 signatures, was submitted to
the Los Angeles City Clerk’s Office Thursday and calls for a referendum
next March on the new ordinance banning storefront dispensaries
effective Sept. 6. But the petition’s immediate effect would be to
prevent the ordinance from even going into effect.

Activists who sponsored the petition drive formally announced their
plans at a Wednesday morning press conference at the Universal Sheraton
in Universal City.

The City Council voted last month to ban the dispensaries, citing
conflicting court opinions about whether the city can legally regulate
cannabis collectives. While banning storefront dispensaries, the city
will allow licensed patients or caregivers to grow and transport their
own medical marijuana, under the ordinance.

After the vote, the City Attorney’s Office sent letters to 1,046
suspected dispensary locations warning them to shut down by Sept. 6 or
face court action and a $2,500 fine for every day they remain open past
the deadline. Medical marijuana supporters quickly mounted a
signature-gathering effort in hopes of forcing a referendum on the
issue.

A minimum of 27,425 signatures is required to get the issue on the
ballot, according to petition-drive organizers, who say they’ve
collected around twice that many. Once the petition is submitted, the
City Clerk’s office will verify the signatures against voter
registration information.

If the petition is determined to pass muster, the City Council would
have 20 days to either repeal the ordinance or leave the decision up to
voters in next year’s municipal election on March 5, said Kimberly
Briggs, media specialist with the city clerk’s election divsion.

"Legally, we have 15 days to verify the signatures on the petition," Briggs said.

Councilman Jose Huizar, who champions the ban, said the submission of
signatures does not necessarily mean storefront medical marijuana shops
will be spared legal action, even though the ordinance that provides
for the storefront ban would be put on hold.

According to Huizar, filing petition signatures means the city’s
"Sunset Clause” will kick in, "which outlaws storefront dispensaries
and only allows, per state law, for a qualified patient or their
caregiver to grow their own or collectives consisting of three or fewer
qualified patients or their caregivers.”

Officials in the office of City Attorney Carmen Trutanich have
advanced similar opinions about the city’s options, but medical
marijuana advocates disagree.

"State law is clear — selling medical marijuana for profit is
illegal,” Huizar said. The referendum effort "does not change that and
doesn’t protect dispensary owners from prosecution if they engage in
illegal activity.”

If placed on the ballot next March, the referendum on the ban will
take place at the same time as Angelenos elect a new mayor. Medical
marijuana activists say, however, that they hope the Council revisits
the idea of a total ban, in which case no referendum will be necessary.

"We want a strict regulatory system in place to ensure safe access
for patients and a nuisance-free process for neighborhoods,” referendum
proponent Norma Schaffer said. "This one-size-fits-all ban not only
hurts patients, but it eliminates dispensaries playing by the rules
while doing little to shut down rogue dispensaries.

"We need good policy, not knee-jerk bans that make the problem
worse,” she said. "We’re confident the voters of Los Angeles will agree
with us.”

A number of pro-medical marijuana organizations and medical marijuana
users with various illnesses gathered at the Universal Sheraton on
Wednedsay to announce the intention of seeking a referendum.

Rick Icaza, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local
770, which represents dispensary workers from about 40 storefronts,
spoke in favor of drafting a more lenient ordinance.

"This referendum will give the city an opportunity to have a real
discussion about compassionate use, one outside the narrow halls of
politics and politicians," he said. "We disagree that the best way to
respond to the neighborhood concerns with certain dispensaries was to
ban them all outright. We are seeking a compromise solution."

One of the patients to speak was Linda Leek, who said she has used
marijuana for four years to help her deal with thyroid myalgia. She said
the few exceptions outlined in the new ordinance would make it harder
to obtain cannabis.

Under the new policy, primary caregivers to grow and transport
medical marijuana. In addition, two or three patients would be able to
collectively grow and share medical marijuana in their homes, but not
storefronts.

"I can’t grow it on my own," Leek said. "I can’t afford to grow it
on my own. I would not know the knowledge to grow it on my own."

Don Duncan, director of Americans for Safe Access, said he views
regulation as the best alternative to banning medical marijuana
dispensaries.

He said one approach would be to carefully plan the location of such
storefronts so that they are not allowed to operate near churches,
schools and parks.

Duncan said if better regulation means shutting down some marijuana
shops to keep others open at more appropriate locations, it would be
worth it.

"We know when we call for regulations that not everyone is going to
meet the standard and be able to operate under those regulations," he
said. "And that may be an acceptable outcome so long as we preserve
some access for patients."

On Aug. 17, a medical marijuana trade group called the Patient Care
Alliance filed a lawsuit in hopes of blocking the marijuana ban, calling
it a "reckless, baseless and heartless act of denial of necessary
medical services.”

One of the champions of the ban, Councilman Jose Huizar, said after
the council’s vote in July that the city’s action still provides safe
access to marijuana for patients who need it, but also puts the city on
solid legal footing and alleviates quality-of-life issues that
constituents complain about.

"Relief is coming in the form of having a more focused and intense
crackdown on these dispensaries that cause problems in our
neighborhoods,” Huizar said.

Councilman Paul Koretz, an ally of the medical marijuana community,
advocates allowing 100 or so of the city’s oldest dispensaries to remain
open.

Proponents of medicinal marijuana say they have
collected enough signatures to force a ballot referendum to repeal LA

Juan Gomez-Garcia was standing outside a Bronx Kentucky Fried Chicken on May 16, 2012, waiting for his order to be prepared, when a police officer approached and asked him if he had any drugs.

The 27-year-old says he admitted to carrying some marijuana, at which point the cop reached inside his pocket and pulled out a ziploc bag containing weed. Months earlier, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly issued a memo to New York City cops: “A crime will not be charged to an individual who is requested or compelled to engage in the behavior that results in the public display of marijuana.”

The directive– considered an attempt to curb the growing amount of low-level marijuana arrests in New York City– did not spare Gomez-Garcia from being cuffed outside KFC.

Under a current New York law– which Reason this past week crowned as the nation’s “Dumbest Drug Law”– possession of 25 grams or less of marijuana shouldn’t result in arrest unless it’s “burning or in public view.” Rather, it’s considered a violation with a punishment comparable to a parking ticket.

The law allows the NYPD, however, to ask the hundreds of thousands they stop on the streets each year (87 percent of whom, in 2011, were black or Latino) to empty their pockets.

When the marijuana comes out of the pocket, it becomes “in public view,” and they can make an arrest. Additionally– as in Gomez-Garcia’s case– cops will often bring the drugs into “public view” during a stop-and-frisk.

According to a lawsuit filed by the Legal Aid Society against the NYPD, Gomez-Garcia’s encounter with the officer resulted in an arrest. He was held in a jail cell for 12 hours– during which time he pleaded with a sergeant that he should only be getting a ticket– before being charged with “in public view” possession and pleading guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct.

Thousands of such arrests across the city, the lawsuit claims, highlight the ineffectiveness of Kelly’s September, 2011 memo. Steven Banks, a Legal Aid lawyer, presented City Council with statistics proving Kelly’s order was being ignored by rank-and-file cops.

From The New York Times:

In August 2011, 4,189 people were arrested in New York City for misdemeanor marijuana possession, Mr. Banks said. While the arrests dipped below 3,000 in December, “the decline was only temporary”, he said, adding that by March, the number of arrests had risen to 4,186

In June, Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed a bill to decriminalize public possession of small amounts of marijuana, which would have essentially codifed Kelly’s memo into law. The measure enjoyed the support of Ray Kelly himself, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, all five District Attorneys from all five boroughs, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, and numerous civil rights groups.

After all, the combination of the “in public view” law with the NYPD’s controversial use of stop-and-frisks had turned New York City into one of the marijuana arrest capitals of the United States, if not the world.

From a report by the Drug Policy Alliance:

In the last decade since Michael Bloomberg became mayor, the NYPD has made 400,038 lowest level marijuana possession arrests at a cost of $600 million dollars. Nearly 350,000 of the marijuana possession arrests made under Bloomberg are of overwhelmingly young Black and Latino men, despite the fact that young whites use marijuana at higher rates than young Blacks and Latinos.

In the last five years, the NYPD under Bloomberg has made more marijuana arrests (2007 to 2011 = 227,093) than in the 24 years from 1978 through 2001 under Mayor Giuliani, Mayor Dinkins, and Mayor Koch combined (1978 to 2001 = 226,861).

City Councilman Jumaane Williams was troubled by the report, saying, “This data shows that Commissioner Kelly’s memorandum is not being enforced. For instance, the 240% increase in arrests in the last week of 2011 compared to the same period in 2010 is highly troubling. It also seems that much of this rise is occurring in police precincts which cover communities of more color, such as the 67th and the 70th in my district. What these statistics prove is that legislative action is needed to codify the memorandum once and for all.”

But alas, the same month as it was proposed, the bill was struck down by Republicans in the State Senate. “We do not support decriminalization,” Senator Dean Skelos, a Long Island Republican, told The Times. Skelos had previously said of the bill, “Just being able to walk around with 10 joints in each ear and it would only be a violation, I think that’s wrong.”

Cuomo spokesman John Vlasto responded to Skelos’s comment, saying, “Carrying 10 joints in each ear would require some set of ears.” He then added, “We look forward to working these issues through with the Senate in order to end an injustice that has been allowed to go on for too long.”

It remains unclear, however, if Cuomo and Senate Republicans can or will come to an agreement.

For now, it seems marijuana arrests in New York will be an issue for the courts to decide.

HuffPost Live will be taking a comprehensive look at America’s failed war on drugs August 28th and September 4th from 12-4 pm ET and 6-10 pm ET.

Click here to check it out — http://live.huffingtonpost.com/ — and join the conversation.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Christopher Mathias
Published: August 28, 2012
Copyright: 2012 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: scoop@huffingtonpost.com
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/