Medical marijuana clinics in Los Angeles must
shut down by Sept. 6, the City Attorney’s Office is warning operators
and landlords in a letter sent out this week.

The three-page letter follows a decision earlier this summer by the City Council to ban the clinics.

The letter was sent to more than 1,000 locations where the
clinics are believed to be operating, and it warns they face court
action and a $2,500 fine for each day they stay open past Sept. 6. The
letter also went to more than 700 landlords, warning that property
owners could be held liable if their tenants continue to operate
dispensaries.

City officials have been meeting to develop a coordinated
approach on enforcement, but nothing has been officially decided, said
Councilman Jose Huizar, who authored the measure to ban the clinics.

"This is the first step," Huizar said. "We are meeting with the LAPD to discuss what steps to take next."

Kris Hermes, spokesman for Americans for Safe Access, said the
letter signed by Chief Assistant City Attorney Bill Carter was puzzling
because it included a detailed history of the city’s efforts to control
the dispensaries.

"But this was not unexpected," Hermes said of the warning
letter. He added a number of other efforts are under way that could
block the city’s ban.

Among these is a potential referendum to overturn the Los
Angeles city law, which needs fewer than 30,000 signatures to qualify
for a special election. There is a possibility the state Supreme Court could decide to hear cases involving the legality of medical marijuana clinics.

But the city’s effort places the dispensary operators in an uncomfortable position, Hermes said.

"We don’t have a clear-cut response for them on what’s going
on," Hermes said. "It would be imprudent to tell them to stay open. But
at the same time, there is all this other activity going on that could
change the situation in a matter of weeks."

The city does have a list of 782 dispensaries that have registered, but officials believe another 200 have also been operating.

The initiative to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana in Washington was estimated on Friday to raise up to $1.9 billion in new tax revenue over five years — or zero.

The wild swing, included in an analysis by the state Office of Financial Management, reflects broad uncertainty about the potential federal intervention in an initiative that would set up the nation’s first regulated market for recreational marijuana use.

The sky-high revenue estimate, which was previously disclosed in March, is based on an assumption that 363,000 customers in Washington would consume 187,000 pounds of marijuana in new state-license retail shops if Initiative 502 were approved in the Nov.  6 election.

If it does pass, I-502 would earmark $227 million a year of new marijuana taxes for the state’s basic health plan and $113 million a year for drug research, prevention and treatment.

Statewide administrative costs, covering such things as training police and licensing, would be more than $16 million a year.

But the fiscal analysis makes clear the “significant uncertainties related to federal enforcement of federal criminal laws” outlawing marijuana.  The analysis says that federal law enforcement could possibly target state-licensed growers and retailers, which “may prevent the development of a functioning marijuana market.”

Attached to the analysis is a 2010 letter from U.S.  Attorney General Eric Holder, sent as California voters were considering legalizing marijuana, vowing to “vigorously enforce the CSA ( Controlled Substances Act ) against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture and distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law.”

Alison Holcomb, campaign manager for I-502, said the federal response may depend on the margin of victory.  She noted that the federal government has only sporadically intervened in the medical-marijuana industry, and usually only when operators appear to be abusing state law.

“Voters need to know that the federal government is giving us the room to show what we want to do,” she said.

This analysis tried to tally some costs and savings for legalized marijuana but lacked data to estimate savings from fewer drug prosecutions.  In 2011, 9,308 charges were filed in local and superior courts statewide for possession of less than 40 grams, which would be legal under I-502.

A new DUI threshold for marijuana — a provision deeply unpopular with medical-marijuana patients — would likely raise nearly $4 million in fees from drivers charged under the provision.

On Friday, the state Official of Financial Management also released an analysis of Initiative 1240, which would allow the creation of charter schools.  I-1240 would cost $3.1 million over five years, mostly to establish an application process, and to run an oversight commission.

The initiative would authorize as many as 40 charter schools, which are free, public, independent and can hire nonunion teachers.  They would be funded the same way as traditional public schools, on a per-student basis.

Staff reporter Brian M.  Rosenthal contributed to this report.

Pubdate: Sat, 11 Aug 2012
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Copyright: 2012 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: opinion@seattletimes.com
Website: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/
Author: Jonathan Martin

The medical use of marijuana was on trial Friday at the Sudbury courthouse.

David Sylvestre was sentenced to 10 months under house arrest after pleading guilty to production of a controlled substance — cannabis and cannabis resin — he said he uses to treat severe diabetes.  Sylvestre, 54, was also charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime in February 2009, after a search warrant executed at his St.  Charles home turned up almost $100,000 worth of illicit substances.  Those charges were withdrawn.

Police seized 37 pounds of marijuana, 12 pounds of cannabis oil or resin and $1,300 in cash at Sylvestre’s home.

Sylvestre appeared in the Superior Court of Justice before Justice Robbie Gordon, who heard submissions from Sylvestre’s lawyer, Denis Michel, and Crown prosecutor Denys Bradley prior to delivering his sentence.

Michel was seeking a conditional sentence of house arrest for his client and Bradley was seeking a jail sentence of nine to 12 months.

About 40 supporters of Sylvestre’s, in favour of the medical use of marijuana, packed into Courtroom J to lend support to the man who ran for the Green Party of Ontario against Sudbury Liberal MPP Rick Bartolucci in the 2007 election.

Michel said his client had never been in trouble with the law and was a practitioner of natural medicine who derived a product from marijuana he thought was a “miracle cure” for controlling diabetes.

Sylvestre has post-secondary education in chemical engineering and was growing marijuana and experimenting to see whether it could replace the conventional medications and insulin he was taking for diabetes.

Sylvestre worked for more than 25 years and raised a family, and when he was charged by police, he and his family were just “getting on with enjoying the Earth’s benefits,” said Michel.

Michel told the court while Sylvestre had a prescription from a physician for the use of marijuana and had applied to Health Canada for permission to use the substance, he hasn’t been licensed to do so.

Gordon questioned why Sylvestre would have grown such a large quantity of marijuana when he said he needed less than eight grams a day to control diabetes.

The judge pointed out police seized 36.9 pounds of marijuana buds, 12 pounds of cannabis resin and 38 plants from six to 18 inches tall.

“Does that seem to you to be an inordinate amount?” he asked Michel.

Michel agreed it did, but said Sylvestre needed that quantity to produce the substance that gave him relief from diabetes symptoms.

“I’m not saying it’s a cure for everyone,” said Michel of his client’s use of cannabis to control diabetes.

But his client didn’t want to become wheelchair-bound from complications from the disease.

Sylvestre later told Gordon, because he hadn’t grown marijuana before, he didn’t realize how much of the substance he was producing.

Michel said his client was not a danger to society.

“A conditional sentence is jail, it is custody.  There’s no denying it,” said Michel.

Some people think it’s a “glorified probation order,” he said, but it’s not.

Bradley spoke of the impact a grow operation this size could have on the wider community, suggesting people like Sylvestre are “the reason there are drugs in schools in our community.”

Sylvestre’s supporters booed and jeered at that remark before being admonished by Gordon they weren’t doing Sylvestre any favours.

Bradley urged the judge to send a message to citizens with his sentencing of Sylvestre that jail is the result of running “large, sophisticated” grow operations.

Sylvestre told Gordon he did not have “monetary profit” in mind when he grew the large quantity of marijuana.

At one point, Gordon cautioned Sylvestre he was venturing “a little far afield” when he spoke about nutrition and soils in relation to diabetes, urging him to stick to the matter at hand.  “I have an intent to do no harm in honesty and integrity,” Sylvestre told the judge.

“I am not a criminal, not at all, and so I stand here before you …  I could tell you lots more, but it would probably not be what you want to hear.”

Sylvestre said he watched a friend die of diabetes-related complications, and feared that was his fate if he continued with traditional medicine.

He even contemplated suicide, “that’s how bad my quality of life was,” said Sylvestre, who is now on a disability pension.

He said it was “unbelievable” he would be denied a way to improve his health, but he said he had no intentions of breaking the law.

“I want to prosper life, not just for me but for everybody,” he said.

Gordon asked Sylvestre what happens when that desire conflicts with the law.

Sylvestre said people should work to change those laws.  Several members of the gallery cheered.

Said Sylvestre: “I cannot just sit back and do nothing, but I will not break the law.”

An activist involved in Occupy Sudbury protests, the anti-poverty movement and community gardening, Sylvestre said he tells people to “respect the law” and “do no harm.

“I don’t know what else to say.”

Gordon said he believed Sylvestre did not sell the cannabis he grew, but Gordon said he “wasn’t naive enough to believe it wasn’t shared with others.”

Bradley had told the court he feared just that — that cannabis shared with others would end up in the wrong hands.

Gordon said he doubts Sylvestre will stop using cannabis, but said he did not think Sylvestre posed a threat to the community.

This is one of the rare instances where a conditional sentence is appropriate, said Gordon.

“This is no slap on the wrist,” and 10 months of house arrest reflects that.

Under the terms of his sentence, Sylvestre must remain at his home in the Flour Mill at all times except for medical appointments and Saturdays from 10 a.m..-4 p.m.

He cannot possess weapons for 10 years.

When asked if he could comply with those conditions, Sylvestre said yes.  “Good luck,” said Gordon before adjourning.

Supporters broke into loud applause, cheers and whistles, crowding around Sylvestre and hugging him as he spoke with reporters.

Sylvestre said he was never worried about going to jail, although his family was.

One of his supporters, a man about 30, began to weep when Sylvestre repeated his mantra of “no harm in honesty and integrity.”

Said the man: “That’s Dave.”

A new poll released this week by Public Policy Polling shows that likely voters in Colorado are in support of Amendment 64, the ballot measure that seeks legalization and regulation of marijuana similar to that of alcohol — and that support appears to be growing.

The survey of 779 likely Colorado voters conducted between the dates of August 2nd and 5th shows 47 percent would vote for Amendment 64 if the election were held right now and only 38 percent would vote against it. 15 percent of those surveyed were “not sure.”

Read PPP’s full report and see the question’s wording here: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_CO_080812.pdf

The poll also suggests support is growing for Amendment 64 in the Centennial State. Back in June, PPP conducted a similar poll and those in favor of the legalization measure narrowly outpaced the opposition 46 percent to 42 percent. Now, two months later, that support has grown to 47-38. The reason for this, according to PPP, are the independent and young voters who are increasingly in favor of legalization. From the PPP report:

This movement is entirely because of independents, who were already in favor of the amendment by a 49-40 margin; they now support it by 30 points, 58-28. Democrats are still slightly more in favor (59-22) than Republicans opposed (26-61).

Voters under 45 support it by a 58/30 margin, while those over 45 oppose it by a 44/39 margin.

This is the highest percentage of Colorado voter support for Amendment 64 that a PPP poll has shown to date. The survey also showed growth in general sentiments about marijuana legalization with 50 percent of those surveyed in favor of marijuana usage being legal and 42 percent in opposition to marijuana legalization (8 percent were “not sure”). This percentage is also slightly up from June’s support at 49-43.

However, Amendment 64′s opponents at “No on 64″ say that this percentage of approval is simply not high enough to pass. From a press release:

Ballot measures usually require a much higher level of support at this point in an election cycle because the default position for most voters is no, especially when it comes to amending the Colorado Constitution. In October 2008, a Mason-Dixon poll found Amendment 59, a school funding proposal, at 41% approval. It failed 55%-45%.

An October 2010 poll by SurveyUSA for The Denver Post and 9News revealed that 20% of polled voters supported the “personhood” Amendment 62, while 56% were opposed and 25% were undecided. Amendment 62 failed 70%-30%. Another 2010 ballot measure, Amendment 63, an attempt to undercut the Affordable Care Act, also failed 53%-47%.

But survey results often rely on question wording and marijuana legalization has seen other higher poll numbers recently. PPP’s survey follows a June Rasmussen poll of 500 likely Colorado voters which showed 61 percent were in favor of legalizing marijuana if it is regulated the way that alcohol and cigarettes are currently regulated.

Coloradans are getting ready to vote on Amendment 64 and will decide whether Colorado should legalize marijuana this November — a vote that some say could affect the presidential race in a state where marijuana dispensaries in Denver alone outnumber the Starbucks throughout the entire state, The Denver Post first reported in 2010.

This will be the second time Coloradans will vote on recreational pot legislation — state voters considered and rejected a similar recreational pot legalization initiative in 2006. But Mason Tvert, co-director of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, believes that Colorado has come a long way since 2006, he recently told The Huffington Post:

More Coloradans than ever before are aware of the fact that marijuana is not as dangerous as they have been led to believe and is actually far less harmful than alcohol.

They have also seen firsthand via our medical marijuana system that it is possible for the state and localities to regulate and control the production and distribution of marijuana. They have read stories that quote law enforcement officials acknowledging that it has not contributed to crime or caused any significant problems.

The environment here has changed dramatically.

The marijuana legalization initiative also recently received support from both Republicans and Democrats — in March, 56 percent of the delegates at the Denver County Republican Assembly voted to support the legislation, and in April, the Colorado Democratic Party officially endorsed Amendment 64 and added a marijuana legalization plank to the current party platform.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Matt Ferner, The Huffington Post
Published: August 10, 2012
Copyright: 2012 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: scoop@huffingtonpost.com
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Today, after a delay of more than two years, patients eligible for New Jersey’s medical marijuana program were finally allowed to apply for the licenses that would protect them from arrest. Seriously ill individuals who could qualify for the program have been waiting diligently while the state government dragged its feet with implementation since the law took effect in mid-2010.

Unfortunately, it could be some time before licensed patients will be able to legally acquire their medicine. New Jersey’s law does not allow for home cultivation, and all medicine must be purchased at state-licensed nonprofit dispensaries. Licensing of these dispensaries has been consistently delayed as well. To date, only six have been granted preliminary approval, and only one is preparing to serve patients.

This is great news for the seriously ill of the Garden State and their families. If there are no further delays, patients should be able to access their medicine by the end of the year. How easily they will be able to get it will be another story, but at least licensed patients will no longer have to fear being treated like criminals for using the medicine that works best for them.

The first-ever ballot initiative dealing with medical marijuana in North Dakota has taken a step forward. On Monday, more than 20,000 signatures were delivered to North Dakota Secretary of State Al Jaeger by North Dakotans for Compassionate Care — well above the 13,500 required to qualify the initiative for November’s ballot. Jaeger will have approximately one month to review the signatures and certify the initiative for the ballot.

The proposed law would allow patients to grow and possess limited amounts of marijuana. Qualifying medical conditions would include cancer, glaucoma, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other serious illnesses. Marijuana dispensaries would also be licensed and subject to regulation by the North Dakota Health Department.

While neighboring Montana currently allows medicinal marijuana under the 2009 Medical Marijuana Act, South Dakota voters rejected similar ballot initiatives in recent years, with 52 percent opposed in 2006 and 63 percent voting against it in 2010.

Dave Schwartz, campaign director for the advocacy group, commented however that attitudes have shifted recently in favor of medical marijuana as many people have had personal contact with someone who has or could have benefited from marijuana’s pain-relieving and anti-nausea effects. “[One] of the myths that we often hear is that this is only for people to just go ahead and get high, and that’s not the case,” Schwartz said. “This is about medical patients who would benefit greatly from it.”