Nicholas Delpopolo, a Yugoslav-born American judo competitor in the London Olympics, has been disqualified on account of a positive drug test. This is the fifth positive drug test reported by the IOC for this year’s testing program but the first to turn up positive during the competition itself. The 23-year-old tested positive for marijuana metabolites, substances that would appear in the blood for several weeks after consuming marijuana. By way of explanation, he stated that he had recently consumed food that, unbeknownst to him, contained cannabis.

Delpopolo is not the first athlete this year to be disqualified for cannabis, as Scott Morgan explains in his post here. Information from the World Anti-Doping Agency suggests that anti-doping policies in sports are simply concerned with performance-enhancing substances which might give the user an unfair advantage, including stimulants and anabolic steroids. However, caffeine, a stimulant, is not on the list of prohibited substances, while marijuana metabolites are. The justification for this is not clear. Enhancement of athletic performance has not been proven, and there is no evidence that past marijuana use would endanger competitors. No explanation of the inclusion of marijuana on the list is given anywhere on the site. Has the WADA included cannabinoids on its list of prohibited substances out of legitimate concern for fairness in competition, or is this simply a concession to the prohibitionist attitudes of authorities who wish to police athletes’ personal lives?

Last week, news organizations in San Diego received a press release
from the U.S. Attorney’s office that turned out to be a hoax put on by
the medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access.

Then, The North County Times reported
the creation of that hoax was inspired by a workshop hosted by the San
Diego Museum of Art. The political activist and artist group "The Yes Men" spoke at the workshop to give local groups tips on what they call "telling lies to reveal the truth."

The museum quickly issued a statement denying a direct role in the hoax.

"The San Diego Museum of Art did not pay for or support any component
of this hoax, nor any other programs created by workshop participants,"
the statement said.

But Eugene Davidovich, a spokesman for Americans for Safe Access,
told The North County Times his group received $100 from the museum to
cover the costs of the projects.

The U.S. Attorney is now investigating the incident. Glenn Smith, a
constitutional law professor at Cal Western School of Law, told KPBS
impersonating a federal official is a federal crime.

But, he said, the legality of hoaxes depends on the context.

"When you have the element of political speech and outrageousness and
the kinds of falsity and drama we traditionally in First Amendment law
allow room for, it gets a little more complicated," he said.

"There are no absolutes in freedom of speech and rarely in law," he added.

Smith said you have a right to make false statements and pretend to be someone to make a political point.

"But when it collides against a law, like impersonating a federal
officer, or no one has the right to extort money from someone under
false pretenses even if it’s for a political reason," he said.

He said the San Diego Museum of Art could also theoretically be
liable for "aiding and abetting" the hoax, but said that issue is even
more complicated.

KPBS asked Americans for Safe Access, the San Diego Museum of Art and Yes Men for interviews, but all groups declined.

California Rep. Barbara Lee won’t be spooked by the Justice Department’s aggressive curtailing of medical marijuana dispensaries in her own backyard.

Lee, a top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, introduced the States’ Medical Marijuana Property Rights Protection Act in Congress this week, which she says would curb the Obama Administration’s efforts to intimidate state medical marijuana dispensaries from setting up shop.

“The people of California have made it legal for patients to have safe access to medicinal marijuana and as a result thousands of small business owners have invested millions of dollars in building their companies, creating jobs, and paying their taxes,” Lee says. “We should be protecting and implementing the will of voters, not undermining our democracy by prosecuting small business owners who pay taxes and comply with the laws of their states in providing medicine to patients in need.”

The bill will make it illegal for the federal government to seize the assets of medical marijuana business owners, a tactic DOJ has begun using to crack down on pot shops. While DOJ rarely takes legal action against businesses that comply with their local and state laws, Americans for Safe Access, a group that is committed to legalizing medical marijuana says the threat alone has been enough to scare roughly 400 medical marijuana dispensaries in the state of California to close their doors.

The Justice Department has sent roughly 300 letters to landlords in California and Colorado threatening to file lawsuits if they don’t stop operating dispensaries.

“For the price of postage, the Justice Department gets to threaten an entire population of property owners and it is a very effective tactic,” says Kris Hermes, a spokesman with Americans for Safe Access.

Lee announced her legislation just weeks after U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag filed a lawsuit against Oakland and San Jose, Calif.-based medical marijuana dispensary Harborside Health Clinic. Haag argues the clinics, which serve about 100,000 medical marijuana users, could be violating local laws because of the number of patients they provide pot to.

“The larger the operation, the greater likelihood that there will be abuse of the state’s medical marijuana laws, and marijuana in the hands of individuals who do not have a demonstrated medical need,” Haag said in a statement.

The asset forfeiture lawsuit caused an uproar in the community, with thousands of signatures gathered for an anti-lawsuit petition drive, protests, and political rallies.

“They won’t stop until they have closed every single regulated law-abiding dispensary in California unless people rise up and say enough is enough,” says Steve DeAngelo, the executive director at Harborside Health Clinic. But DeAngelo says it wasn’t always this way.

The federal government’s dogged pursuit of medical marijuana dispensaries has escalated since 2009. On the campaign trail and at the beginning of President Barack Obama’s time in office, medical marijuana seemed low on the administration’s priority list.

“I think the basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that’s entirely appropriate,” Obama said in the Spring of 2008 during an interview with Oregon Newspaper, the Mail Tribune. “I’m not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.”

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have medical marijuana laws and Americans for Safe Access estimates the Justice Department has carried out roughly 200 raids on dispensaries or growing facilities in nine states.

Hermes fears if the lawsuits persist, patients who need medical cannabis could be forced into the unregulated drug market. “[Rep. Lee’s] law would take the wind out of the sails of the Justice Department to intimidate dispensaries who are serving patients in need,” Hermes says.

Source: U.S. News & World Report (US)
Author: Lauren Fox
Published: August 3, 2012
Copyright: 2012 U.S. News & World Report
Website: http://www.usnews.com/

Medical marijuana advocates will get their day in court later this year, when they argue the therapeutic value of cannabis.

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed late last week to hear oral arguments in Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration, a case that could have major implications for the rescheduling of marijuana out of Schedule I, a category that also includes heroin and LSD. Schedule I drugs are described as substances that have “a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.” Rescheduling can take place either by congressional vote, or through independent action by the executive branch in the presence of new research.

Marijuana policy reformers initially petitioned the DEA in 2002, arguing that the current classification of marijuana was improper. In 2011, the DEA finally denied their request, prompting Americans for Safe Access to file a lawsuit earlier this year. Advocates are excited about the opportunity to present scientific evidence before federal court, and especially optimistic considering the recent release of a report that claims, in the clearest terms yet, that there are medical benefits to marijuana.

From the Americans for Safe Access press release:

The announcement of oral arguments comes just weeks after a study was published in The Open Neurology Journal by Dr. Igor Grant one of the leading U.S. medical marijuana researchers, claiming that marijuana’s Schedule I classification is “not tenable.” Dr. Grant and his fellow researchers concluded it was “not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking.” The study urged additional research, and stated that marijuana’s federal classification and its political controversy are “obstacles to medical progress in this area.” Marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I substance (along with heroin) is based on the federal government’s position that it has “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”

Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access, says the court’s decision is long-awaited.

“Medical marijuana patients are finally getting their day in court,” he said. “This is a rare opportunity for patients to confront politically motivated decision-making with scientific evidence of marijuana’s medical efficacy … What’s at stake in this case is nothing less than our country’s scientific integrity and the imminent needs of millions of patients.”

While marijuana is currently accepted for medical use in 17 states and the District of Columbia, the Obama administration and DEA have been unmistakably hard-nosed in their approach to the substance.

During congressional testimony earlier this year, DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart refused to say whether crack or heroin posed bigger health risks than marijuana.

The administration has meanwhile continued an aggressive crackdown on marijuana dispensaries in California.

Oral arguments in Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration are set to begin on Oct. 16.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Nick Wing, The Huffington Post
Published: August 1, 2012
Copyright: 2012 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: scoop@huffingtonpost.com
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Yesterday Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
introduced a bill that would
stop the Justice Department from using civil
asset forfeiture threats to close down medical marijuana
dispensaries that are operating in compliance with state law. "For
more than a year," Americans for Safe Access notes,
"the DOJ has been engaged in a campaign to undermine
the implementation of state law by threatening real
property owners with asset forfeiture if they do not promptly
evict their state law-compliant medical cannabis businesses." Many
dispensaries in states such
California, Colorado,
and
Washington have closed as a result of these threats. Lee’s
bill, the States’ Medical Marijuana Property Rights Protection
Act, would add the following language to the Controlled Substances
Act:

No real property, including any right, title, and interest in
the whole of any lot or tract of land and any appurtenances or
improvements, shall be subject to forfeiture under subparagraph (A)
due to medical marijuana-related conduct that is authorized by
State law.

Deciding which conduct is authorized by state law may be
trickier in
California than in
Colorado, but here’s a crazy idea that might just work: Why not
let state officials make that call? The Obama administration should
have no problem supporting this bill, since it has repeatedly

said the Justice Department won’t be using its scarce resources
to target state-authorized medical marijuana suppliers. Except that
policy was never really carried
out. Quite
the
opposite,
in fact. 

You might think legislation aimed at promoting federalism,
protecting property rights, and curtailing asset forfeiture abuse
would attract Republicans, but so far all the co-sponsors are
Democrats. Drug warriors have been warning us for decades that
marijuana impairs memory, and the clearest example is the way it
makes conservatives forget their principles.

A
Bay Area congresswoman’s new bill would bar federal prosecutors from
filing civil lawsuits to seize property from landlords whose tenants
comply with states’ medical marijuana laws.

"The people of
California have made it legal for patients to have safe access to
medicinal marijuana and, as a result, thousands of small business owners
have invested millions of dollars in building their companies, creating
jobs, and paying their taxes," Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, said in a
statement issued Friday by Americans for Safe Access.

"We should
be protecting and implementing the will of voters, not undermining our
democracy by prosecuting small business owners who pay taxes and comply
with the laws of their states in providing medicine to patients in
need," she said.

U.S. Attorneys for more than a year have been
threatening landlords of medical marijuana dispensaries with civil asset
forfeiture proceedings if they don’t kick their tenants out — more
than 300 such letters have gone to property owners in California,
Colorado and some of the 15 other states with medical marijuana laws.

Landlords
whose properties are seized this way can try to retrieve them in civil
court, but they’re not afforded many of the constitutional rights
granted to criminal defendants, such as the right to an attorney and a
jury trial. And the burden of proof is on the property owner to show
innocence rather than the government having to prove guilt.

Relatively few
of the prosecutors’ threats have led to actual civil asset forfeiture
cases, yet the pressure has caused many landlords to force dispensaries
to close.

Melinda Haag, the U.S. Attorney for California’s
Northern District, did serve an asset forfeiture lawsuit last month
against the landlord of Oakland’s Harborside Health Center, a dispensary
in Lee’s district. This wasn’t the first federal attack on Harborside:
The dispensary already had appealed an Internal Revenue Service’s
finding that it owed $2.5 million in back taxes because it can’t deduct
standard business expenses such as payroll and rent while violating the
federal ban on marijuana.

Haag has threatened civil asset
forfeiture actions against landlords of many other Bay Area dispensaries
as well. In San Francisco this week, local officials joined a "funeral
procession" to Haag’s office to mark the closing of two more
dispensaries forced to close due to her pressure on their landlords.

Lee’s
HR 6335 would prohibit the Justice Department from using civil asset
forfeiture to go after properties so long as the medical marijuana
tenants comply with state law; those in violation of state law would
still be fair game. Among the bill’s eight original cosponsors are Rep.
Mike Honda, D-Campbell, and Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont.

After years of experimenting with regulations and ordinances, the Los
Angeles City Council announced its harshest action yet in its struggle
with the city