Reggae star and political activist Ziggy Marley explains how the legalization of marijuana could change California and the rest of the country.
Source MSNBC
Friday, October 22, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Cops Under Pressure To Deny They Support Legalizing Marijuana
During California gubernatorial debates last week, Meg Whitman was asked about her position on Proposition 19 and marijuana legalization and said: "Every single law enforcement official in this entire state is against Proposition 19."
Former San Jose Chief of Police Joseph McNamara disagrees.
"She's absolutely wrong," said McNamara. "A lot of police officers both retired and on duty are in favor of passing it because they realize that the 'war on drugs' has failed and is going to fail."
For example, McNamara noted, hundreds have joined the advocacy group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
"I think she misstated what she believed," he said.
Whitman's office did not immediately respond to a HuffPost query requesting clarification.
One thing is true: California's active-duty police officers can't speak up in favor of legalizing marijuana for fear of losing their jobs.
For instance, scores of former officials recently signed a letter saying that marijuana prohibition only fuels more dangerous crime by enriching Mexican drug cartels who put guns on American streets -- but every member of the California police department waited until after they'd retired to sign.
HuffPost talked with cops who support Prop. 19 about the element of suppression.
"It's difficult, there are all kinds of factors that inhibit police officers from taking a public stance," said David Bratzer, a police officer for the Victoria Police Department in British Columbia who supports legalizing the drug. "They're worried about career advancement; harassment from colleagues or supervisors -- these are all issues that serving police officers have to consider."
Bratzer told HuffPost in an interview Wednesday night that even though many law enforcement officers will agree with him privately, only a handful of cops have been willing to make their opinions known publicly.
"The paramilitary structure of law enforcement discourages police officers from speaking out against the status quo even if that status quo is causing enormous damage in terms of wasted lives and resources," said Bratzer, who was careful to emphasize to HuffPost that his views are his alone and should not be attributed to his police department.
Groups ranging from The National Black Police Association to the California NAACP haveendorsed Prop. 19, arguing that police waste valuable resources targeting non-violent cannabis consumers, while thousands of violent crimes go unsolved. Still most officers wait until they've left their jobs in law enforcement to take a stand.
"I was with the LAPD when Nixon declared the 'war on drugs' over 40 years ago and was one of the 'generals' on the front lines who helped implement that same failed drug policy that is still in effect today," said Stephen Downing, a retired LAPD deputy chief of police.
"By keeping marijuana illegal, we aren't preventing anyone from using it," added Downing in a statement. "The only results are billions of tax-free dollars being funneled into the pockets of bloodthirsty drug cartels and gangs who control the illegal market."
Downing is not the only former police chief who has come out against prohibition.
McNamara, now a research fellow in drug policy at Stanford University, has argued that the 60 percent of the cash that supports violent drug cartels comes from the sale of illegal marijuana.
"I think many veteran officers start out as I did being a drug war warrior," explained McNamara, who, since he began studying drug policy academically, has become increasingly convinced that the problem is prohibition not the plant.
"We were participants in the war on marijuana," he said. "But after a while, I realized that the majority of the cops I hired during my 18 years as a police chief had used marijuana before we hired them."
"I don't personally use it," he said, "but I think it's really stupid to put people in jail for that reason."
Still, McNamara insists there are good reasons for cops not to speak out in favor of marijuana legalization while they're on active duty.
"You take an oath to support the law, not just the laws you agree with," he told HuffPost in an interview. "You're under the authority of elected officials and so you can't speak out on policy issues in opposition to what your superiors say."
If police officers feel they can't enforce a law in good conscience, they can always leave. But often, McNamara said, they don't.
"People don't commit career suicide," he said. "So they do the best they can. Whether they agree with them or not, they have to carry out the laws." When he was a cop, McNamara said he tried to keep things in perspective. "I did, within the area of my discretion, enforce the law with as much common sense as I could," he said.
A poll of 1,067 likely voters released Thursday found 44 percent of likely voters said they plan to vote for Prop. 19, while 49 percent plan to vote against it. That's an 8-point drop in support since September when 52 percent of likely voters said they would vote for it.
"Personally I think it's a shame that more serving California police officers are not supporting reform publicly," said Bratzer. "History will remember this as a failure of leadership at the highest levels of law enforcement in the state."
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
California Pot Law Could Spark Court Action
an Francisco -- Federal officials haven't ruled out taking legal action if California voters approve a ballot initiative that would legalize recreational medical use in the state, President Barack Obama's drug czar said Wednesday.
In a phone interview with The Associated Press, Director of National Drug Control Policy Gil Kerlikowske said Justice Department officials are "looking at all their options" for responding to the measure, which would conflict with federal laws classifying marijuana as an illegal drug.
Among them, he said, is following the recommendation nine of the nation's former Drug Enforcement Agency chiefs made last month in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder: having Obama sue to overturn Proposition 19 as an affront to federal authority.
"The letter from the former DEA administrators, a number of whom are not only practicing attorneys but former state attorney generals, made it very clear that they felt that pre-emption was certainly applicable in this case," said Kerlikowske, the former police chief of Seattle.
Holder told the former DEA heads last week that that the U.S. government plans to "vigorously enforce" federal laws outlawing marijuana possession and distribution even if the activities are allowed under state law. But the attorney general did not respond directly to their suggestion that the administration should go to court if California passes the first-of-its-kind measure aimed at treating marijuana the same as alcohol.
Proposition 19, a state constitutional amendment on the November ballot, would allow adults at least 21 years old to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and grow 25-square-foot pot gardens for personal pleasure. It would also authorize county and city governments to regulate and tax commercial cultivation and sales.
Kerlikowske was in Southern California on Wednesday for a visit to a Pasadena drug treatment center where he planned to discuss new government data on marijuana abuse in California.
Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Lisa Leff, The Associated Press
In a phone interview with The Associated Press, Director of National Drug Control Policy Gil Kerlikowske said Justice Department officials are "looking at all their options" for responding to the measure, which would conflict with federal laws classifying marijuana as an illegal drug.
Among them, he said, is following the recommendation nine of the nation's former Drug Enforcement Agency chiefs made last month in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder: having Obama sue to overturn Proposition 19 as an affront to federal authority.
"The letter from the former DEA administrators, a number of whom are not only practicing attorneys but former state attorney generals, made it very clear that they felt that pre-emption was certainly applicable in this case," said Kerlikowske, the former police chief of Seattle.
Holder told the former DEA heads last week that that the U.S. government plans to "vigorously enforce" federal laws outlawing marijuana possession and distribution even if the activities are allowed under state law. But the attorney general did not respond directly to their suggestion that the administration should go to court if California passes the first-of-its-kind measure aimed at treating marijuana the same as alcohol.
Proposition 19, a state constitutional amendment on the November ballot, would allow adults at least 21 years old to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and grow 25-square-foot pot gardens for personal pleasure. It would also authorize county and city governments to regulate and tax commercial cultivation and sales.
Kerlikowske was in Southern California on Wednesday for a visit to a Pasadena drug treatment center where he planned to discuss new government data on marijuana abuse in California.
Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Lisa Leff, The Associated Press
He's a Train Wreck Behind The Wheel
California -- The man in the uniform had a question for me. "How do you feel?" CHP Sgt. David Nelms asked. His interest in my health was probably prompted by the fact that I was at that moment toking a joint stuffed with a bud called Train Wreck. Pretty good, I said, already buzzed enough to wonder if this was really happening.
In my youth, I spent more than a few evenings hoping the police weren't keeping close tabs on my activities. So it felt a bit strange last week to have a group of cops paw my marijuana stash and then ask me to get high.
"There you go, Cheech," said KABC radio host Peter Tilden, a fellow volunteer. Tilden was smoking something called Blockhead, which I presume is a standard choice among talk show hosts.
As reported in my first installment of the Cannabis Chronicles on Sunday, I had been asked by Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich to help determine whether, and how, marijuana impairs driving. He recruited more than two dozen police officers from various Southern California agencies and the CHP to bear witness and study the differences between driving while high and driving while drunk.
"Probably nowhere in America is what we're doing today occurring," Trutanich's chief of investigation, Gary Schram, announced after I arrived at the LAPD training center in Granada Hills.
I think that was probably true.
I was invited to participate in part because I had been cleared to use medical marijuana legally last year by a gynecologist who said he knew nothing about back trouble but believed cannabis might just be the best cure for my pain. I'm not really a smoker, though, so I was concerned that I might get knocked on my heels and skew the results.
But Trutanich and many cops believe that if Proposition 19 passes next month and marijuana is as legal as potato chips and nearly as cheap, more new users will be driving under the influence, so the experiment would be worthwhile. Trutanich also noted that users often have no clue as to the potency of the grass they buy, and it varies wildly. Some of it can even make you feel like you've been in, let's say, a train wreck.
"OK," said Trutanich, "let's go."
Before I sampled the meds, the cops wanted to get a baseline on how I drove unimpaired, so I got behind the wheel of a marked CHP cruiser and was put through a series of tests involving a slalom course and various tight parking maneuvers.
For the trickiest part of the test, I drove toward a three-lane fork in the road, with a green traffic light above each lane. At the last second, two of the lights turned red and I had to swerve into the green lane. I pulled it off just fine, but in jerking the car, my bag of dope slid onto the floor.
Next, Tilden and I were escorted to a bluff at the edge of the training center where we could light up without risking a contact high for the assembled peace officers.
Two brave representatives of the CHP accompanied us, Nelms and officer J. Leffert. Well, here we go, I thought, lighting a stick of Train Wreck with the cops looking on. From the bluff, I could see "Nooch" Trutanich and company assembled in the distance, with an L.A. Fire Department paramedic unit waiting in case something went horribly wrong.
A few hits later, I suggested to Tilden that we roll a vehicle, come out holding our necks, sue everyone and retire, but that was the dope talking. Tilden had forgotten his rolling papers, so I gave him my Bob Marley wrappers and Officer Leffert expertly rolled a fat one for him.
"What are you, Rastafarian?" Tilden asked the officer. "Look at the size of that blunt."
One of us, after several strong hits on a second joint, was now giggling like a high school sophomore, and it wasn't Tilden or the cops. I believe Train Wreck may be from the sativa rather than indica species of pot. Sativa is said to give you a spacey surge instead of a drowsy body buzz. This could explain why, when I saw southern division CHP commander Kevin Gordon approaching to see if we were ripped yet, I stood on one foot for him, as if taking a sobriety test while puffing away and laughing like a hyena.
"Are you having fun?" asked Nelms, the drug recognition expert.
What, is that a crime, officer?
When we were driven back down the hill and I slid into an unmarked Crown Vic for my driving test, I couldn't resist the urge to play a little prank. I revved the engine, shifted into forward and jerked forward in the direction of the gathering, honking the horn like a lunatic as Trutanich and the others prepared to scatter.
But despite behaving like a doofus, I thought I could drive pretty well. For several minutes I concentrated on slaloming, parking and then finally the dreaded traffic signal.
It didn't seem to me that I was as impaired as I would have been after a few beers or glasses of wine or if I was one of the morons who drive while texting and yakking on cellphones.
But when I finished, Sgt. Nelms said I was less confident than I had been before smoking. He had to admit I hadn't bombed on the slalom and parking challenges, wobbling only a few traffic cones.
Getting through the traffic signal was another matter. Having to process a lot of information and make a quick decision, on Train Wreck, was a challenge. I swerved radically before getting into the correct lane, and if I were a cop, I'd have pulled me over.
Tilden, meanwhile, parked like a blind man. He ended up so far from the curb after parallel parking that he would have needed a search party to find it. But he had enough Blockhead in him to think he'd done just fine.
"They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests.
Trutanich seemed pleased with the findings, but I think more research could be useful. Dude, I didn't even get a chance to dip into my bag of Skywalker.
Call me any time, Nooch. I'll do it for science.
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Steve Lopez
Website: LAtimes
In my youth, I spent more than a few evenings hoping the police weren't keeping close tabs on my activities. So it felt a bit strange last week to have a group of cops paw my marijuana stash and then ask me to get high.
"There you go, Cheech," said KABC radio host Peter Tilden, a fellow volunteer. Tilden was smoking something called Blockhead, which I presume is a standard choice among talk show hosts.
"Probably nowhere in America is what we're doing today occurring," Trutanich's chief of investigation, Gary Schram, announced after I arrived at the LAPD training center in Granada Hills.
I think that was probably true.
I was invited to participate in part because I had been cleared to use medical marijuana legally last year by a gynecologist who said he knew nothing about back trouble but believed cannabis might just be the best cure for my pain. I'm not really a smoker, though, so I was concerned that I might get knocked on my heels and skew the results.
But Trutanich and many cops believe that if Proposition 19 passes next month and marijuana is as legal as potato chips and nearly as cheap, more new users will be driving under the influence, so the experiment would be worthwhile. Trutanich also noted that users often have no clue as to the potency of the grass they buy, and it varies wildly. Some of it can even make you feel like you've been in, let's say, a train wreck.
"OK," said Trutanich, "let's go."
Before I sampled the meds, the cops wanted to get a baseline on how I drove unimpaired, so I got behind the wheel of a marked CHP cruiser and was put through a series of tests involving a slalom course and various tight parking maneuvers.
For the trickiest part of the test, I drove toward a three-lane fork in the road, with a green traffic light above each lane. At the last second, two of the lights turned red and I had to swerve into the green lane. I pulled it off just fine, but in jerking the car, my bag of dope slid onto the floor.
Next, Tilden and I were escorted to a bluff at the edge of the training center where we could light up without risking a contact high for the assembled peace officers.
Two brave representatives of the CHP accompanied us, Nelms and officer J. Leffert. Well, here we go, I thought, lighting a stick of Train Wreck with the cops looking on. From the bluff, I could see "Nooch" Trutanich and company assembled in the distance, with an L.A. Fire Department paramedic unit waiting in case something went horribly wrong.
A few hits later, I suggested to Tilden that we roll a vehicle, come out holding our necks, sue everyone and retire, but that was the dope talking. Tilden had forgotten his rolling papers, so I gave him my Bob Marley wrappers and Officer Leffert expertly rolled a fat one for him.
"What are you, Rastafarian?" Tilden asked the officer. "Look at the size of that blunt."
One of us, after several strong hits on a second joint, was now giggling like a high school sophomore, and it wasn't Tilden or the cops. I believe Train Wreck may be from the sativa rather than indica species of pot. Sativa is said to give you a spacey surge instead of a drowsy body buzz. This could explain why, when I saw southern division CHP commander Kevin Gordon approaching to see if we were ripped yet, I stood on one foot for him, as if taking a sobriety test while puffing away and laughing like a hyena.
"Are you having fun?" asked Nelms, the drug recognition expert.
What, is that a crime, officer?
When we were driven back down the hill and I slid into an unmarked Crown Vic for my driving test, I couldn't resist the urge to play a little prank. I revved the engine, shifted into forward and jerked forward in the direction of the gathering, honking the horn like a lunatic as Trutanich and the others prepared to scatter.
But despite behaving like a doofus, I thought I could drive pretty well. For several minutes I concentrated on slaloming, parking and then finally the dreaded traffic signal.
It didn't seem to me that I was as impaired as I would have been after a few beers or glasses of wine or if I was one of the morons who drive while texting and yakking on cellphones.
But when I finished, Sgt. Nelms said I was less confident than I had been before smoking. He had to admit I hadn't bombed on the slalom and parking challenges, wobbling only a few traffic cones.
Getting through the traffic signal was another matter. Having to process a lot of information and make a quick decision, on Train Wreck, was a challenge. I swerved radically before getting into the correct lane, and if I were a cop, I'd have pulled me over.
Tilden, meanwhile, parked like a blind man. He ended up so far from the curb after parallel parking that he would have needed a search party to find it. But he had enough Blockhead in him to think he'd done just fine.
"They both show impairment across the board," Sgt. Nelms announced after we were put through another round of field sobriety tests.
Trutanich seemed pleased with the findings, but I think more research could be useful. Dude, I didn't even get a chance to dip into my bag of Skywalker.
Call me any time, Nooch. I'll do it for science.
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Steve Lopez
Website: LAtimes
Monday, October 18, 2010
LA Sheriff Pledges To Bust People for Pot
California -- Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said on Friday that the voters don’t matter. His deputies’ enforcement of marijuana laws would not change even if voters approved Proposition 19, which would legalize cannabis in California, on November 2, according to the Sheriff.
“Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes,” Baca said in a news conference Friday at sheriff’s headquarters in Monterey Park, reports Robert Faturechi in The Los Angeles Times.
The department run by Sheriff Baca polices 75 percent of Los Angeles County. His staunch opposition to marijuana -- even if it is legalized -- was echoed Friday by an announcement from Attorney General Eric Holder that federal officials would continue to “vigorously enforce” cannabis laws in California, even if state voters pass the measure.
Baca, who is sworn to uphold California state law, claimed Prop 19 was superseded by federal law and if passed, would be found unconstitutional.
Standing onstage with other prominent opponents of marijuana legalization, including Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, Sheriff Baca colorfully assailed marijuana use, users and sales.
Asked if he had ever experimented with pot, Baca left no room for doubt. “Hell, no,” he said.
Baca claimed legalizing cannabis would have far-reaching effects, including increasing the costs of drug rehabilitation (although most people in rehab for marijuana have been forced there by court order), causing traffic accidents (although marijuana is not a significant factor in auto wrecks), prompting labor disputes with employees getting high on the job (although Prop 19 gives employers the right “to address consumption that actually impairs job performance“), and providing a safe cover for drug cartels selling hard drugs.
California’s laws for pot smokers are already lenient enough, Baca claimed.
“If you a need for an ounce or less… then use your marijuana, but use it privately,” Baca said. “If you want to do a joint in your house, do it. Leave the rest of us alone.”
Baca claimed personal users smoking at home were already a non-priority for police agencies, including the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. His department does target pot dealers, he said.
The sheriff came out against Prop 19 early on, joining with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to try to prevent its passage.
Polls have shown California voters are almost evenly split on legalization.
Incredibly, Baca claimed on Friday that local law enforcement agencies -- which, again, are sworn to uphold state laws -- should abide by federal drug laws prohibiting marijuana, even if Prop 19 passes.
“[Prop] 19 has no effect on what we’re going to do,” Baca said.
Source: AlterNet (US)
Author: Steve Elliot
Website: http://www.alternet.org/
URL: http://www.alternet.org
“Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes,” Baca said in a news conference Friday at sheriff’s headquarters in Monterey Park, reports Robert Faturechi in The Los Angeles Times.
The department run by Sheriff Baca polices 75 percent of Los Angeles County. His staunch opposition to marijuana -- even if it is legalized -- was echoed Friday by an announcement from Attorney General Eric Holder that federal officials would continue to “vigorously enforce” cannabis laws in California, even if state voters pass the measure.
Baca, who is sworn to uphold California state law, claimed Prop 19 was superseded by federal law and if passed, would be found unconstitutional.
Asked if he had ever experimented with pot, Baca left no room for doubt. “Hell, no,” he said.
Baca claimed legalizing cannabis would have far-reaching effects, including increasing the costs of drug rehabilitation (although most people in rehab for marijuana have been forced there by court order), causing traffic accidents (although marijuana is not a significant factor in auto wrecks), prompting labor disputes with employees getting high on the job (although Prop 19 gives employers the right “to address consumption that actually impairs job performance“), and providing a safe cover for drug cartels selling hard drugs.
California’s laws for pot smokers are already lenient enough, Baca claimed.
“If you a need for an ounce or less… then use your marijuana, but use it privately,” Baca said. “If you want to do a joint in your house, do it. Leave the rest of us alone.”
Baca claimed personal users smoking at home were already a non-priority for police agencies, including the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. His department does target pot dealers, he said.
The sheriff came out against Prop 19 early on, joining with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to try to prevent its passage.
Polls have shown California voters are almost evenly split on legalization.
Incredibly, Baca claimed on Friday that local law enforcement agencies -- which, again, are sworn to uphold state laws -- should abide by federal drug laws prohibiting marijuana, even if Prop 19 passes.
“[Prop] 19 has no effect on what we’re going to do,” Baca said.
Source: AlterNet (US)
Author: Steve Elliot
Website: http://www.alternet.org/
URL: http://www.alternet.org
Sunday, October 17, 2010
California's Prop 19: Dead on Arrival?
Attorney General Eric Holder says he will fight recreational marijuana use in California even if it becomes legal. Critics say he doesn't have the resources.
WATCH:
WATCH:
Friday, October 15, 2010
Eric Holder To Prosecute Distribution, Possession If Prop. 19 Passes
By Marcus Wohlsen
SAN FRANCISCO — Attorney General Eric Holder is warning that the federal government will not look the other way, as it has with medical marijuana, if voters next month make California the first state to legalize pot.
Marijuana is illegal under federal law, which drug agents will "vigorously enforce" against anyone carrying, growing or selling it, Holder said.
The comments in a letter to ex-federal drug enforcement chiefs were the attorney general's most direct statement yet against Proposition 19 and set up another showdown with California over marijuana if the measure passes.
With Prop 19 leading in the polls, the letter also raised questions about the extent to which federal drug agents would go into communities across the state to catch small-time users and dealers, or whether they even had the resources to do it.
Medical marijuana users and experts were skeptical, saying there was little the federal government could do to slow the march to legalization.
"This will be the new industry," said Chris Nelson, 24, who smokes pot to ease recurring back pain and was lined up outside a San Francisco dispensary. "It's taxable new income. So many tourists will flock here like they go to Napa. This will become the new Amsterdam."
If the ballot measure passes, the state would regulate recreational pot use. Adults could possess up to one ounce of the drug and grow small gardens on private property. Local governments would decide whether to allow and tax sales.
The Justice Department remains committed to enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in all states, Holder said.
"We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law," he wrote.
The letter was dated Wednesday and was obtained by The Associated Press.
Holder also said legalizing recreational marijuana would be a "significant impediment" to the government's joint efforts with state and local law enforcement to target drug traffickers, who often distribute pot alongside cocaine and other drugs.
The attorney general said the ballot measure's passage would "significantly undermine" efforts to keep California cites and towns safe.
Officials in Los Angeles County, where authorities have aggressively moved to tamp down on an explosion of medical marijuana dispensaries, vowed that they would still assist the federal government in drug investigations.
County Sheriff Lee Baca and District Attorney Steve Cooley said at a news conference that the law would be unenforceable because it is trumped by federal laws that prohibit marijuana cultivation and possession.
"We will continue as we are today regardless of whether it passes or doesn't pass," Baca said. His deputies don't and won't go after users in their homes, but public use of the drug will be targeted, he said.
Both gubernatorial candidates – Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Meg Whitman – oppose Prop 19 and declined comment Friday.
The ex-Drug Enforcement Administration chiefs sent a letter to Holder in August calling on the Obama administration to sue California if Prop 19 passes. They said legalizing pot presented the same threat to federal authority as Arizona's recent immigration law.
In that case, Justice Department lawyers filed a lawsuit to block the enforcement of the law, saying that it infringed on federal powers to regulate immigration and therefore violated the U.S. Constitution. The case is now before a federal appeals court.
Experts say the two situations are not the same.
If Arizona wants to crack down on illegal immigration more strictly than the federal government, the U.S. can act to prevent police in the state from enforcing the law, said Robert Mikos, a Vanderbilt University law professor who studies the conflicts between state and federal marijuana laws.
If California prevents police from enforcing the stricter federal ban on marijuana, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot order local law enforcement to act, he said.
It "is a very tough-sounding statement that the attorney general has issued, but it's more bark than bite," Mikos said.
"The same factors that limited the federal government's influence over medical marijuana would probably have an even bigger influence over its impact on recreational marijuana," Mikos said, citing not enough agents to focus on small-time violators.
Federal drug agents have long concentrated on big-time drug traffickers and left street-level dealers and users to local and state law enforcement. As police departments began enforcing California's medical marijuana law, the DEA only sporadically jumped in to bust medical users and sellers that local law enforcement was no longer targeting.
Allen Hopper, a drug law reform expert at the American Civil Liberties Union in Northern California, predicted that federal agents would selectively crack down on marijuana growers and merchants instead of going after every Californian who uses pot.
"They don't have the resources to flood the state with DEA agents to be drug cops," he said.
Nearly all arrests for marijuana crimes are made at the state level. Of more than 847,000 marijuana-related arrests nationwide in 2008, for example, just over 6,300 suspects were booked by federal law enforcement, or fewer than 1 percent.
Consequently, the fight over legalization may end up the same way medical marijuana did, experts said.
When Californians approved their first-in-the-nation medical marijuana law in 1996, Clinton administration officials vowed a harsh crackdown. But nearly 15 years later, California's billion-dollar medical marijuana industry is thriving.
During the Bush administration, retail pot dispensaries across the state faced regular raids from federal anti-drug agents. Their owners were sometimes sentenced to decades in prison for drug trafficking.
Yet the medical marijuana industry still grew, and it has expanded even more since Holder said last year that federal law enforcement would defer to state laws on using it for medicinal purposes.
Besides California, 13 other states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana in recent years.
At the San Francisco Medical Cannabis Club, where you can buy marijuana-filled carrot cake and lollipops, manager James Kyne said the federal government would just be continuing "an endless cycle" with little positive effect.
Holder "is opening a bigger can of worms," Kyne said. "I really think the AG and the federal government could put our tax dollars to better use."
___
Associated Press writers Pete Yost in Washington, Terry Collins and Lisa Leff in San Francisco, Samantha Young in Sacramento and Robert Jablon in Monterey Park, Calif., contributed to this report.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Many states have a November ballot or measure regarding medical cannabis
Here’s a roundup of the latest political news from around the United States as we move closer toward the elections in November. Many states have ballots or measures to approve medicinal cannabis in some form or another.
Not only is it important to stay informed, but vote!
Jack Pot
Poll: 52% of likely voters support medical marijuana
PHOENIX — Arizonans appear to be ready to approve medical marijuana for the third time.
A new statewide poll shows 52 percent of likely voters in support of Proposition 203. Only 33 percent are opposed, with the balance undecided.
Pollster Earl de Berge also found the 405 likely voters he questioned earlier this month leaning in favor of Proposition 106. Billed as a constitutional guarantee of the right to control health care, one of its main goals is to undermine the mandate in the new federal health law that every person obtain insurance coverage.
But the race is still up in the air over Proposition 109 to provide state constitutional protections for the right to hunt and fish.
Proposition 203 would allow anyone with a doctor’s recommendation to get up to 2 1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks. The measure lists specific ailments for which the drug could be recommended.
Ganja Law Takes a Hit
New Jersey -- The Christie administration seems determined to sabotage New Jersey's new medical marijuana law by saddling it with even more restrictive rules. The law is known as the "Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act." But the proposed rules to implement it are anything but compassionate, and would make it very difficult for patients to obtain the drug legally.
The long-awaited draft regulations released last week were a big disappointment to advocates and thousands of sick and dying patients who believe marijuana can help relieve their suffering.
If adopted, the regulations proposed by the state Department of Health and Senior Services would make only a weak strain of marijuana available to a select few patients lucky enough to qualify and who can afford the biannual $200 fee for a registry card.
After watching other states that legalized medical marijuana make mistakes, New Jersey officials justifiably wanted to proceed cautiously. Christie was even given a three-month extension to draft the regulations.
But the proposed rules his administration has come up with go far beyond the tough restrictions already in the law by putting up unnecessary roadblocks to how the drug is dispensed. As a former federal prosecutor, Christie should be upholding the law, not undermining it.
For example, the new rules say a patient must have one of nine diseases or conditions, must have been treated by a doctor for at least a year, or, seen four times by a doctor. Then a patient must pass scrutiny by a state-appointed review panel.
A year is a long time for chronically or terminally ill patients with "debilitating medical conditions," such as cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis.
The law took effect Oct. 1, but it is unlikely that any medical marijuana will be available before summer. Patients have waited long enough for that treatment option.
The rules limit the potency of THC, the main active ingredient in marijuana, to 10 percent. Patients could receive up to 2 ounces of medical marijuana a month.
Only two growers would be selected by the state to supply medical marijuana to four dispensaries, or alternative treatment centers. The law called for at least six centers that could grow and sell marijuana.
The administration's changes were unnecessary. New Jersey lawmakers did a good job in writing a tough law that avoided the pitfalls made in states such as California, where the medical marijuana industry became a booming recreational pot business with rampant abuses.
New Jersey has a chance to re-draft the regulations after a public hearing and make them more reasonable. The state must live up to the intent of the law to ease pain and suffering.
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)
Copyright: 2010 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc.
URL: http://drugsense.org/url/PACxGbqN
Contact: Inquirer.Letters@phillynews.com
If adopted, the regulations proposed by the state Department of Health and Senior Services would make only a weak strain of marijuana available to a select few patients lucky enough to qualify and who can afford the biannual $200 fee for a registry card.
After watching other states that legalized medical marijuana make mistakes, New Jersey officials justifiably wanted to proceed cautiously. Christie was even given a three-month extension to draft the regulations.
But the proposed rules his administration has come up with go far beyond the tough restrictions already in the law by putting up unnecessary roadblocks to how the drug is dispensed. As a former federal prosecutor, Christie should be upholding the law, not undermining it.
For example, the new rules say a patient must have one of nine diseases or conditions, must have been treated by a doctor for at least a year, or, seen four times by a doctor. Then a patient must pass scrutiny by a state-appointed review panel.
A year is a long time for chronically or terminally ill patients with "debilitating medical conditions," such as cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis.
The law took effect Oct. 1, but it is unlikely that any medical marijuana will be available before summer. Patients have waited long enough for that treatment option.
The rules limit the potency of THC, the main active ingredient in marijuana, to 10 percent. Patients could receive up to 2 ounces of medical marijuana a month.
Only two growers would be selected by the state to supply medical marijuana to four dispensaries, or alternative treatment centers. The law called for at least six centers that could grow and sell marijuana.
The administration's changes were unnecessary. New Jersey lawmakers did a good job in writing a tough law that avoided the pitfalls made in states such as California, where the medical marijuana industry became a booming recreational pot business with rampant abuses.
New Jersey has a chance to re-draft the regulations after a public hearing and make them more reasonable. The state must live up to the intent of the law to ease pain and suffering.
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)
Copyright: 2010 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc.
URL: http://drugsense.org/url/PACxGbqN
Contact: Inquirer.Letters@phillynews.com
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Legalizing Pot Would Hardly Dent Cartels' Revenue
California -- Proposition 19, which would partially legalize marijuana in California, would do little to curtail the violent Mexican organizations that smuggle it across the border, according to a new study by drug policy researchers that takes aim at one of the main arguments proponents have made for the initiative.
The report released Tuesday by Rand Corp., the nonpartisan research institute in Santa Monica, estimates that legalized marijuana could displace the Mexican marijuana sold in California, but concludes that would erase no more than 2% to 4% of the revenues the gangs receive from drug exports.
"It's hard to imagine a scenario where Prop. 19 has a dramatic influence on their revenues. We just don't see that happening," said Beau Kilmer, co-director of Rand's Drug Policy Research Center.
The researchers said the only way California's legal pot could cut significantly into cartel revenues is if it were sold across the country. They were skeptical that would happen. "It's very hard to imagine that the feds would sit idly by and just let California marijuana dominate the country," Kilmer said.
Much of the analysis rests on the conclusion that drug organizations earn far less from marijuana exported to the United States than previously estimated. Researchers put that income at about $1.5 billion, while federal government reports have set it as high as $14.3 billion.
Proposition 19 would allow cities and counties to authorize the cultivation and sales of marijuana. It's unclear how many would do that, but some cities, such as Oakland, are already poised to approve it. It's also unclear whether the Obama administration would allow it, since marijuana is illegal under federal law. The researchers do not address those issues.
The initiative would also allow people 21 and older to possess as much as an ounce and grow up to 25 square feet of marijuana.
The initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot has triggered a serious debate south of the border, where a four-year campaign against drug gangs has left about 30,000 people dead. Last week, Mexican President Felipe Calderon stressed his opposition, saying that the U.S. has done too little to suppress consumption. But Calderon's predecessor, Vicente Fox, supports the initiative and has called for legalization in Mexico.
Stephen Gutwillig, California director of the Drug Policy Alliance and an advocate of the initiative, said marijuana prohibition has failed because it has created a massive underground economy controlled by violent criminals. "Ending marijuana prohibition, bringing the multibillion-dollar marijuana market into the light of day and under the rule of law, will deal a major blow to criminal syndicates on both sides of the border," he said. "California can't put these cartels out of business by itself, but Prop. 19 is a crucial first step."
President Obama's drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, embraced the report's conclusion that Proposition 19 would not put the cartels out of business. "When you're a thug and a criminal and a killer, you're not going to get your MBA and work for a company in Mexico," he said. Kerlikowske, a former Seattle police chief, said that with drug use increasing, more emphasis should be placed on protecting young people from illegal drugs, including marijuana.
The Rand analysis dismissed a frequently cited U.S. government estimate that marijuana sales make up about 60% of cartel export revenues. Marijuana revenues fall between 15% and 26%, according to the report.The researchers could find no documentation to support the higher estimate.
"This 60% figure is a truly mythical number, one that appeared out of nowhere and that has acquired great authority," they wrote. "This figure should not be taken seriously."
Kerlikowske said it was based on outdated information and said he is pressing for better data collection. "It's pretty hard to foster support for public policy if your numbers are soft," he said.
The report notes that U.S. government estimates of marijuana production "have long been inconsistent and sometimes implausible." To illustrate the absurdity of one production estimate, the researchers calculated that regular users would have to smoke a joint every two hours they are awake.
As part of their study, which they acknowledge is replete with uncertainties that could alter the results, the researchers made numerous calculations such as determining the average weight of a joint: 0.46 grams.
The researchers conclude that Mexican marijuana, which is lower in quality and and contains less of the main psychoactive ingredient than California-grown pot, has a U.S. market share between 40% and 67%.
Comparing the Mexican drug gangs to the American Mafia, the researchers said that they would find other businesses to replace pot, just as the Mafia replaced bootlegging when alcohol prohibition ended. In the short term, they concluded, violence might even increase as gangs fight over smaller revenues.
Source: Los Angeles Times
Author: John Hoeffel, Los Angeles Times
Published: October 13, 2010
Website: latimes
"It's hard to imagine a scenario where Prop. 19 has a dramatic influence on their revenues. We just don't see that happening," said Beau Kilmer, co-director of Rand's Drug Policy Research Center.
The researchers said the only way California's legal pot could cut significantly into cartel revenues is if it were sold across the country. They were skeptical that would happen. "It's very hard to imagine that the feds would sit idly by and just let California marijuana dominate the country," Kilmer said.
Much of the analysis rests on the conclusion that drug organizations earn far less from marijuana exported to the United States than previously estimated. Researchers put that income at about $1.5 billion, while federal government reports have set it as high as $14.3 billion.
Proposition 19 would allow cities and counties to authorize the cultivation and sales of marijuana. It's unclear how many would do that, but some cities, such as Oakland, are already poised to approve it. It's also unclear whether the Obama administration would allow it, since marijuana is illegal under federal law. The researchers do not address those issues.
The initiative would also allow people 21 and older to possess as much as an ounce and grow up to 25 square feet of marijuana.
The initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot has triggered a serious debate south of the border, where a four-year campaign against drug gangs has left about 30,000 people dead. Last week, Mexican President Felipe Calderon stressed his opposition, saying that the U.S. has done too little to suppress consumption. But Calderon's predecessor, Vicente Fox, supports the initiative and has called for legalization in Mexico.
Stephen Gutwillig, California director of the Drug Policy Alliance and an advocate of the initiative, said marijuana prohibition has failed because it has created a massive underground economy controlled by violent criminals. "Ending marijuana prohibition, bringing the multibillion-dollar marijuana market into the light of day and under the rule of law, will deal a major blow to criminal syndicates on both sides of the border," he said. "California can't put these cartels out of business by itself, but Prop. 19 is a crucial first step."
President Obama's drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, embraced the report's conclusion that Proposition 19 would not put the cartels out of business. "When you're a thug and a criminal and a killer, you're not going to get your MBA and work for a company in Mexico," he said. Kerlikowske, a former Seattle police chief, said that with drug use increasing, more emphasis should be placed on protecting young people from illegal drugs, including marijuana.
The Rand analysis dismissed a frequently cited U.S. government estimate that marijuana sales make up about 60% of cartel export revenues. Marijuana revenues fall between 15% and 26%, according to the report.The researchers could find no documentation to support the higher estimate.
"This 60% figure is a truly mythical number, one that appeared out of nowhere and that has acquired great authority," they wrote. "This figure should not be taken seriously."
Kerlikowske said it was based on outdated information and said he is pressing for better data collection. "It's pretty hard to foster support for public policy if your numbers are soft," he said.
The report notes that U.S. government estimates of marijuana production "have long been inconsistent and sometimes implausible." To illustrate the absurdity of one production estimate, the researchers calculated that regular users would have to smoke a joint every two hours they are awake.
As part of their study, which they acknowledge is replete with uncertainties that could alter the results, the researchers made numerous calculations such as determining the average weight of a joint: 0.46 grams.
The researchers conclude that Mexican marijuana, which is lower in quality and and contains less of the main psychoactive ingredient than California-grown pot, has a U.S. market share between 40% and 67%.
Comparing the Mexican drug gangs to the American Mafia, the researchers said that they would find other businesses to replace pot, just as the Mafia replaced bootlegging when alcohol prohibition ended. In the short term, they concluded, violence might even increase as gangs fight over smaller revenues.
Source: Los Angeles Times
Author: John Hoeffel, Los Angeles Times
Published: October 13, 2010
Website: latimes
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Legalizing Pot Won't Hinder Mexican Cartels
That means the proposal on the state's November ballot to legalize marijuana also will do little to quell the drug gangs' violent and sophisticated organizations that generate billions of dollars a year, according to the study by the nonpartisan RAND Drug Policy Research Center.
Californians, who make up one-seventh of the U.S. marijuana market, already are farming marijuana at a much higher rate than in neighboring states and tend to buy domestic rather than smuggled marijuana, the study found.
"We're already growing our own in California, so it's hard to see how we'd impact Mexico's market all that much," agreed Valerie Corral, a Santa Cruz, Calif., pot grower whose farm north of the city provides medical marijuana to members of a cooperative she helped found.
California voters will decide next month whether to legalize and tax their own recreational use of marijuana. The measure is closely watched in Mexico, where more than 28,000 people have died in drug violence since Mexico's President Felipe Calderon launched his crackdown on organized crime in late 2006. Both Calderon and President Barack Obama agree the vast profits cartels collect in the U.S. - estimated between $18 billion and $35 billion a year - fuel drug wars south of the border.
RAND found that less than $2 billion of those profits come from marijuana, though, and only about 3 percent of Mexican marijuana sales are in California.
Proponents of the proposition say they want to lower prison costs and find new revenue from marijuana taxes, and that the measure could reduce violence associated with the illegal drug trade in California and Mexico.
The Obama administration disagrees, and U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske told The Associated Press that the new study backs them up.
"This report shows that despite the millions spent on marketing the idea, legalized marijuana won't reduce the revenue or violence generated by Mexican drug trafficking organizations," said Kerlikowske, head of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy. "The bottom line is that increased access and availability to marijuana jeopardizes the health and safety of our citizens."
Some former law enforcement officials, however, said it's hard to imagine there wouldn't be major cartel profits at stake.
"It's ridiculous to claim that ending prohibition won't have a big financial impact on these violent criminals' bottom lines," said Stephen Downing, a supporter of Prop. 19 and a former Los Angeles Police Department deputy chief of police.
But the RAND study concludes the only way to cut into the cartels' profits would be the unlikely scenario of legal marijuana growers taking over cartel distribution elsewhere in the U.S. Under that scenario, Mexican drug trafficking organizations, currently providing at least half the marijuana in the U.S., would lose roughly 20 percent of their total drug export revenues. Their remaining profits from more lucrative drugs like cocaine and heroin would continue to flow.
"If that happens, then legalization could reduce some of the Mexican drug violence in the long run," said Beau Kilmer, the study's lead author and co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center.
But the study authors said they don't believe the federal government will stand idly by if home-grown smugglers were to capture the entire national market now held by Mexico-sourced marijuana.
"It would be difficult not to notice that the quantities produced and perhaps even taxed were vastly larger than what is needed to supply the California market alone," said the study.
But some say it's already beginning to happen.
"Smuggling in the U.S will be easy, as marijuana can be shipped to consumers in other states through our mail system, said economist John Carnevale, a drug policy expert who has worked with the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy for three administrations. "There is anecdotal information that this is already occurring."
Former San Jose, Calif., police chief Joseph McNamara says the proposed law's key goal isn't aimed at resolving Mexico's drug violence, and questioned RAND's assumptions about marijuana use and sales.
"Can a state facing a $19 billion dollar deficit casually pass up a chance to tax a product that escapes taxation only because it is illegal?" he asked.
Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Martha Mendoza, Associated Press
Broad Public Support For Legalizing Medical Marijuana
Source pewresearch
Modest Rise in Percentage Favoring General Legalization
With a growing number of states moving to legalize medical marijuana, nearly three-quarters of Americans (73%) say they favor their state allowing the sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes if it is prescribed by a doctor, while 23% are opposed. Support for legalizing medical marijuana spans all major political and demographic groups, and is equally high in states that have and have not already passed laws on this issue.
There are public concerns about legalizing medical marijuana. For example, 45% say they would be very or somewhat concerned if a store that sold medical marijuana opened near other stores in their area. And roughly the same percentage (46%) says allowing medical marijuana makes it easier for people to get marijuana even if they don't have a real medical need -- though just 26% of Americans say this is something that concerns them. These concerns are highest among opponents of legalizing medical marijuana, but are no higher or lower in states that already allow marijuana for medical purposes.
Far more Americans favor allowing marijuana for prescribed medical purposes than support a general legalization of marijuana. But the proportion supporting legalizing marijuana use has continued to rise over the past two decades.The most recent national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 10-14 among 1,500 adults on landlines and cell phones, finds that 41% of the public thinks the use of marijuana should be made legal while 52% do not. In 2008, 35% said it should be legal and 57% said the use of marijuana should not be legal, according to data from the General Social Survey. Twenty years ago, only 16% of the public said the use of marijuana should be legal and 81% said it should not be legal.
Seniors, Conservatives Less Supportive
Younger Americans are more likely than their older counterparts to favor legalizing marijuana for medical use, but a majority across all age groups supports this; 80% of those younger than age 30 favor allowing medical marijuana compared with 63% who are ages 65 and older.
About six-in-ten (61%) Republicans favor permitting medical marijuana in their state compared with 76% of independents and 80% of Democrats. Conservative Republicans are the least likely to support legalization of medical marijuana; still, 54% favor this while 44% are opposed. At least three-fourths in all other partisan and ideological groups favor this.
People living in states where medical marijuana laws have not been passed are just as likely to favor the idea as are those living in the 14 states where such laws have already been passed (72% vs. 74%).
An overwhelming percentage (95%) of those who support general legalization of marijuana favor the sale and use of medical marijuana in their state. Yet even a majority (55%) of those who do not favor general legalization of marijuana say that the sale and use of medical marijuana should be allowed.
Does Medical Marijuana Lead to Broader Access?
The public is divided about whether legalizing marijuana for medical purposes inherently increases access to marijuana more generally: 46% say allowing medical marijuana makes it easier for people to get marijuana even if they don't have a real medical need, while 48% think it doesn't make a difference. When those who believe it does make it easier are asked whether this concerns them or not, just over half -- representing 26% of the total public -- say they are very or somewhat concerned about this, while 20% of Americans think this might happen but are not concerned about it.
About seven-in-ten Americans (71%) who oppose allowing medical marijuana in their state say this makes it easier for others to get access, and 53% say they are very or somewhat concerned about this. By contrast, just 39% of those who favor legalizing medical marijuana believe it leads to easier access for non-medical purposes, and only 18% are concerned. People living in states that currently allow medical marijuana are no more or less likely to see the policy as making it easier for people to get marijuana even if they don't have a real medical need. There also are no differences in levels of concern between those living in states that have legalized medical marijuana and those living in states that have not.
About a quarter (27%) of Americans say they would be very concerned if a store that sold medical marijuana opened up near other stores in their area, and 17% would be somewhat concerned. But a majority (54%) say they would be not too (20%) or not at all concerned (34%). Opponents of legalizing medical marijuana are far more likely to be at least somewhat concerned about this (81%) than supporters (32%). But again, there is no greater or less concern about medical marijuana stores in states that have legalized medical marijuana compared with states that have not
Support for Legalization of Marijuana Continues to Grow
In terms of the public's views about the general legalization of marijuana, 41% think the use of marijuana should be made legal while 52% don't think it should be legal. These findings are similar to a Gallup Survey conducted in October 2009 that found 44% saying the use of marijuana should be made legal and 54% saying it should not be legal. Support for legalizing marijuana is the highest it has been in 40 years of polling on this issue.
In 1969, only 12% said the use of marijuana should be made legal. Support grew to a peak of 30% in 1978, and then declined over the course of the 1980s to a low of 16% by 1987. Since that time, the proportion of Americans who think marijuana should be made legal has been steadily increasing, to 31% in 2000 and 41% today.
Young People, Liberals Most Likely to Support Legalization
There are substantial demographic differences in opinions about the legalization of marijuana. A majority (58%) of those younger than 30 think that the use of marijuana should be made legal. That compares with 42% of those ages 30 to 49, 40% of those 50 to 64, and just 22% of those 65 and older.While men are evenly divided over whether the use of marijuana should be legal (45% yes, 47% no), most women (57%) oppose legalization.
Fully 71% of Republicans -- including 77% of conservative Republicans -- oppose the legalization or marijuana. By contrast, Democrats are evenly divided, with a majority of liberal Democrats (57%) in favor of legalizing the use of marijuana. About half of independents (49%) favor legalizing the use of marijuana while 44% are opposed.
People living in states where medical marijuana laws already have been passed are more likely than those living in other states to support a more general legalization of marijuana (48% vs. 39%). Those who have tried marijuana are more than twice as likely as those who have not to favor legalization (64% vs. 25%).
Increased Support for Legalization Among Democrats and Independents
Although independents and Democrats have generally been more likely than Republicans to support legalization of marijuana over the past 40 years, the partisan gap on this issue has increased substantially since 2000. Democrats and independents are far more likely to say that marijuana should be made legal than they were 10 years ago while the views of Republicans are virtually unchanged.
Nearly half of Democrats (48%) and independents (49%) now support the legalization of marijuana. In 2000, 29% of Democrats and 35% of independents said the use of marijuana should be made legal. By comparison, 24% of Republicans support legalization now, similar to the 26% who favored this a decade ago.
Who Has Tried Marijuana?
Four-in-ten Americans say they have ever tried marijuana while 58% have not. Men are more likely than women to have tried marijuana -- nearly half (48%) of men have tried marijuana compared with only 31% of women.
There also are substantial age differences. About half (49%) of young people admit to having tried marijuana, as do 47% of those ages 30 to 49 and 42% of those ages 50 to 64. By comparison, only 11% of people age 65 and older say they have ever tried marijuana.
Fewer Republicans than Democrats and independents say they have ever tried marijuana. About a third (32%) of Republicans admit to having tried marijuana compared with 41% of Democrats and 44% of independents. Conservative Republicans are the least likely to report having tried marijuana (26%), compared with at least four-in-ten in all other partisan and ideological groups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)