High times ahead for California? ( Ziggy on MSNBC)

Reggae star and political activist Ziggy Marley explains how the legalization of marijuana could change California and the rest of the country.

Source MSNBC

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."

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 

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

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

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.

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

Legalizing Pot Won't Hinder Mexican Cartels

Santa Cruz, CA -- Mexico's drug traffickers are likely to lose customers in America's largest pot consuming state if California legalizes marijuana, but they won't lose much money overall because California's residents already prefer to grow their own, according to a study released Tuesday.
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 

Cannabis should be sold in shops alongside beer and cigarettes, doctors' journal says

An editorial in the British Medical Journal suggested that the sale of cannabis should be licensed like cigarettes because banning it had not worked. Photo: PA

An editorial in the British Medical Journal suggested that the sale of cannabis should be licensed like alcohol because banning it had not worked.

Banning cannabis had increased drug-related violence because enforcement made “the illicit market a richer prize for criminal groups to fight over”.

An 18-fold increase in the anti-drugs budget in the US to $18billion between 1981 and 2002 had failed to stem the market for the drug.

In fact cannabis related drugs arrests in the US increased from 350,000 in 1990 to more than 800,000 a year by 2006, with seizures quintupling to 1.1million kilogrammes.

The editorial, written by Professor Robin Room of Melbourne University, said: “In some places, state controlled instruments - such as licensing regimes, inspectors, and sales outlets run by the Government - are still in place for alcohol and these could be extended to cover cannabis.”

Prof Room suggested that state-run off licences from Canada and some Nordic countries could provide “workable and well controlled retail outlets for cannabis”.

Prof Room suggested the current ban on cannabis could come to alcohol prohibition, which was adopted by 11 countries between 1914 and 1920.

Eventually it was replaced with “restrictive regulatory regimes, which restrained alcohol consumption and problems related to alcohol until these constraints were eroded by the neo-liberal free market ideologies of recent decades”.

The editorial concluded: “The challenge for researchers and policy analysts now is to flesh out the details of effective regulatory regimes, as was done at the brink of repeal of US alcohol prohibition.”

Campaigners criticised the editorial. Mary Brett, a retired biology teacher, said: “The whole truth about the damaging effects of cannabis, especially to our children with their still-developing brains, has never been properly publicised.

“The message received by children were it to be legalised would be, ‘It can't be too bad or the Government wouldn't have done this’.

“I know - I taught biology to teenage boys for 30 years. So usage will inevitably go up - it always does when laws are relaxed.

“Why add to the misery caused by our existing two legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco?”

Earlier this year, Fiona Godlee, an editor of the Journal, which is run by the British Medical Association, endorsed an article by Steve Rolles, head of research at Transform, the drugs foundation, which called for an end to the war on drugs and its replacement by a legal system of regulation.

Dr Godlee said: “Rolles calls on us to envisage an alternative to the hopelessly failed war on drugs. He says, and I agree, that we must regulate drug use, not criminalise it.”


Source telegraph..co.uk

A Dopey Measure on Marijuana

From Sacramento -- The state Capitol is pathetically dysfunctional. One in eight workers statewide is out of a job. UC Berkeley is arrogantly eliminating baseball. Things are not going well in California. What can we do?

Well, if Proposition 19 passes on the Nov. 2 ballot, we can all go get stoned. Legally. Buy some joints down at the corner convenience store. We can become an even bigger laughingstock to the nation.

It was tempting here to write again about the Capitol's broken governing system that resulted in another bumbling, bleary-eyed, all-night legislative session needed to pass a 100-day-late budget Friday.
But there's little left to say about this never-ending clown act. Besides, the adopted budget wasn't all that important. The hard decisions were left for the next governor and Legislature.
Prop. 19 is more interesting and would have a greater long-term impact on California.

The ballot initiative, bankrolled primarily by a prospering entrepreneur of the pot industry, would permit local governments to regulate and tax commercial cultivation and retail sales of marijuana. And it would permit all Californians at least 21 to grow and possess their own weed for personal use.
Such activity, however, still would violate federal law.

In California, selling marijuana for non-medicinal use is a felony. But possessing less than one ounce — about a sandwich baggie-full — is a low misdemeanor punishable by a fine.
Starting Jan. 1, pot smoking will be even less of a state crime. Under a bill recently signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, it will be deemed an infraction, equivalent to a traffic ticket.
Since 1996, when voters approved Prop. 215, it has been legal in California to grow, sell and smoke marijuana for medical purposes, subject to local control. A "patient" needs only a doctor's "recommendation," not a prescription.

Merely a quarter of buyers at medicinal pot shops "are truly in need of it because of a medical condition," says attorney George Mull, president of the California Cannabis Assn., which advocates "reasonable regulation of medical marijuana."
Mull opposes Prop. 19, illustrating a split in the marijuana community.
"We think it's kind of goofy to jump ahead to recreational marijuana when we haven't done medical marijuana correctly yet," he says.

"We'd like to see medical marijuana truly made legal. In many areas, you can grow your own but can't sell it. There should be a more incremental approach."
He adds that "this whole [initiative] was set up by folks trying to make millions."
That would be primarily Richard Lee of Oakland, founder of "Oaksterdam University," the nation's first marijuana trade school. Lee says his medical marijuana dispensary, nursery and other pot-related merchandising generate up to $7 million a year, according to a Times article by reporter John Hoeffel.
Lee is in a good position to make a bundle off marijuana legalization. So far, he has spent $1.5 million to qualify Prop. 19 for the ballot and pitch it to voters.
The pitch basically is this: Cops currently waste many millions chasing down nonviolent pot smokers. There's a $14-billion industry that could be taxed to help the debt-ridden state. And marijuana "prohibition" has created killer drug cartels.

Opponents counter that relatively little, in fact, is spent nabbing or prosecuting marijuana users. "There's nobody in jail for possessing less than one ounce of marijuana," says Fontana Police Chief Rod Jones.
State prison data show that fewer than 1% of inmates have been sentenced for marijuana crimes of any kind.
"Long, long ago in the John Lennon era, people got thrown in prison for possession of marijuana," says Cassandra Hockenson, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

"Not so much today."
Opponents also point out that there's no marijuana regulation or taxing provisions in the initiative. That would be left to local governments, and there'd be a confusing hodgepodge from county to county.
But Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) last week introduced legislation to create a uniform statewide regulatory system. "If 19 passes, we'll be ready," he asserts.
Prop. 19 supporters are united behind the belief that what someone inhales or ingests in the form of muffins or brownies ought to be his business only.
"Let the criminal justice system control people's actions, but not what they put into their bodies," says James P. Gray, a retired Orange County Superior Court judge, who describes himself as a libertarian "flame thrower."

And he adds: "Along those lines, it makes sense to me to strictly regulate and control heroin. It makes as much sense to put Robert Downey Jr. in jail for heroin addiction as it would have putting Betty Ford in jail for alcohol addiction."
Gray has long advocated the legalization of all drugs. "But let's start with marijuana," he says. "Each drug should be decided on its own merit."
Such talk scares Dr. David Sack, a psychiatrist and chief executive of Promises celebrity rehab centers. "Drugs cause tremendous hardships to children and families, and the risk of addiction goes up with exposure," he says.
"Marijuana is clearly addictive, impairs judgment and increases the risk of motor vehicle accidents and interferes with brain development, particularly in adolescents….
"The biggest concern I have is that legalization will create a societal validation that marijuana is not harmful."

Legalizing "recreational" dope would create yet another problem for the state.
Prop. 19 is a crackpot idea. Therefore, California voters just might pass it.
Note: California has enough problems without legalizing pot.


Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: George Skelton, Capitol Journal
Copyright: 2010 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: latimes.com

Weed Reform Would Benefit All

Florida -- Nearly all of us have done it, everyone from Lil Wayne to President Barack Obama. Yes, we're talking about marijuana, pot, reefer, Mary Jane, whatever you want to call it.
Next month, California will vote on Proposition 19 - the Regulate Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 - and if it passes, it will decriminalize marijuana in the state of California. If the proposition passes, only a federal agency - such as the Drug Enforcement Administration - would be able to arrest pot smokers, but the odds of that happening are highly unlikely.

California has been a forerunner in marijuana reform laws.

In 1996, it was the first state to legalize medical marijuana, and since then, 13 other states and the District of Columbia have done the same.
Last week, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made a major stride by reducing the penalty for an ounce or less - about 30 joints - to an infraction, resulting in a small fine and no criminal record.
In Florida, if you are found with 20 grams or less - about 25 joints, or slightly less than an ounce - you may be forced to pay a $1,000 fine or spend a year in prison, along with a misdemeanor being added to your criminal record.
We think California should pass its marijuana mentality this way.
In the past, many have regarded marijuana as a gateway drug and have cautioned against its adverse health effects, but recent studies show that mind set is starting to burn out.
The Journal of Health and Social Behavior published a study last month which found that marijuana had very little to do with whether an individual eventually moved on to harder drugs.
Instead, the study contributed hard drug use to life factors such as employment status and stress.
According to the American Council for Drug Education, when smoking marijuana, one may experience dry mouth, impaired coordination, lack of balance, delayed reaction time and other mild symptoms associated with the high, many of which are similar to the effects caused by alcohol consumption.
As for long-term medical side effects, frequent marijuana users can experience chest colds, bronchitis, emphysema, bronchial asthma and, at worst, lung cancer.
These side effects are nearly identical to those caused by cigarette smoking, which is legal in the U.S.
A recent poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 52 percent of likely voters favor Prop. 19, and only 41 percent oppose it.
Really, this means the vote next month could go either way, but we're hoping to see the proposition pass.
We think that if passed, the proposition could generate much needed revenue through taxation and it would allow law enforcement officers to concentrate on more serious offenders.
A study by the Cato Institute found that if marijuana were legalized, regulated and taxed, it could potentially save $8.7 billion in law enforcement costs and generate $8.7 billion in revenue nationwide.
This sounds like a good idea to us.
We say that if people want to unwind and indulge in a little herbal therapy, they should be allowed to; we see no societal harm in people getting stoned and eating Twinkies.
We'll be keeping our fingers crossed and hoping that California voters decide to embrace their inner-hippy and vote to pass Proposition 19 in the upcoming election.
If history repeats itself, this proposition may pave the way for other states to adopt similar laws.
We can only hope that Florida will eventually jump on the bandwagon and decide to spark up.

Source: Central Florida Future (Orlando, FL Edu)
Published: Sunday, October 10, 2010
Copyright: 2010 Central Florida Future
URL: http://drugsense.org
Website: http://www.centralfloridafuture.com/