Marijuana Tracking on The Way in Colorado

Denver -- Colorado wants to set up a first-in-the-nation tracking system of medical marijuana purchases to deter people from buying vast amounts of pot and selling it on the black market.
Patients and marijuana advocates fear they will be harassed by a Big Brother-type intrusion as computers and video cameras monitor every ounce of pot sold in the state. Officials are also considering fingerprinting marijuana patients and keeping tabs on pot with radio-frequency devices.
"This is a matter of my functioning daily living," said Diane Bilyeu, a 49-year-old woman who sometimes consumes up to 2 grams of pot in a day to treat her chronic pain since losing her right arm and leg in a 1997 car accident. "Some days I need more or less. I don't know what business it is of the government's."
Officials say the regulations will provide basic protections to ensure that the system isn't being abused by drug dealers and users.
Medical marijuana has been legal in Colorado since 2000, but the recent proliferation of marijuana dispensaries prompted state lawmakers this year to pass a series of new regulations.
It is an issue playing out around the country with 14 states allowing medical marijuana and possibly more to come under November ballot measures.
No state has gone so far to track pot purchases from seed to sale like Colorado is proposing, and regulators say their tracking plans could be a model for other states.
Montana lawmakers are expected to consider medical marijuana tracking in that state when they convene next year.
Specifics of Colorado's tracking plans haven't yet been drafted. Regulators say they'll have a plan by January to use video surveillance and a central computer system to flag multiple purchases.
Other ideas include using biometrics to track patients, requiring a fingerprint scan before each sale to make sure the customer matches the marijuana card. They are also considering mandating that medical pot include radio-frequency identification devices, somewhat like coded tags on library books, to keep track of who's getting what.
In addition, tracking could include requiring dispensaries to capture patient driver's licenses on camera to record their purchases.
"It's akin to the protections that are in place for pharmacies, or a wagering line at a horse or dog track," said Matt Cook, the senior director for medical marijuana enforcement for the Colorado Department of Revenue. "You need to maintain the public confidence in what is going on, and the only way to do that is through these systems."
Cook said the state has no clue how much medical marijuana now is ending up on the black market because it lacks central tracking. An unscrupulous buyer could shop at several dispensaries and stock up on large quantities of pot, with no way to notice that Patient X is buying marijuana from multiple businesses.
Cook described a scenario where a patient card is used to buy marijuana several times in one day from dispensaries located far apart. Under the tracking system, the state would be alerted of possible fraud and would notify all dispensaries not to sell to that patient until the state can verify that it is indeed the same person buying all the pot, which would be done through video surveillance soon to be required at pot shops.
But patients are vowing to fight tracking plans. They're especially alarmed that state regulators have yet to issue specifics on how the tracking would work.
"It seems like there could be an ulterior motive here," said Randy James Martinez of Commerce City, 42, who uses medical marijuana for diabetic neuropathy. "Why do they need to keep such close track? Opiate abuse is far more prevalent and far more destructive than any marijuana use or abuse."
A public hearing is planned on the tracking rules in January, but the tracking wouldn't require lawmaker approval because it would be considered an agency regulation.
A marijuana activist who sits on the rulemaking panel, Brian Vicente of Sensible Colorado, said patients and dispensaries fear an onerous intrusion and are still waiting to hear how tracking would work.
"Right now I'd say there's a lot of fear and a lot of confusion out there," Vicente said.
Associated Press Writer Amy Hanson in Helena, Mont., contributed to this report.


Source: Associated Press 
Author: Kristen Wyatt, The Associated Press

Marijuana law in hands of voters

Next month, California voters will consider the biggest change in drug policy since Congress made marijuana possession a criminal offense in 1937.

Proposition 19, if passed, will not just legalize marijuana possession, it will empower municipalities to regulate and tax it. The state Legislature won't be able to stop it. Any community looking to avoid a property tax hike could open up its own cannabis revenue stream.

Marijuana would still be against federal law, which would put the Obama administration in a quandary: Should they send an army of federal agents to enforce a law state and local police won't, or turn their backs and let Californians choose their own intoxicants?

That conflict is not without precedent. Back in the 1920s, New York gave up on Prohibition before the rest of the country. While manufacturing and distribution of alcohol remained against federal law, it was legal under New York law. The feds mostly looked the other way and New Yorkers kept drinking, which is one reason the Prohibition-era crime wars were waged in Chicago and not New York.

Proposition 19 is no sure thing in California. Its opponents include the usual - establishment politicians, law enforcement and some religious groups - and the unexpected. Some entrepreneurs who have profited from the state's medical marijuana industry oppose it, and major funding for the opposition campaign is coming from California beer and liquor distributors.

Meanwhile, some Massachusetts voters will have their own say on the Bay State's marijuana policy. Question 5 on the Nov. 2 ballot in Wayland, Sudbury and Lincoln will ask voters' opinions on whether the Legislature should consider legalizing and regulating marijuana like it now regulates liquor.

Similar questions will face voters in several other state House and Senate districts across the state, including Wellesley, Hudson, Stow, Newton, Maynard and Medfield. Voters in other districts will be asked to weigh in on legalizing medical marijuana.

Those questions are all non-binding, of course, and if past history holds, even the legislators in those districts will ignore the results. The Massachusetts Legislature has for many years refused to even discuss marijuana policy. Two years ago, voters took the issue out of the Legislature's hands, approving the decriminalizing of marijuana. Question 2 passed with 65 percent of the vote.

If California leads the way, we wouldn't be surprised to see a binding legalization measure on the Massachusetts ballot in 2012.

Copyright 2010 The MetroWest Daily News

Marijuana Legalization Gains Momentum in California

By Michael Tracey


For all the punditry surrounding the Democrats’ impending electoral misfortunes, little attention has been paid to a California ballot initiative which, if successful, may foster greater lasting political implications: Proposition 19, or the legalization of marijuana for personal consumption among adults aged 21 and over.
As detailed in Ari Berman’s Rolling Stone piece earlier this month, an ideologically diverse coalition of advocacy organizations, student groups, academics, and politicians have joined forces to support the November initiative. The California NAACP endorsed Prop 19 in July, calling it a “civil rights issue.” Just this week California’s chapter of the SEIU – the state’s most powerful labor union – also threw its support and formidable campaign apparatus behind the measure.

Interestingly, praise for Prop 19 is not limited to what might be the expected left-leaning constituencies. Yes, there's strong student support for the initiative at UC - Berkeley and UC - Santa Cruz, but there's also Jordan Marks, Executive Director of the Young Americans Foundation – the nation’s largest conservative youth activist organization – who sits on the board of the Just Say Nowcampaign alongside prominent liberal bloggers Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition – a group comprised of former police officers, prosecutors, and judges who oppose current drug policy – have taken to the talk show circuit, assuaging the concerns of those who might assume that only shaggy-haired hippies care strongly about marijuana legalization. Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, famously fond of the occasional toke during his youth, has cautiously left the door open to backing the measure.

Predictably, the usual suspects have come out in favor of the status quo. Obama Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, joined by five of his predecessors, penned a laughably flawed piece in the Los Angeles Times arguing for the continued criminalization of marijuana. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, long an opponent of drug policy reform, was named chairperson of the anti-Prop 19 campaign. And Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown is also not a backer, despite evidence that Prop 19 could actually help California Democrats by driving progressive voter turnout in November.

From decreasing marijuana prohibition-related violence on the Mexican border, to freeing up space in our prisons for actual criminals, to providing much-needed tax revenue for state coffers – there are myriad of reasons to support legalization. Yes on Prop 19 is currently leading in the polls, but California ballot initiatives are notoriously unpredictable. Do your part by getting involved with the Just Say Now campaign and following @taxcannabis on Twitter. 

Source nation

Incarceration Nation — Marijuana Arrests For Year 2009 Near Record High

Source NORML
By Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director

This post is excerpted from NORML's weekly media advisory. To have NORML's media advisories delivered straight to your in-box, sign up for NORML's free e-zine here.]

Police prosecuted 858,408 persons for marijuana violations in 2009, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual Uniform Crime Report, released today. The arrest total is the second highest ever reported by the FBI, and marks a 1.3 percent increase in the number of arrests reported in 2008 (847,864).

According to the report, marijuana arrests now comprise more than one-half(approximately 52 percent) of all drug arrests reported in the United States. A decade ago, marijuana arrests comprised just 44 percent of all drug arrests.

Approximately forty-six percent of all drug prosecutions nationwide are for marijuana possession.

“The numbers tell the story; the enforcement of criminal marijuana laws and the prosecution of marijuana offenders, in particular minor marijuana possession defendants, is driving the present drug war,” NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said. “Those who claim otherwise would be better off advocating for a long-overdue reprioritization law enforcement resources and concerns.

“It makes no sense to continue to prosecute Americans for their use of a substance that poses far fewer health risks than alcohol or tobacco. A better and more sensible solution would be to legalize and regulate cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol, as is presently being proposed in California by Proposition 19.”

Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 88 percent (758,593 Americans) were charged with possession only. The remaining 99,815 individuals were charged with “sale/manufacture,” a category that includes virtually all cultivation offenses.

Regionally, the percentage of marijuana arrests was highest in the Midwest (62 percent of all drug arrests) and southern regions (56 percent of all drug arrests) of the United States, and lowest in the west, where pot prosecutions comprised only 40 percent of total drug arrests.

In 2007, the FBI reported 872,721 marijuana prosecutions in the United States, the highest total on record.

Cannabis Rx: Cutting Through the Misinformation

If an American doctor of the late 19th century stepped into a time warp and emerged in 2010, he would be shocked by the multitude of pharmaceuticals that today's physicians use. But as he pondered this array (and wondered, as I do, whether most are really necessary), he would soon notice an equally surprising omission, and exclaim, "Where's my Cannabis indica?"

No wonder -- the poor fellow would feel nearly helpless without it. In his day, labor pains, asthma, nervous disorders and even colicky babies were treated with a fluid extract of Cannabis indica, also known as "Indian hemp." (Cannabis is generally seen as having three species -- sativa, indica and ruderalis -- but crossbreeding is common, especially between sativa and indica.) At least 100 scientific papers published in the 19th century backed up such uses.

Then the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 made possession or transfer of Cannabis illegal in the U.S. except for certain medical and industrial uses, which were heavily taxed. The legislation began a long process of making Cannabis use illegal altogether. Many historians have examined this sorry chapter in American legislative history, and the dubious evidence for Cannabis addiction and violent behavior used to secure the bill's passage. "Under the Influence: The Disinformation Guide to Drugs" by Preston Peet makes a persuasive case that the Act's real purpose was to quash the hemp industry, making synthetic fibers more valuable for industrialists who owned the patents.

Meanwhile, as a medical doctor and botanist, my aim has always been to filter out the cultural noise surrounding the genus Cannabis and see it dispassionately: as a plant with bioactivity in human beings that may have therapeutic value. From this perspective, what can it offer us?

As it turns out, a great deal. Research into possible medical uses of Cannabis is enjoying a renaissance. In recent years, studies have shown potential for treating nausea, vomiting, premenstrual syndrome, insomnia, migraines, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, alcohol abuse, collagen-induced arthritis, asthma, atherosclerosis, bipolar disorder, depression, Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease, sickle-cell disease, sleep apnea, Alzheimer's disease and anorexia nervosa.

But perhaps most exciting, cannabinoids (chemical constituents of Cannabis, the best known being tetrahydrocannabinol or THC) may have a primary role in cancer treatment and prevention. A number of studies have shown that these compounds can inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animal models. In part, this is achieved by inhibiting angiogenesis, the formation of new blood vessels that tumors need in order to grow. What's more, cannabinoids seem to kill tumor cells without affecting surrounding normal cells. If these findings hold true as research progresses, cannabinoids would demonstrate a huge advantage over conventional chemotherapy agents, which too often destroy normal cells as well as cancer cells.

As long ago as 1975, researchers reported that cannabinoids inhibited the growth of a certain type of lung cancer cell in test tubes and in mice. Since then, laboratory studies have shown that cannabinoids have effects against tumor cells from glioblastoma (a deadly type of brain cancer) as well as those from thyroid cancer¸ leukemia/lymphoma, and skin, uterus, breast, stomach, colorectal, pancreatic and prostate cancers.

So far, the only human test of cannabinoids against cancer was performed in Spain, and was designed to determine if treatment was safe, not whether it was effective. (In studies on humans, such "phase one trials," are focused on establishing the safety of a new drug, as well as the right dosage.) In the Spanish study, reported in 2006, the dose was administered intracranially, directly into the tumors of patients with recurrent brain cancer. The investigation established the safety of the dose and showed that the compound used decreased cell proliferation in at least two of nine patients studied.

It is not clear that smoking marijuana achieves blood levels high enough to have these anticancer effects. We need more human research, including well-designed studies to find the best mode of administration... Read More

Dr. Andrew Weil

Founder and director of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine

Relative Addictive Properties Of Various Commonly Used Drugs

Source: Dr. Jack E. Henningfield, Ph.D. for NIDA. Reported by: Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 "Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use."
Image courtesy of Drug War Facts.

Canada's 'Prince of Pot' Sentenced To Five Years

Seattle, WA -- Marc Emery, Canada's "Prince of Pot" and a powerful voice in the debate over the decriminalization of marijuana, was sent to federal prison for five years on Friday for selling millions of cannabis seeds by mail and phone order, the culmination of a five-year prosecution and plea agreement that saw Emery extradited from Vancouver.
In a statement to U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez and in a letter to the court, Emery admitted his attempt to force a change in U.S. and Canadian drug laws through "civil disobedience" and flouting the laws was "overzealous and reckless."


"I acted arrogantly in violation of U.S. federal law," he wrote. "I regret not choosing other methods — legal ones — to achieve my goals of peaceful political reform.
"In my zeal, I had believed that my actions were wholesome, but my behavior was in fact illegal and set a bad example for others," he said.
The five-year prison sentence was no surprise. Emery and the government had agreed to it as part of a deal that saw Emery surrender to U.S. authorities in May after fighting extradition from Canada for four years.

Two clerks who worked for him at his seed store in Canada had pleaded guilty earlier and received probation.
Emery was indicted in 2005, and at the time, the then-director of Drug Enforcement Administration, Karen Tandy, called Emery's 2005 arrest a "significant blow" to drug trafficking and the "marijuana-legalization movement."

"Drug-legalization lobbyists have one less pot of money to rely on," Tandy said at the time.
Emery and his attorney, Richard Troberman, said Friday that statement proves his prosecution was politically motivated, and for federal prosecutors to claim otherwise is "absurdly naive."
Assistant U.S. Attorney Todd Greenberg disputed the claim and said Emery is using it as a diversion from the facts: Until he was arrested, Emery was the single largest supplier of marijuana seeds — and therefore marijuana — in the U.S. for a decade.
He sold to anybody, Greenberg said, regardless of age or criminal history.
"The only person who inserted Mr. Emery's politics into this case is Mr. Emery himself," Greenberg said.

Tandy's 2005 statement, he said, "does not speak for this U.S. Attorney's Office."
"This case remains about Mr. Emery's long-term and repeated violations of U.S. drug laws," Greenberg said.
Emery's seeds have been traced to marijuana-grow operations throughout the U.S. and Canada, and Emery's business "added fuel to the fire" of drug violence, the prosecutor said.
Troberman argued it is oppressive drug laws that are responsible for the violence that permeates the drug trade.
Martinez said his courtroom was not the place to debate the legalization of pot.
He told Emery his actions "ensured that many other people also broke the law."
The judge said he had received hundreds of letters — including one in crayon — supporting Emery.
Emery made millions through his mail-order seed company and publication of his magazine, "Cannabis Culture," and he plowed much of it into the "anti-prohibition" movements in the U.S. and Canada.

He has helped fund medical-marijuana initiatives in several states, including California and Washington.
A small group of supporters, including Emery's wife, Jodie, a Canadian politician and lobbyist, sat quietly through the proceedings, and other supporters gathered outside the U.S. District Courthouse in Seattle carrying "Free Marc Emery" signs.
Martinez, at Emery's request, put in a recommendation to the Bureau of Prison and the State Department that Emery be allowed to serve his term in Canada.
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: Mike Carter
Published: September 10, 2010

California To Vote on Legalizing Marijuana

Oakland, Calif. -- For those who have long argued that smoking marijuana should not be a crime, a potentially historic turning point is just weeks away. Voters in California will decide Nov. 2 whether to make their state the first to legalize the growing, selling and recreational use of marijuana.
And polls here - the nation's most populous state - suggest that residents are about evenly split on the issue. Proposition 19, as it is known, would take away criminal penalties for people 21 and older for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana.

If it becomes law, it would mark yet another legal milestone for the state. Fourteen years ago, California became the first to allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Since then, 13 other states and the District have followed suit.
Advocates for legalization say they hope the vote in November will set off another trend across the nation.
"If and when this passes," said Jeff Jones, a longtime cannabis advocate who was arrested a decade ago for opening a medical marijuana dispensary, "you will see stories around the world saying this was a major shift in drug policy."
Supporters of Proposition 19 argue not only that legalization could help dismantle violent Mexican drug cartels, but also ease the state's crippling $19 billion budget deficit with new taxes on the sale of marijuana.
But opponents warn that passage could unleash a legal nightmare: They say the referendum would bar employers from firing stoned workers without proving first that they were impaired. That would mean school bus drivers, for example, could get high before climbing behind the wheel, according to critics.

An unlikely coalition has formed, with medical marijuana dispensary owners and marijuana growers joining law enforcement to oppose the measure. That camp also disputes the promise of a new stream of cash into state coffers.
Proposition 19 is on the ballot largely because of one man: Richard Lee, owner of Oaksterdam University, which trains medical marijuana growers and dispensers. Lee has bankrolled the campaign, donating $1.46 million.
"A lot like alcohol prohibition repeal came about because of the Great Depression, now we have the great recession," he said. "We've got budget problems, and Al Capone-style violence in Mexico."
As is often the case, both sides argue that money is the motivating factor. Lee's opponents say he stands to make millions if marijuana becomes legal, with added business to his university and coffee shops in his "Oaksterdam" neighborhood adding pot to the menu.

Source: washingtonpost

Marijuana on Four Ballots Energizes Debate

Marijuana is on the ballot in four states this November, including the first effort of its kind in California to fully legalize pot, but don't expect politicians to get high on the idea any time soon.


In what could become another hot button political issue this November, Democrats in California are divided over Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana use and allow government to make money off of it by imposing new regulations and taxes.

The California government projected that at an excise tax of $50 per ounce, the new law would bring in about $1.4 billion in revenues for the state. Several members of Congress, such as Reps. Pete Stark, Barbara Lee and George Miller have spoken candidly in favor of it. The California Democratic Party chose not to take any position on it. But virtually all heavy hitters are opposed to it, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and both gubernatorial candidates... Read More

WATCH VIDEO:

Legalize marijuana debate on Fox News

In this video, pay very close attention to the conservative who struggled to compare drunk driving with driving under the influence of drugs..