16 Sep 2012

Trying Marijuana in Court of Public Opinion Again

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Montana voters will decide on Nov. 6 whether to keep the Legislature’s medical marijuana law that effectively repealed the 2004 voter-enacted law.

Between now and Election Day, additional restrictions from Senate Bill 423 may take effect. Last week, the Montana Supreme Court overturned a District Court judge’s ruling that certain provisions of SB423 violated rights guaranteed by the Montana Constitution. Helena District Judge Jim Reynolds issued a preliminary injunction last year, finding that the new law’s restrictions on medical marijuana providers and users amounted to unconstitutional infringement on citizens’ rights to privacy, to health care and to seek employment (as medical marijuana providers).

In overturning Reynolds’ ruling, the Supreme Court said there is no constitutional right to use marijuana or to sell it.

The 2011 Legislature acted because the voter-approved medical marijuana law was being exploited by a growing number of marijuana suppliers who encouraged people to get state medical marijuana cards. The number of cards issued grew tenfold within three years so that by the time the 2011 Legislature passed SB423, the state had nearly 30,000 registered medical marijuana users and 4,800 suppliers. Medical marijuana storefronts had sprouted along busy streets in Billing and other cities.

What had been promoted in 2004 as a compassionate law to allow seriously ill Montanans to legally access a drug that relieved their pain, glaucoma or nausea was transforming quickly into a marijuana-for-the-masses business.

The 2011 Legislature didn’t act on medical marijuana reform proposals from its interim committee. Instead, SB423 was cobbled together in the latter half of the 90-day session with less public input than the interim committee proposals had received.

Storefronts Shut Down

However, the new law has been effective at reining in legal marijuana suppliers and users. The law also authorized local governments to restrict medical marijuana storefronts, which Billings, Yellowstone County and other jurisdictions have since done. The law narrowed eligibility for medical marijuana cards and restricted the business of supplying card holders.

By August, the number of registered card holders had dropped to 8,849, registered suppliers numbered 399 and doctors recommending marijuana numbered 225. Back in December 2008, there had been 1,577 cardholders and 465 suppliers.

The Supreme Court decision allows the state to enforce a previously blocked provision in the new law that forbids legal suppliers from charging for marijuana. That change is likely to further reduce the number of legal suppliers and card holders.

The Legislature’s repeal of a voter-enacted law is troubling in its disregard of the people’s directive in 2004. However, the initiative proponents weren’t advertising “cannabis caravans,” medical marijuana shops a few blocks from schools or thousands of new users each month.

State-Federal Conflict

In his 12-page dissent from the majority medical marijuana opinion last week, Justice James C. Nelson said the state court simply should have dismissed the challenge to SB423 rather than sending it back to Reynolds.

“Montana’s medical marijuana laws, in effect, purport to make legal conduct that is violative of the federal Controlled Substances Act,” Nelson wrote. “That Montana’s courts have become complicit in this endeavor (by taking up questions regarding the interpretation of Montana’s medical marijuana laws in the absence of an actual underlying criminal prosecution) is shocking.”

Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Nelson said, state law must give way to federal law “where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility.” If the illegality of marijuana is to be changed, Nelson said, Congress will have to change it first.

Nelson makes a good point: Regardless of what Montana voters decide in November, medical marijuana will remain risky for users and hazy for law enforcement.

Source: Billings Gazette, The (MT)
Published: September 16, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Billings Gazette
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.billingsgazette.com/

14 Sep 2012

Measure 80 Would Legalize Pot, Allow Research

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

If Oregonians pass Measure 80 in the November election, the state would legalize marijuana for adults, but more importantly to Todd Dalotto, it would open the doors for medical research on the plant.

“If it’s free from legal roadblocks, then patients can benefit greatly from the research that takes place in horticulture, in medicine,” Dalotto said Monday in front of the City Club of Corvallis.  “Unfortunately, clinical research is hindered to a prohibitive degree, mainly because of federal prohibition.”

Dalotto, a longtime cannabis horticultural researcher and president of CAN! Research, Education and Consulting in Corvallis, offered his take on Measure 80 to the group on Monday.  Sandee Burbank, executive director of Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse, also spoke in favor of the measure at the club’s monthly meeting.

If passed, the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act would create a commission that would license growers, buy and sell the product, and test it for quality assurance.  Adults, ages 21 and older, would be able to legally purchase cannabis from state-run stores or grow it, unregulated, for personal use.

In his presentation, Dalotto explained that each strain of the plant contains different properties.  With more research, scientists will be able to isolate the parts of the plant, on a molecular level, that contain positive medicinal values and breed out negative properties, he said.

Currently, however, researchers must get the go-ahead from multiple federal agencies before studying marijuana – a nearly impossible undertaking, he said.

Burbank spoke to the group about the need for more accurate education about drugs, including the potential harm of over-the-counter and legally prescribed medicine, alcohol and tobacco.  Marijuana, she believes, has medicinal value and is much less harmful than some legal drugs.  In 1982, her organization declared that marijuana laws were “inequitable, ineffective, unenforceable and counterproductive.”

Attendees questioned how the new legislation would affect black market demand for marijuana.  Burbank and Dalotto believe it would be curtailed.

“The reason it’s so profitable is because of prohibition, because it’s unregulated,” Dalotto said.

The speakers also touched on the benefits of legalizing the cultivation of cannabis to produce hemp, a product with multiple uses that can be made into fabric and rope.  It requires less fertilizer and water and produces four times the amount of fiber that trees do, Dalotto said.

Hemp production would provide Oregon with an economically friendly export crop, he added.

If the legislation should pass, one attendee asked, how would the federal government – which classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug – respond?

“There would be significant challenges from the feds,” Dalotto said, “but the measure does provide revenue to fund the attorney general’s defense of this, and that’s fully anticipated.”

Revenue from licenses would pay administrative costs of the commission, and 90 percent of the remaining money would be placed in the state’s general fund.  The remaining 10 percent would be split among funds for related uses, such as drug education and research grants.

The City Club invited the Corvallis Police Department to offer a differing opinion on the measure, but the department declined.

Source: Corvallis Gazette-Times (OR)
Copyright: 2012 Lee Enterprises
Contact: https://gazettetimes-dot-com.bloxcms.com/app/forms/contact/letters/
Website: http://www.gazettetimes.com/
Author: Canda Fuqua

14 Sep 2012

Commentary: Medical Marijuana and Taxes

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

An obscure tax law, intended to prevent cocaine kingpins from deducting yachts and other necessities, may alter Boulder’s landscape. Experts say it may shutter dispensaries nationwide.

Fourteen years before any medical marijuana laws existed, US Tax Code was amended because a convicted coke dealer had successfully deducted guns, boats, and bribes. Ever since, Section 280E has banned deductions related to “trafficking in controlled substances.”

Because marijuana is a “controlled substance,” dispensaries are taxed on all revenue — without subtracting rent, payroll, or supplies. The IRS has embarked on an auditing spree, slapping some dispensaries with tax bills in the millions. (The representative who sponsored 280E in 1982, observing its current invocation, now leads the effort to reform his own law.)

Aware of the threat, Colorado dispensaries have tread carefully. Some calculated the square footage used for selling meds, versus the area used for discussing and observing said meds ­— and wrote off rent for the latter. Some claimed that their employees multi-tasked, and deducted a portion of payroll for non-trafficking pursuits.

These number-crunching taxpayers were abiding Tax Court’s 2007 decision (C.H.A.M.P. v. Commissioner): Caregiving services were separate from trafficking, the court had ruled, and could be deducted. Dispensaries pay a higher tax rate than other businesses — but they’ve been able to keep the doors open.

Until now. In August, the Tax Court unanimously reached its second decision on 280E: It precludes dispensaries “from deducting any expense related to the business in that the business is a single business that consists of trafficking in a controlled substance.”

No more multi-tasking staff or separate “wellness spaces.” Your stores’ rent, employees, marketing, supplies — what might seem like normal business expenses — are all part of your trafficking. Growing controlled substances (still just as federally illegal as trafficking them) was somehow omitted by the lawmakers who wrote 280E in 1982. So you can deduct rent and supplies for your grow operation — great news, if you operate your dispensary out of your warehouse, or poorly maintain your storefront and pay your employees terrible wages. In Boulder, your dispensary and warehouse must be separate, and running a retail establishment isn’t cheap. It’s a troubling choice: “We either change our 2011 taxes, and suddenly owe the IRS far more than we earned this year,” says one Boulder dispensary owner who for obvious reasons would rather not be identified, “or we leave them and wait for an audit.” If audited, he’ll likely receive a tax bill high enough to sink his small business.

Owning a dispensary here was costly already. To comply with state regulations, you must: Install enough state-of-the-art surveillance to capture each moment of your plants’ lives from every angle; build the appropriate number of doors, bathrooms, and hallways for the amount of marijuana you plan to grow; fork over at least $10,000 in fees every time you need to change your dispensary’s name, location, or owner/investor lineup — and at least $10,000 annually to remain open, whether or not you’ve adjusted your name/location/ownership to comply with other changing regulations.

Now it’s even harder for Colorado dispensaries to profit, thanks to their multiplying taxes. One small-business owner in Boulder expects to owe an additional $100,000 a year — money he doesn’t have, because he’s invested it in his business.

Yes, our country needs tax dollars. But dispensaries aren’t the only businesses selling controlled substances: Others sell Oxycodone, Vicodin, morphine. In 2007, the US pharmaceutical industry collected $315 billion, and their revenue keeps rising. If 280E was enforced, their taxes would go a long way towards reducing our national deficit.

But the pharmaceutical industry enjoys a relaxed tax rate, about 40 percent less than other industries, according to a Public Citizen report. Those companies get tax breaks for paying their executives high stock-option-supplemented salaries. (At least one pharma giant paid its CEO more than it paid the government in taxes last year.) They receive tax credits and subsidies for research and development. Tax dollars fund most pharmaceutical R&D, so how much is the industry really spending? None of your business. Thanks to a nine-year legal battle the industry fought and won in Supreme Court (Bowsher v. Merck and Co.), they don’t have to disclose R&D records.

No disclosure needed: It’s just medicine. Dispensary owners only have to sign away privacy rights and submit a 22-page application measuring their “moral character.” (Question #672D: What is the value of your spouse’s great-aunt’s stock portfolio divided by the average age of your pets?) Even extraneous MMJ folks like me can’t escape the disclosure demands. The state department of revenue has, currently on file, a diagram mapping of the bodily locations of my tattoos. (Not a joke.)

Pharmaceutical giants justify their secrecy and skimpy taxes by citing the high “risk” they face. If only the marijuana industry was riskier. Like, if crop failures due to pests were increasing because inspectors now tramp through grow after grow without changing clothes; or if MMJ grows were now especially vulnerable to break-ins, due to state regulations now requiring that their locations be made public. Or if, say, dispensaries could be shut down by the federal government at any moment.

Both the marijuana industry and the federal government face changes in November, when Colorado votes on legalizing marijuana, and the country decides between candidates whose campaigns focus on taxes and small business. In a safer, healthier, more economically-stable America, marijuana would be legal — or would at least be a Schedule II drug like Oxycodone, not a Schedule I drug like heroin. That wouldn’t be a full victory for MMJ — but at least the taxes would be easier.

Cecelia Gilboy owns Colorado Quality Collective, the first wholesale marijuana brokerage licensed by the state.

Source: Boulder Weekly (CO)
Author: Cecelia Gilboy
Published: September 13, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Boulder Weekly
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.boulderweekly.com/

9 Sep 2012

MMJ Dispensaries Should Get on 502 Bandwagon

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Seattle’s medical marijuana stores have been living in a dream. Some have been so complacent as to oppose Initiative 502, the decriminalization measure on the Nov. 6 ballot.

They didn’t want a state marijuana tax. They didn’t want regulation by the Liquor Control Board, and they didn’t want a blood-THC standard for driving under the influence. They had what they wanted, marijuana unregulated and tax-free, protected by the forbearance of liberal politicians.

Now they don’t have it. The federal Drug Enforcement Administration has moved to shut down 26 of Seattle’s 145 dispensaries because they are within 1,000 feet of a school, playground or, in the case of a Shoreline dispensary, a public trail.

The DEA spokeswoman says all the remaining marijuana stores are illegal, too. An outspoken Seattle attorney now advises his cannabis clients: “Close, and close fast.”

Closed doors are not what the people of Washington want. More than 58 percent of voters favored medical cannabis 14 years ago, and more people support it now. We believe they are ready for the next step, marijuana decriminalization for general adult use. I-502 is a vehicle for the people to say that. It is a way to push back against the Obama administration, which has been much less liberal on this issue than many had hoped.

Everyone involved in medical cannabis should support Initiative 502. It does not offer unregulated freedom; the people of Washington are not ready for that. We believe they are ready to bring marijuana above ground to license it, tax it and regulate its sale and use. Initiative 502 asks for that. It is a step forward.

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Published: September 7, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/

9 Sep 2012

Ex-DEA Heads Urge Holder Oppose Marijuana Ballots

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Nine former heads of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration urged Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday to take a stand against possible legalization of recreational marijuana in three western states, saying silence would convey acceptance.

The former officials said in a letter sent on Friday that legalization would pose a direct conflict with federal law, indicating there would be a clash between the states and the federal government on the issue.

Voters in Colorado, Washington state and Oregon are due to decide in November whether to legalize marijuana for recreational use and to regulate and tax its sale.

“To continue to remain silent conveys to the American public and the global community a tacit acceptance of these dangerous initiatives,” they said in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters. A spokeswoman for Holder declined to comment on the letter.

The letter is similar to one they sent Holder in 2010 urging him to oppose a recreational pot legalization ballot measure in California. It was defeated with 53.5 percent of voters rejecting it.

Holder opposed the California measure before the vote, warning that U.S. officials would enforce federal laws against marijuana in California despite any state legalization.

Kevin Sabet, a former senior adviser on marijuana issues to President Barack Obama’s administration, said he would not be surprised if Holder took that same position again.

“Essentially, a state vote in favor of legalization is a moot point since federal laws would be, in (Holder’s) own words (from 2010), ‘vigorously enforced,’” Sabet said. “I can’t imagine a scenario where the Feds would sit back and do nothing.”

Obama administration officials have until now said little about the upcoming ballot measures, although the federal government has cracked down on medical cannabis dispensaries in several states by raiding them and threatening legal action.

Public Support

In recent years polls have shown growing national support for decriminalizing marijuana. In May, an Angus Reid survey showed 52 percent of those polled expressed support for legalizing pot. The poll of 1,017 respondents had a margin of error of 3.1 percent.

Gallup saw support hit 50 percent last year, the highest number the organization had ever measured on the question.

In the swing state of Colorado, the marijuana measure with its potential to bring out young voters is seen as potentially influencing votes for president. Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling said earlier this year that marijuana “could be a difference maker” in the state.

The nine signatories to Friday’s letter included John Bartels, who ran the DEA from 1973 to 1975, and Karen Tandy, who was in charge from 2003 to 2007.

Tom Constantine, who was in charge of the DEA from 1994 to 1999 and also signed the letter, said the former administrators hoped it would send a message to voters and alter the public debate.

He said the letter had been sent so “voters would know in all fairness that no matter what they vote on in Colorado or wherever it is, that federal law still prevails.”

In response to a 2011 petition to legalize and regulate marijuana, Obama administration drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said at that time that federal officials were concerned about the drug because it was “associated with addiction, respiratory disease and cognitive impairment.”

Legalization advocates say the decades-old drug war in the United States has failed, and they compare laws against marijuana to the prohibition of alcoholic beverages from 1920 to 1933. They argue that society would be better served if marijuana could be taxed and regulated.

While no U.S. state allows recreational use of marijuana, 17 states and the District of Columbia permit its use in medicine.

“Anyone who is objective at all knows that current marijuana policy in this country is a complete disaster, with massive arrests, wasted resources, and violence in the U.S. and especially in Mexico,” said Jill Harris, managing director of strategic initiatives for Drug Policy Action, which has poured money into legalization campaigns.

Reporting By Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and David Brunnstrom

Source: Reuters (Wire)
Author: Alex Dobuzinskis, Reuters
Published: September 7, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Thomson Reuters

7 Sep 2012

L.A. Pot Ban Blocked for Now

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

A ban on storefront pot dispensaries here won’t go into effect Thursday after advocates for medical marijuana successfully petitioned to block it, the latest skirmish in the battle over how local governments around the nation should regulate pot businesses.

After years of failed attempts to control the number of pot shops and their operations here, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed an ordinance in late July that made storefront dispensaries illegal by modifying language in the city’s municipal code.

Last week, medical-marijuana advocates submitted about 50,000 signatures to overturn the ban, nearly twice the number needed, according to the Los Angeles City Clerk’s office. Once the city clerk verifies the signatures, the council will have to decide whether to repeal the ordinance or place the issue on the ballot next year.

This city’s unsuccessful efforts to regulate marijuana businesses have taken center stage in a statewide and national debate. Even as the federal government steps up efforts to crack down on dispensary sales of the drug, illegal under U.S. law, 17 states and the District of Columbia now allow marijuana use for medicinal purposes, according to Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group.

An ASA spokesman said California was the first state to popularize brick-and-mortar pot shops, typically denoted with a leaf or cross symbol, and the nation’s largest state still counts the most pot shops.

A 1996 voter-approved initiative allows people with a doctor’s recommendation to grow and use marijuana for medical reasons in California. According to an attorney for the city of Los Angeles, there is no mention of dispensaries in that law.

“The state voter initiative envisioned a kibbutz model,” said Deputy City Attorney Bill Carter. “It’s morphed into a Starbucks model.”

Complicating the issue for California cities is a tangle of competing lawsuits. Last year, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the city of Long Beach, just south of Los Angeles, couldn’t use a lottery system to limit the number of pot shops, because controlling the distribution of medical marijuana violates federal law. The state Supreme Court recently dismissed the case.

The state Supreme Court is expected to take up other cases addressing the issue of whether municipalities can ban pot shops, but not for several months.

Although many California municipalities ban pot sales, about 50 jurisdictions allow sales, while regulating things like the number of dispensaries, their locations and hours of operation, according to Don Duncan, California director of ASA.

In 2007, when fewer than 200 dispensaries were operating in Los Angeles, city officials passed a moratorium to block new ones from opening. But hundreds more opened anyway, exploiting an exemption for dispensaries that could show they faced “hardship.”

There are currently about 1,000 dispensaries in the city, according to Councilman Paul Koretz, who represents parts of the city’s west side.

On the same day the City Council passed the ban, Mr. Koretz proposed that city attorneys prepare a separate ordinance allowing dispensaries that were open before 2008 to remain in business. Mr. Koretz said he hoped the new ordinance, once it proceeds through a clearance process, would be approved by the City Council before the ban comes up for a citywide vote.

For now, the proliferation continues. In the east side neighborhood of Eagle Rock, about 15 dispensaries have sprouted up recently, attracting customers from the nearby communities of Pasadena and Glendale, where dispensaries are banned.

Michael Larsen, president of the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council, said he isn’t opposed to medicinal marijuana but said the shops are a “nuisance” in the community. Loitering, littering and reselling are serious problems around the dispensaries, Mr. Larsen said.

“It’s easier to open a pot shop than a yogurt shop in Eagle Rock,” Mr. Larsen said. “They just do it and start raking in the cash.”

Annie Lam, a manager at Hyperion Healing in the nearby neighborhood of Silver Lake, said a citywide ban would be “harsh” for many of her shop’s clients who use marijuana to curtail side effects from AIDS, cancer drugs and other conditions. State law allows people with a prescription to grow their own cannabis, she said, but for many that isn’t a viable option.

“They’re frustrated,” she said. “Everyone still needs their medication.”

A version of this article appeared September 6, 2012, on page A3 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: L.A. Pot Ban Is Blocked.

Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Author: Erica E. Phillips
Published: September 5, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.wsj.com/

6 Sep 2012

N.J. Medical Marijuana Still Faces Hurdles

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Jay Lassiter, a onetime New Jersey politics blogger who would use profanity to drive home a point, texted one word to describe his feelings about becoming one of the state’s first patients eligible to smoke medical marijuana: “Wow.”

“Just registered. . . . Shouldn’t be long now,” the advocacy consultant from Cherry Hill then told his Facebook followers. Lassiter is among the more than 100 people who signed up last month as the state’s long-stalled medical marijuana program advanced.

Lassiter, 40, who previously wrote for the liberal website BlueJersey, wants to obtain marijuana to stimulate an appetite ravaged by HIV/AIDS and the side effects of a cocktail of potent medications. The drug requires a prescription from a registered doctor.

Whether the patient registry is “the sweet victory” Lassiter anticipates or just another step in the program’s bumpy road remains to be seen. There are still hurdles and confusion as the state Department of Health takes a firm stance in checking and double-checking every detail.

No marijuana dispensary has received final approval to open for business, despite years of planning and review. So far, only one – the Greenleaf Compassion Center in Montclair, Essex County – has been licensed to grow the crop.

Greenleaf is expected to begin selling the drug to patients this month “assuming they meet all the criteria,” Health Commissioner Mary O’Dowd said.

But the government and dispensary seem to have a different understanding about what’s left to be done before Greenleaf opens.

Greenleaf chief executive officer Joe Stevens said his nonprofit company already had harvested the crop and was ready to sell as early as this week, once the state conducts a final inspection of his storefront dispensary and reviewed his security plans. State Health and Agriculture Department inspectors already have checked the plants for mold, pesticides, and other contaminants and found them to be clean, he said.

“Now that patients are registering, we’ve been getting calls as to our opening date. . . . We’re hoping for the first or second week in September,” Stevens said.

But O’Dowd said the inspection of the plants was only preliminary. The marijuana still needs to undergo further inspection and laboratory testing before it can be sold, she said.

Plus, a daylong inspection of the dispensary would include computer and employee training and security checks. “We are asking for security to make sure [marijuana] is not diverted for inappropriate illegal purposes,” O’Dowd said.

Some patients have vulnerable immune systems, she said, and the Department of Health needs to ensure that the drug won’t harm them.

So far, more than 100 patients who have cancer, Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis, HIV, or other afflictions that qualify for marijuana treatment have begun the registration process. About 8,400 people visited the state’s medical marijuana website the day patients were allowed to sign up.

Stevens said he had cultivated enough marijuana at his 5,000-square-foot facility to serve only 60 patients the first month. Since more than 100 people have registered, he said, he may ask patients to “limit their purchases in the beginning so that everyone who is sick can get their medication.”

Stevens, a former funeral director who will run the dispensary with a childhood friend, Julio Valentin Jr., a former Newark police detective, said he did not expect to have the only dispensary to open in the state.

In March 2011, the Department of Health selected six nonprofit companies to grow marijuana and operate dispensaries, two for each of three geographic areas. The others have been stymied either by local opposition to their businesses or the rigorous state approval process.

Until the others open, registered patients across the state are free to travel to Greenleaf.

Stevens said his company initially had difficulties because “the start dates kept being pushed back” by the state, but now, “if there were differences in the past, there are none now.”

Compassionate Care Foundation, one of two dispensaries chosen to serve South Jersey, has been paying $25,000 a month in rent on a vacant warehouse in Egg Harbor, near Atlantic City, since April.

Chief executive officer William J. Thomas said he did not anticipate that the state background checks of his board members and lenders would take eight months. He had hoped to be ready to serve patients this month, but since the investigations are continuing, he now expects to see a December opening at the earliest.

“We are being held to the same standard as a casino owner,” he said, noting that investigators had asked his associates, doctors, and lenders for three years’ worth of IRS statements, bank accounts, mortgage information, and job history, and for personal interviews.

“We have no revenue, and if it goes on any longer, we’ll just have to walk away from this,” Thomas said.

Some lenders have dropped out because the process is so time-consuming and intrusive, he said.

“We are being treated like a hot potato,” he said.

Thomas said he could not apply for a permit to begin growing until the investigation was complete. Cultivation then takes about three months.

O’Dowd said that Department of Health conducts in-depth investigations to make sure no one associated with a dispensary has laundered money, has ties to organized crime, or has a criminal record.

“This is an illegal operation in the eyes of the federal government, so we want to make sure there are no concerns that would bring into question the integrity of the investors and the board as a whole,” she said.

In other states, notably California, federal agents have raided dispensaries when they discovered the improper sale of medical marijuana to people who were not sick. O’Dowd said she wanted to ensure that New Jersey’s program “will withstand the scrutiny of federal law enforcement.”

New Jersey is one of 17 states and the District of Columbia that permit medical marijuana despite the federal government’s ban on cannabis sales. The Obama administration has issued memos saying it will look the other way when dispensaries follow a state’s regulations.

Ken Wolski, who heads the Coalition for Medical Marijuana New Jersey, a patient advocacy group, said New Jersey’s program was unnecessarily the strictest in the nation, depriving very sick and terminally ill patients of a drug that could help them cope.

The program has focused more on bureaucratic requirements and less on the suffering of the patients, he said.

Gov. Christie has said that he wants to make sure there are “sufficient legal safeguards so we don’t turn into California and everybody with a headache is going out and getting high.”

Lassiter said that was not why he needed marijuana. “A big part of my strategy for staying well is keeping my appetite robust,” he said. “The alternative is dying.”

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)
Author: Jan Hefler, Inquirer Staff Writer
Published: September 4, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/

6 Sep 2012

Pot-Smoking Driver Raises Issues

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

The recent acquittal of a Saskatchewan driver on impaired driving charges — even though she admitted using marijuana before hitting the road and bungled a number of coordination tests — is raising questions about the ability of law enforcement to go after drugged drivers.

Some advocates say that Canada’s drug-impaired driving laws introduced in 2008 are deficient and that federal lawmakers should move to adopt drug-intake thresholds similar to the 0.08 blood-alcohol limit.

The judge in the Saskatchewan driver’s case said police and prosecutors failed to convince him that her use of marijuana actually affected her ability to operate a vehicle.

Saskatoon police set up a roadside checkpoint on June 19, 2011. An officer approached a vehicle and smelled an overwhelming odour of marijuana.

The driver admitted to the officer that she had smoked marijuana about 2-1/2 hours earlier. The officer, who was a trained drug recognition evaluator, had the driver perform a number of coordination tests. During the walk-and-turn test, the driver missed a number of heel-toe steps and failed to turn, as instructed. During the finger-to-nose test, she was able to touch her nose only once during six attempts.

The officer also noticed eyelid tremors and reddening of the drivers’ eyes.

Following these and other tests, the officer concluded the driver had marijuana in her system, which was later confirmed by a urine analysis.

But in a court ruling Aug. 21, provincial court Judge Daryl Labach said the evidence presented in court only showed that the accused had used marijuana prior to being stopped and that some of it was still in her system when she was evaluated by police.

“What (the officer’s) evidence does not convince me of is that at the time she was driving, her ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by marijuana,” he said.

The judge said he was left with many questions: What signs of impairment would one expect to see in someone who has been using marijuana? How long after using marijuana would you expect to see these signs and how long would they last? Was the accused’s performance in some of the tests just as consistent with someone who has poor balance or poor coordination as it was with someone who had used marijuana?

The lack of answers, and the lack of evidence of erratic driving, raised reasonable doubt the driver was driving impaired, the judge said.

There have been similar acquittals in other jurisdictions. Labach referred to a 2010 case out of Ontario.

A man had hit a mailbox with his car and went off the road. Police observed that the driver had droopy eyes, slow and thick speech, and was unco-ordinated.

A police drug-recognition expert concluded that the driver was likely impaired by a central nervous system depressant, which was later confirmed by a urine analysis.

But Ontario Justice Stephen J. Fuerth acquitted the driver, saying evidence of the driver’s impairment was “far from compelling,” and that the Crown had failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the drug had caused the driver to be impaired at the time he was driving.

“The hurdle for the Crown in these cases is to relate back the findings of the evaluation, and the subsequent chemical analysis, to the time of the driving,” the judge said in his decision.

Representatives of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) said Friday that data on drug-impaired driving convictions in Canada have been difficult to obtain. But they said there is now growing recognition that federal lawmakers need to remove some of the subjectivity contained in Canada’s drug-impaired driving laws by simply adopting “per se” limits for certain common illicit drugs, as there is for alcohol.

“This is the way to go,” said Robert Solomon, a law professor at Western University and MADD’s national director of legal policy. “We need clear, bright line indicators … that are capable of enforcement.”

One challenge, however, is getting experts to agree how much of a certain drug needs to be found in someone’s system to constitute impairment.

Solomon said that “there’s no reason for Canada to reinvent the wheel” as many jurisdictions in the United States, Western Europe and Australia have already adopted such standards.

Asked for comment Friday, a spokesman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said: “Our government takes impaired driving very seriously. This is why we increased the penalties for impaired driving while giving police new tools to better investigate drug-impaired driving.”

Source: Calgary Herald (CN AB)
Copyright: 2012 Canwest Publishing Inc.
Contact: http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/letters.html
Website: http://www.calgaryherald.com/
Author: Douglas Quan

6 Sep 2012

Initiative Or No, Federal Law Trumps State On Marijuana

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Suppose voters decided that they’ve had it with federal drug rules that make marijuana an illegal substance akin to heroin or cocaine, and they change Washington state law to make marijuana legal.

Not in all instances, not for everyone, not at any time.  But for adults, in regulated quantities, for limited uses.

While that might be a fair shorthand description of what Initiative 502 proposes this November, this isn’t just a hypothetical scenario about the future.  It’s also a description of the past.  In 1998, Washington voters “legalized” marijuana for medical uses, even though the federal government said at the time, and still does, the drug belongs on the list of controlled substances that have no legal medical use.

Fourteen years later, state officials still struggle with developing a system to regulate medical marijuana production and sale, while the U.S.  Justice Department continues to prosecute “dispensaries” under federal drug trafficking statutes for selling pot to state-approved medicinal smokers unwilling or unable to grow it for themselves.

Supporters of I-502 — which would allow for the possession and consumption of small amounts of marijuana by adults but keep it illegal for minors and anyone operating a vehicle — say it will free local law enforcement and state courts from the cost of marijuana enforcement.  The prosecution, defense, court and jail costs of those cases cost Washington governments more than $200 million between 2000 and 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington recently estimated.

Spokane City Council President Ben Stuckart said the chance to lighten the load on local police and avoid filling local courts and jails makes I-502 a good choice.  While there’s no guarantee what federal drug agents and prosecutors will do, the chance to begin discussions also would be a plus, he said.

“If nobody acts, nothing’s going to happen,” he said.

I-502 won’t stop federal officials from enforcing the law, most concede.  But it will spark discussions on how to shift from individual users to large criminal organizations bringing drugs across state and national borders, said Pete Holmes, the Seattle city attorney and a supporter of the initiative.

“It would take a great deal of hubris to just brush it aside,” Holmes said.

The state’s federal prosecutors won’t even talk about what they would do if voters approve I-502.

“We’re not making plans right now,” said Mike Ormsby, U.S.  attorney for Eastern Washington, adding he’s had no discussions with supporters of the initiative and “I don’t intend to have any.”

Jenny Durkan, U.S.  attorney for Western Washington, hasn’t had any official discussions on what actions federal law enforcement would take if the ballot measure passes, a spokeswoman said.  “We are prohibited from commenting on Initiative 502,” Emily Langlie said.  “It’s possible, between now and the election, the Department of Justice will provide further instructions.”

Last year, Ormsby warned dispensaries in Spokane that they faced federal prosecution if they didn’t shut down.  A letter from Ormsby and Durkan to Gov.  Chris Gregoire prompted the governor to essentially gut a bill that legislators had hammered out to regulate the production and sale of medical marijuana, which was called for in the 1998 ballot measure.

“Growing, distributing and possessing marijuana in any capacity, other than as part of a federally authorized research program, is a violation of federal law regardless of state laws permitting such activities,” they wrote in April 2011.

I-502 calls for the state to regulate the production, processing and sale of marijuana — and collect taxes on it — through the state Liquor Control Board.

Holmes believes the passage of I-502 could actually ease the federal pressure on medical marijuana dispensaries.  It was the proliferation of those facilities and readily available “prescriptions” that helped spur the federal crackdown, he said.

“There are a lot of sham users of medical marijuana,” he said.  “The number of dispensaries you see is quite a bit beyond what’s needed for medical marijuana.”

I-502 would likely preclude the need for dispensaries because medical patients could find the drug relatively easily, he added.

State Attorney General Rob McKenna, who is running for governor this fall on the same ballot as I-502, said passage of the measure will create “a serious conflict between state law and federal law.” If state and local officials don’t prosecute marijuana cases, federal prosecutors likely will, he said.

“It’s not a state’s rights issue,” McKenna said: It’s an issue where federal law rules under the Constitution’s supremacy clause.

Like his Democratic opponent for governor, Jay Inslee, Republican McKenna opposes I-502.  If the measure passes, one or the other would be faced with dealing with the fallout, although neither has specific plans.

Inslee’s campaign said simply that he would “work with legislators and stakeholders to implement the new law.”

McKenna said he believes the initiative will fail, so he won’t deal with a hypothetical like how he would deal with the U.S.  Justice Department.  “I don’t want to comment on what could happen on a law that won’t pass.”

Source: Spokesman-Review (Spokane, WA)
Copyright: 2012 The Spokesman-Review
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.spokesman.com/
Author: Jim Camden

2 Sep 2012

Supporters Speak Out For Pot Doc

posted in: Cannabis News | 1

Supporters of a contentious medical marijuana program are rallying behind a Coe Hill-area family practitioner facing medical marijuana-related fraud charges across Canada

Dianne Bruce is a vocal advocate for the Health Canada operated program and the drug she praises for enabling her to enjoy simple pleasures such as getting out of bed in the morning.  Without medical marijuana she said she would be overcome by a barrage of ailments including crippling aches and chronic pains.

Bruce’s first hand knowledge of the program is fuelling her displeasure about the scrutiny and public backlash being shown to Dr.  Rob Kamermans since news of his arrest earlier this month.

She worries that Kamerman’s ordeal could threaten the program and patients like her who depend heavily on daily dosages of marijuana – her “medicine” – to function.  Bruce credits medical marijuana for easing a range of ailments including spinal disc herniation and pancreatist.

Kamermans, 66, was subjected to myriad of restrictive conditions to which he and two sureties agreed when he was then granted bail.

His wife and co-accused, Mary Kamermans, 64, also released on strict conditions – including reporting to the Bancroft OPP detachment once per week-

The couple was charged in relation to fraudulent endorsement of Health Canada’s medicinal marijuana documents in Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia, between January 2011 and April 2012, police said.

Bruce has licences to possess and a permit to produce what’s designated by Health Canada as medical marijuana.  Proof of her participation in the program is crucial, somewhat akin to having a driver’s licence, she said.

“They want to take this program away,” she said.

The documents issued by Health Canada details whether the licence holder is permit to grow indoor or outdoor, plant limits and the amount they can possess.  Cobourg resident

“No doctor will want to go near this after what’s happened to Dr.  Kamermans,” she said.  “We have a medical doctor that has been doing the right thing.”

Bruce relies on doctors like Kamermans who have been active participants in the program.  She visited Kamermans about a year ago in an attempt to bump up her dosage and said Kamermans should not be penalized for travelling to other jurisdictions to care for patients seeking his help.

“It’s very hard to find doctors who are willing to sign,” Bruce said.  “If other doctors would take care of their patients, he wouldn’t be as needed as he his.”

Inside Bruce’s purse is handful of pill bottles containing synthetic “pot” in the form of a pill, which Bruce requires a prescription to acquire.

She takes six tablets daily to stem effects of fibromyalgia, a syndrome which involves body pains and tenderness in the joints, muscles and other soft tissues.  Fibromyalgia has also been linked to fatigue, sleep problems, headaches.  Bruce credits the pills for soothing her chronic pain issues.

“I take the pill in the morning and within 20 minutes I can get up out of bed,” she said.

Debby Smits also attributed her improved mobility and noticeable reduction in chronic pain to her consumption of the “synthetic medication.”

She said she battles a plethora of ailments, including arthritis.  She too has a licence that allows her to possess and produce marijuana and has made prior visits to Kamermans to seek assistance.

“I was there the day before his office was raided,” she said about the January raid at Kamermans’ Coe Hill office.

Smits said there is a misconception about some patients are misusing the product as a drug rather than for legitimate health reasons.

Contrary to public perception, patients like say medical marijuana does not provide the euphoria enjoyed by people who use it on a recreational basis..

“We don’t get high when we use it,” she said.

Dr.  Kamermans was charged Aug.  15, in Sturgeon Falls while his wife Mary – a registered nurse – was charged in Bancroft.  The Kamermans are scheduled to re-appear in court in Belleville on Sept.  20.

Source: Intelligencer, The (CN ON)
Copyright: 2012, Osprey Media Group Inc.
Contact: http://www.intelligencer.ca/feedback1/LetterToEditor.aspx
Website: http://www.intelligencer.ca/
Author: Jason Miller

1 … 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 … 174