7 Nov 2012

Colorado Set To Legalize Marijuana PPP Survey Says

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

With just hours before polling places open for Election Day, advocates for the legalization of marijuana in Colorado got some good news from Public Policy Polling about the popularity of Amendment 64, a ballot measure which seeks to regulate marijuana like alcohol, on Monday.

According to PPP, 52 percent of voters support Amendment 64 while only 44 percent are opposed to the measure leaving the state “set to legalize marijuana tomorrow,” PPP’s Tom Jensen writes about the results of their latest survey.

PPP also found that of the 1,096 likely Colorado voters, 56 percent favored the legalization of marijuana in general, while only 39 percent said the drug should remain illegal.

This is the highest percentage of support that PPP has found since they began surveying the issue of marijuana legalization. Back in September, PPP found 47 percent in favor of A64 and 38 percent against with 49 percent in favor of marijuana being legal, in general.

The highest support ever polled was from a June Rasmussen survey of 500 likely Colorado voters which showed 61 percent were in favor of legalizing marijuana if it is regulated the way that alcohol and cigarettes are currently regulated.

Voters in Colorado, Oregon and Washington are all considering measures that would effectively end marijuana prohibition in their respective states. Marijuana legalization has become an issue that defies the stereotypes of party lines, garnering the support of key progressives and conservatives in Colorado, Washington and Oregon. And although all three states have pot initiatives on their ballots, Colorado and Washington’s pot ballot measures appear to be quite popular with voters, according to recent polling.

If marijuana is legalized in Colorado under Amendment 64 it would be taxed and regulated similar to alcohol and tobacco. It would give state and local governments the ability to control and tax the sale of small amounts of marijuana to adults age 21 and older. According to the Associated Press, analysts project that that tax revenue could generate somewhere between $5 million and $22 million a year in the state. An economist whose study was funded by a pro-pot group projects as much as a $60 million boost by 2017.

However, the big unknown still is if the federal government would allow a regulated marijuana market to take shape. Attorney General Eric Holder, who was a vocal opponent of California’s legalization initiative in 2010 saying he would “vigorously enforce” federal marijuana prohibition, has continued to remain silent on the issue this year.

In September, Holder was urged by by nine former heads of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to take a stand against marijuana legalization again. “To continue to remain silent conveys to the American public and the global community a tacit acceptance of these dangerous initiatives,” the nine said in the letter to holder obtained by Reuters.

Earlier this month those same DEA drug warriors joined by former directors of the Office of National Drug Control Policy on a teleconference call to put additional pressure on Holder to speak out against Colorado’s marijuana measure as well as similar initiatives on the ballot in Washington state and Oregon.

The drug warriors say that states that legalize marijuana for recreational use will trigger a “Constitutional showdown” with the federal government.

In a report published Sunday by NBC News, President Obama’s former senior drug policy advisor said that if the marijuana initiatives pass, a war will be incited between the federal government and the states that pass them. “Once these sates actually try to implement these laws, we will sen an effort by the feds to shut it down,” Sabet said.

But proponents of the legislation say they don’t foresee federal agents interfering in states that have legalized cannabis, citing the federal government’s silence on the issue this election cycle.

With Election Day less than 24 hours away, the DOJ has yet to formally announce its enforcement intentions regarding the ballot measures that, if passed, could end marijuana prohibition in each state. The clearest statement from the DOJ came from Deputy Attorney General James Cole, who said his office’s stance on the issue would be “the same as it’s always been.” During a recent appearance on “60 Minutes” Cole elaborated, “We’re going to take a look at whether or not there are dangers to the community from the sale of marijuana and we’re going to go after those dangers,” Reuters reported.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Matt Ferner
Published: November 5, 2012
Copyright: 2012 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

2 Nov 2012

Cops To Marijuana Business Owners Torn On Amendment 64

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Nuanced Measure Sparks Debates Over Law-Enforcement Resources, Cartels

Locals from law enforcement to elected officials to marijuana business owners say they don’t know how to feel about a ballot measure asking voters to legalize limited amounts of cannabis and regulate the drug “like alcohol.”

The statewide question would amend the Colorado Constitution to allow people over the age of 21 to consume and possess marijuana and provide for the licensing of cultivation and manufacturing facilities as well as retail stores.  The measure also directs state lawmakers to levy a tax on the sale of marijuana, directing the first $40 million in revenue generated annually to be directed to the public school capital construction assistance fund.

But the nuanced proposal has wide-reaching implications ranging from law-enforcement issues to education impacts, and many local officials and business owners say they can see many sides of the issue.

“Keeping it criminal at this point is probably a waste of time,” Summit County Sheriff John Minor said.  “I have mixed feelings on this thing all the way around.”

As do local medical marijuana dispensary owners, who say they don’t know how the ballot measure could impact their businesses.

“My answer, up until ( recently ) was, I don’t know what to wish for,” said Charlie Williams, owner of Alpenglow Botanicals in Breckenridge.  “I know I can live with what I’m doing and work in this framework.  If I have to change radically, I don’t know what it’s going to cost.”

Williams said he plans to vote against Amendment 64.

Jerry Olson, owner Medical Marijuana of the Rockies in Frisco, expressed similar uncertainty about how the measure would impact existing marijuana businesses, but said he supports the amendment.

“I don’t know if it will be good or bad for my business and I really don’t care,” he said.  “We’re going to quit wasting our resources on cannabis and instead we’re going to make cannabis a resource.”

Proponents of the amendment say legalizing and regulating marijuana would weaken a strong black market for the drug that feeds millions of dollars to drug cartels, eliminate a senseless drain on law-enforcement resources and limit young people’s access to marijuana, while creating a new tax revenue source.

“Marijuana prohibition has failed,” said Mason Tvert, spokesman for the Yes on 64 campaign.  “It’s been ineffective, wasteful and it’s caused way more problems than it’s solved.  It’s time for a new, more sensible approach.”

Amendment 64 is projected to save approximately $12 million in criminal justice costs in its first year, according to an analysis from the Colorado Center on Law and Policy.  More than 10,000 people were arrested for marijuana possession in 2010, according to an October report from the Marijuana Arrest Research Project.

But opponents of the legalization amendment say the measure would increase youth access to the drug and has no place in the state’s constitution.

“It effectively establishes Colorado as the marijuana capital of the United States,” Vote No campaign spokeswoman Laura Chapin said.  “There’s an inherent conflict with federal law …  it could drag us into a very long and expensive series of court battles that, at least at this point, we probably wouldn’t win.”

Law-enforcement officials are concerned that, rather than keeping Colorado dollars out of the hands of cartels, the measure might attract the cartels to Colorado.

“Put yourself in their shoes,” Minor said.  “Would you want to keep smuggling tons of stuff across the border or would you want to just go across the border ( yourself )?”

Opponents have also indicated in the possible logistical problems of keeping the drug inside Colorado’s borders and regulating an industry the banking sector won’t back due to federal law.

As an amendment to the Colorado constitution, it would take another constitutional amendment to revise 64 to address unexpected problems or to repeal it all together.

Amendment 64 is one of three constitutional amendment proposals voters will find on their ballots this year.

Source: Summit Daily News (CO)
Copyright: 2012 Summit Daily News
Contact: http://apps.summitdaily.com/forms/letter/index.php
Website: http://www.summitdaily.com/home.php
Author: Caddie Nath

1 Nov 2012

Approve I-502, Legalize Marijuana

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Are you aware that passing Initiative 502 is one of the best ways to reduce international gang violence? Like the violent cartels gripping Mexico, British Columbia is affected by the organized-crime groups which control its huge marijuana industry. These gangs produce and export BC Bud to American consumers, including the 6.8 million residents of Washington state.

British Columbian gangs are competing for the revenue they generate from the marijuana-export industry. Economists have estimated the local market to be worth up to $7 billion annually. The fight for these riches explains why Seattle’s former top federal prosecutor, John McKay, has said, “British Columbia-based gangs smuggling high-grade pot are the dominant organized crime in the Northwest.”

In our roles as a public-health physician and a police officer, we have spent most of our careers at the forefront of anti-drug efforts in British Columbia. We have witnessed the bloody aftermath of shootings, stabbings and other violent confrontations that are common in British Columbia’s marijuana industry.

The level of violence that is now accepted as the new normal in British Columbia is staggering. In 2009 alone, there were no fewer than 276 incidents of drive-by shootings in the province. Local police described these shootings as often occurring “without regard for public safety.”

While Canadian laws allow for the use of medical marijuana, possession of the drug for recreational use, even in small amounts, remains illegal. We do not condone illicit-drug use, but our experiences providing medical treatment in hospital-emergency rooms and investigating gang activity have galvanized our interest in reducing violence connected to the illegal-marijuana trade.

By every measure, marijuana prohibition has failed to achieve its stated objectives. For example, the U.S. National Institutes of Health concluded that over the last 30 years of marijuana prohibition the drug has remained “almost universally available to American 12th-graders,” with between 80 percent and 90 percent consistently saying the drug is “very easy” or “fairly easy” to obtain.

U.S. government data also shows that, since 1990, the potency of marijuana has increased by 145 percent and the price has decreased by 58 percent, suggesting that the market for marijuana has become oversaturated. In short, marijuana has become more accessible to young people today than alcohol and tobacco.

Action is long overdue, but Canadian lawmakers have been slow to consider cannabis-policy reform, citing the possibility of retribution from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and the White House. In this context, Canadians have taken a great interest in Initiative 502 and the real likelihood that Washington state will vote to tax and regulate the adult use of marijuana.

From a public-health and community-safety perspective, since marijuana remains illegal in Canada, Initiative 502 has the potential to take away local organized crime’s biggest cash cow.

Starving the local marijuana-industry gangs could have the same impact as ending Prohibition had on Al Capone and others.

In the face of corruption, violence and widespread disrespect for the law, British Columbia voted to repeal alcohol prohibition in 1920. This set an example for Washington state, which followed suit in 1932. With respect to the harms of anti-cannabis laws, Washington state voters could set an example for Canada, while also ending a system where demand for cannabis directly contributes to organized crime and gang violence.

We are hesitant to intrude on the affairs of another nation, yet so many lives are at stake. Initiative 502 is a rare opportunity for the citizens of Washington state to demonstrate international leadership in the field of justice reform. Your northern neighbor, and indeed the entire world, awaits your historic decision.

Dr. Evan Wood is a professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia and founder of Stop the Violence BC. David Bratzer is a Canadian police officer who serves on the board of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. His personal views do not represent those of his employer.

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: Evan Wood and David Bratzer, Special to The Seattle Times
Published: October 30, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/

30 Oct 2012

Should Medical Marijuana Be State Or Federally

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

Federal authorities closed a number of medical marijuana dispensaries throughout Downtown Los Angeles in September as part of an effort to cut down on the sale and use of the drug, which is legal in California for medical purposes but still considered illegal by the federal government.

This month, the Drug Enforcement Administration followed up by sending warning letters and revisiting several dispensaries. This series of shutdowns was not only unnecessary, but it was also a violation of state rights and an indication of broken promises on the part of President Barack Obama. As marijuana regulation is becoming a hot button issue in the presidential race, such an infringement on an individual state’s rights is unacceptable.

Given the size and scope of the federal crackdown operation — it began in San Diego and recently spread to Los Angeles — it’s obvious that significant planning went into these raids. Obama deliberately went back on his word and has been doing so for a long time. This is an unusual move so close to the election but, more importantly, it challenges the legitimacy of California’s laws.

Whether or not a state allows the sale of medical marijuana, the fact remains that marijuana is federally illegal, so it would seem the owners of dispensaries should have known the risks associated with their businesses. They thought, however, that under the Obama administration they could operate without having to worry about being shut down because of early campaign promises.

Beyond broken campaign promises, however, the crackdown signals a disconnect between state and federal government and also raises a larger issue on state rights. The federal government took advantage of the disconnect between California and the federal government to fine and shut down target dispensaries. This is more than just a backward step in the legalization debate, it’s a disregard for the rights of individual states and offers a critical example of overbearing federal power. To maintain a better balance between federal and state, medical marijuana regulation must be returned to states’ control.

The issue of medical marijuana has largely been ignored in the 2012 presidential election, and understandably so. Federal versus state control of medical marijuana has no bearing on the United States’ global standing or on foreign policy matters. And while marijuana’s legalization generates substantial tax revenue, there are far bigger fish to fry when it comes to solving the nation’s deficit. All in all, medical marijuana might be a hotly debated topic, but it isn’t a particularly significant one in terms of impact. For the federal government to waste time, energy and money on medical marijuana enforcement is simply inefficient. By allowing states to control the regulation of their own medical marijuana dispensaries, the time and money the federal government is currently wasting can be re-directed somewhere much more worthwhile.

If the federal government took over the regulation of marijuana dispensaries, not only would its leadership be inefficient, it would potentially take away jobs from those who own legitimate, legal dispensaries. For every illegally run collective, it’s important to remember there is a legitimate non-profit organization that employs Americans and provides free marijuana to patients who can’t afford it but need it for actual medical purposes.

We need the government to be effective and consistent. The global society and economy is at a point where America will be in a very dangerous position if some important issues are not dealt with directly and in a consistent manner. Especially considering that medical marijuana is much less consequential than many other issues currently facing the federal government, wasting resources to take away states’ rights is something the government can’t afford to be doing.

– – Burke Gibson is a sophomore majoring in economics and is the Daily Trojan’s Chief Copy Editor.

While the nation’s attention remains fixated on the upcoming Nov. 6 election, the Drug Enforcement Administration has been systematically cracking down on medical marijuana operations across California, most recently in Los Angeles — even though such operations are 100 percent legal statewide. But marijuana is still federally classified as an illegal drug, and President Barack Obama’s administration has been making renewed efforts to enforce federal law, however much they conflict with state and individual rights.

This begs the question: Should medical marijuana be regulated on a federal or state level?

Because marijuana in its legal form is a health benefit, no state should have the authority to take that away. The current administration’s crackdowns are not the right way to regulate, but they are right to take action when state regulation is not working. Medical marijuana must be federally regulated to ensure that medical access is provided for all who need it, regardless of what state they live in.

In 1970, marijuana was categorized by the government in 1970 as a Schedule I drug. Schedule I drugs must meet three conditions to be labeled as such: the drug has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and has a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Despite research that has proven all three of these conditions to be false, marijuana remains an illegal drug within the Schedule I category.

Medical marijuana, however, is legal in 17 states, including California, and measures proposing some level of legalization are currently pending in six others. The state legalization movement is growing fast, and as it does, so is the tension between the conflicting doctrines in state and federal regulation of the drug. This tension only contributes to further problems for everyone involved — business owners, medical patients and President Barack Obama himself, whose Daily Beast-dubbed “war on weed” might be angering some of his supporters. Having different laws in different states on the legality of a substance that is ridiculously easy to transport only creates chaos in the legal system and distracts from the fact that this is an issue about medical access and benefits, not governmental powers.

Federal regulation is opposed by those who see medical marijuana as a state issue that should be dealt with at a local, specific level. Nearly 1 million patients nationwide depend on medical marijuana for their health and are in accordance with state laws, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Marijuana has been proven to provide relief for serious conditions such as cancer or AIDS — relief that has not been reproduced by any other drug or medicine. So what about cancer or AIDS patients who live in the 27 states where medical marijuana remains illegal?

Should they bide their time until a ballot measure passes? Especially in incredibly conservative states, the likelihood of such a measure passing is small, considering Proposition 19 didn’t pass in liberal California in 2010. State efforts, as the past couple years have demonstrated, take too long to succeed and do not guarantee the results that patients in need deserve.

Though no debate over the regulation of marijuana can ignore the rampant recreational use and illegal sale and purchase of the drug, regulation must be re-framed as a medical issue. Medical marijuana is a health benefit that all Americans should be able to take advantage of if they need to do so — and federal regulation would guarantee that.

The current federal administration, however, has failed to acknowledge that. The DEA’s recent efforts to mend the gap between state and federal government are wrong and only perpetuate inconsistency and conflict. Raids, crackdowns, warning letters and the like are not the answer. It will take a change at the federal, not the state level, to effectively ensure safe and guaranteed use of medical marijuana for Americans in all states.

– – Elena Kadvany is a senior majoring in Spanish and is the Daily Trojan’s Editorial Director. Point/Counterpoint runs Fridays.

Source: Daily Trojan (U of Southern CA Edu)
Copyright: 2012 Daily Trojan
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.dailytrojan.com/
Authors: Burke Gibson and Elena Kadvany

27 Oct 2012

Marijuana Legalization Wins Solid Majority Support

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

A solid majority of Americans support legalizing marijuana, either with or without taxes and regulations similar to those imposed on alcoholic beverages, according to a new survey conducted by YouGov for The Huffington Post.

The poll found that 51 percent of adults support legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol, while another 8 percent support legalizing pot but don’t want it taxed and regulated like alcohol. Only 26 percent of respondents said that marijuana should not be legalized, and another 15 percent said they weren’t sure.

Support for allowing doctors to prescribe medical marijuana for their patients was even higher than support for legalizing marijuana. Sixty-four percent of respondents said they either somewhat or strongly favored permitting doctors to prescribe small amounts of pot, and 23 percent said they were opposed. Support was highest among people aged 45 to 64 — 74 percent of whom said they favored allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana — and lowest among younger adults — only 56 percent of whom favored it.

Most other polls have found lower percentages of Americans in favor of legalizing marijuana, although they have shown a trend toward support and a few have found a majority in support. A Gallup poll released a year ago showed a bare 50 percent majority support for marijuana legalization. But a Public Religion Institute survey conducted this September found more opposed to than in favor of legalizing it. Other surveys last year, such as those by CBS News and Pew Research Center, also found higher levels of opposition than support.

The difference in the results from the HuffPost/YouGov survey and other polls may be partly explained by their methodologies. While most of the other polls used live interviewers over the phone, the HuffPost/YouGov poll was conducted online.

Differences in question wording may also be part of the explanation. Whereas most surveys have asked only whether respondents favored or opposed marijuana legalization, the HuffPost survey offered a third option of legalizing pot and then taxing and regulating like alcohol. That option may have garnered support from those inclined to favor legalization but concerned about the consequences, for example, when young people smoke it or when individuals use marijuana and then drive a car.

In the HuffPost/YouGov survey, support for legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana was steady across age groups, ranging from a low of 49 percent among those between ages 45 and 64 (roughly the Baby Boom generation) to 53 percent among those age 65 and older, with younger groups falling in between. Support for legalizing without taxes and regulations showed more variation. Those under age 29 and between ages 45 and 64 were most likely to support legalization pure and simple — 9 percent and 13 percent, respectively — while those between ages 30 and 44 and those age 65 and older were less likely to support it — 5 percent and 3 percent, respectively. Those age 65 and older were most likely to oppose legalizing marijuana altogether, with 38 percent saying no.

The poll found more variation among people of different political parties. Sixty-four percent of Democrats, 41 percent of Republicans and 47 percent of independents said they supported legalization with taxes and regulations. Eleven percent of independents, 6 percent of Republicans and 5 percent of Democrats supported legalization without regulations. Overall, opposition was highest among Republicans, but even so, more Republicans favored one of the two legalization options (47 percent) than opposed legalization entirely (44 percent).

More respondents supported some form of legalization than said they had used pot themselves. A majority (54 percent) said they had never used the drug, while 38 percent said they had. Eight percent preferred not to say. Marijuana use was higher among male than female respondents. Forty-five percent of men said they had used marijuana in their lifetime, and 44 percent said they had not. By contrast, 33 percent of women said they had used marijuana, and 62 percent said they had not.

The HuffPost/YouGov survey was conducted online on Oct. 23 among 1,000 U.S. adults and has a 4.2 percentage point margin of error. It used a sample drawn from YouGov’s opt-in online panel that was selected to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion, and church attendance.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Emily Swanson
Published: October 24, 2012
Copyright: 2012 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

24 Oct 2012

Feds Not Changing Marijuana Policy

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

A top Justice Department official has said in a television interview that the federal government is ready to combat any “dangers” of state-sanctioned recreational pot, amid criticism of the Obama administration for its relative silence on legalization drives in three states.

Voters in Colorado, Washington state and Oregon are set to vote Nov. 6 on whether to legalize and tax marijuana sales, raising the possibility of a showdown with the federal government, which views pot as an illegal narcotic.

Deputy Attorney General James Cole, in comments to “60 Minutes” posted on Saturday to the website of CBS affiliate KCNC-TV in Denver, said his office’s stance on pot would be “the same as it’s always been” if voters approved legalization.

“We’re going to take a look at whether or not there are dangers to the community from the sale of marijuana and we’re going to go after those dangers,” Cole told “60 Minutes” in an outtake from a report on Colorado’s medical marijuana industry due to air Sunday, according to the CBS affiliate.

Cole’s statement is an indication the federal government, which has raided medical pot dispensaries in several of the 17 states that allow cannabis as medicine, could also take aim at state-sanctioned recreational marijuana.

It also represents a break with the Obama administration’s relative silence about the pot referendums, which has led to uncertainty about whether federal officials would stop states from taxing and regulating sales of pot in special stores to those 21 and older, as proposed under each of the three state initiatives before voters.

Representatives for the Justice Department did not return calls or emails seeking comment on Cole’s remarks.

A top legalization backer, however, dismissed them as “innocuous,” unlike the stance Attorney General Eric Holder took in 2010 just weeks before a failed California referendum to legalize pot.

‘Wait and See’

In 2010, Holder issued a toughly worded letter that said his office “strongly” opposed the California proposal and would “vigorously enforce” drug laws against participants in the recreational pot trade, even if state law permitted it.

Holder’s statement is credited with helping to persuade some California voters to reject the proposal.

Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter

“Compared to what they did two years ago in California, to have their federal posture be essentially a wait-and-see approach is encouraging,” said Ethan Nadelmann, head of the Drug Policy Alliance, which through affiliates has funded marijuana legalization campaigns.

Polls show the American public is increasingly leaning toward legalizing pot, but no state has taken that step.

Nadelmann said pot legalization is popular with young people and independents, two groups of voters crucial to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, and that his administration is “being smart in basically not weighing in at this time.”

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States. Pot activists say prohibition fails to prevent its use and enriches criminal cartels, but opponents of legalization say it would endanger health and public safety.

Former heads of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in September sent a letter to Holder urging him to publicly oppose the legalization referendums. On Monday, a former federal official expressed dismay at the Obama administration’s silence.

“It’s shocking, because all you have to do is say things that this administration’s already said,” John Walters, who served as “drug czar” to former President George W. Bush, told reporters on a conference call.

Cole’s remarks to “60 Minutes” were in response to a question about the possibility of recreational pot being allowed in Colorado, according to the station, which posted a video with the outtake on its website.

“I think it is pretty clear from this video that the Obama administration won’t take any legalization measure lying down,” Kevin Sabet, a former adviser to Gil Kerlikowske, the Obama administration’s drug policy director, said in an email.

Source: Reuters (Wire)
Published: October 21, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Thomson Reuters

16 Oct 2012

States Legalizing MJ Will Violate Federal Law

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

On a Monday teleconference call, former Drug Enforcement Agency administrators and directors of the Office of National Drug Control Policy voiced a strong reminder to the U.S. Department of Justice that even if voters in Colorado, Oregon and Washington pass ballot measures to legalize marijuana use for adults and tax its sale, the legalization of marijuana still violates federal law and the passage of these measures could trigger a “Constitutional showdown.”

The goal of the call was clearly to put more pressure on Attorney General Eric Holder to make a public statement in opposition to these measures. With less than 30 days before Election Day, the DOJ has yet to announce its enforcement intentions regarding the ballot measures that, if passed, could end marijuana prohibition in each state.

“Next month in Colorado, Oregon and Washington states, voters will vote on legalizing marijuana,” Peter Bensinger, the moderater of the call and former administrator of the DEA during President Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan administrations, began the call. “Federal law, the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court decisions say that this cannot be done because federal law preempts state law.”

Bensinger added: “And there is a bigger danger that touches every one of us — legalizing marijuana threatens public health and safety. In states that have legalized medical marijuana, drug driving arrests, accidents, and drug overdose deaths have skyrocketed. Drug treatment admissions are up and the number of teens using this gateway drug is up dramatically.”

Bensinger was joined by a host of speakers including Bill Bennet and John Walters, former directors of the While House Office of National Drug Control Policy; Chief Richard Beary of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP); Dr. Robert L. DuPont, founding director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and who was also representing the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) and several others.

In response to the drug warriors calling out Holder again to take a strong public stance against these marijuana legalization measures, Mason Tvert, co-director of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, the group behind Colorado’s Amendment 64 said to The Huffington Post:

We believe anything claimed by participants on the call today needs to be taken with many grains of salt. These people have made a living off marijuana prohibition and the laws that keep this relatively benign substance illegal. The nation wastes billions of taxpayer dollars annually on the failed policy of marijuana prohibition and people like Bill Bennett and John Walters are among the biggest cheerleaders for wasting billions more. The call today should be taken as seriously as an event by former coal industry CEOs opposing legislation curtailing greenhouse gas emissions. They are stuck in a certain mindset and no level of evidence demonstrating the weakness of their position will change their views.

This is an election about Colorado law and whether the people of Colorado believe that we should continue wasting law enforcement resources to maintain the failed policy of marijuana prohibition. Our nation was founded upon the idea that states would be free to determine their own policies on matters not delegated to the federal government. The Controlled Substance Act itself acknowledges that Congress never intended to have the federal government fully ‘occupy the field’ of marijuana policy. We hope the Obama administration respects these state-based policy debates. If Amendment 64 is adopted by the people of Colorado, there will be sufficient time before any new businesses are established for state and federal officials to discuss the implications.

Today’s call elaborated on a September letter that nine former DEA heads sent to Holder strongly urging him to oppose Amendment 64 in Colorado, Initiative 502 in Washington and Measure 80 in Oregon. “To continue to remain silent conveys to the American public and the global community a tacit acceptance of these dangerous initiatives,” the nine said in the letter to holder obtained by Reuters.

A month before the 2010 election in California, Holder vowed to “vigorously enforce” federal marijuana laws and warned that the government would not look the other way and allow a state marijuana market to emerge. California’s Proposition 19 was narrowly defeated in 2010 and the pressure is on Holder again to voice opposition to these 2012 measures.

When pressed by a reporter during a Q & A following the call if the group was at all surprised that Holder had not yet made a statement about the measures, former drug czar John Walters replied, “I think it’s shocking. All you have to do is say things that this administration has already said. It would help enormously and I think it would defeat these measures.”

Both Colorado and Washington’s pot ballot measures are quite popular with voters, according to recent polling and have been backed by an increasingly diverse group across a range of ideological perspectives.

In Colorado, if marijuana is legalized it would be taxed and regulated similar to alcohol and tobacco. It would give state and local governments the ability to control and tax the sale of small amounts of marijuana to adults age 21 and older. According to the Associated Press, analysts project that that tax revenue could generate somewhere between $5 million and $22 million a year in the state. An economist whose study was funded by a pro-pot group projects as much as a $60 million boost by 2017.

Amendment 64 has received support from both Democrats and Republicans in Colorado, the NAACP, former cops and other members of the law enforcement community as well as more than 300 Colorado physicians andmore than 100 professors from around the nation. The measure appears to be popular among Colorado voters with several recent state polls showing wide support.

In Washington, a 25 percent excise tax would be in place if the state passes Initiative 502, which state revenue experts say could generate as much as $1.9 billion over the next five years, The Seattle Times reported. If passed, the initiative would allow adults 21 and older to buy up limited amounts of marijuana or marijuana-infused food products and would create state-licensed growers and retailers.

The Associated Press reports that if Washington’s I-502 passes:

• Public use or display of marijuana would be barred.

• No marijuana facilities could be located near schools, day cares, parks or libraries.

• Employers would still be able to fire workers who test positive for pot.

• It would remain illegal to privately grow marijuana for recreational use, though medical patients could still grow their own or designate someone to grow it for them.

• It would be illegal to drive with more than 5 nanograms of THC, the active ingredient of cannabis, per milliliter of blood, if the driver is over 21; for those under 21, there would be a zero tolerance policy.

This is the second time that Colorado voters will decide on pot legislation — state voters considered and rejected a similar recreational pot legalization initiative in 2006.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Matt Ferner
Published: October 15, 2012
Copyright: 2012 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

13 Oct 2012

Pot Arrests Cost State $300 Million in 25 Years

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

A new crime-data analysis has found that 241,000 people in Washington were arrested for misdemeanor marijuana possession over the last quarter-century, adding fuel to a campaign seeking to make this state the first to legalize recreational marijuana sales.

The analysis estimates those arrests translated to nearly $306 million in police and court costs — $194 million of it the past decade. African Americans were arrested twice as often as whites for possession in Washington in the past 25 years, even though whites use marijuana more.

Those findings dovetail with arguments for Initiative 502, the state ballot measure that would decriminalize minor marijuana possession and heavily tax sales at state-licensed stores.

Co-author Harry Levine of City University of New York said his group, Marijuana Arrest Research Project, was primarily funded by left-leaning philanthropist George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and received no money from I-502′s major donors.

But the timing is not coincidental, said another co-author, Jon Gettman of Shenandoah University in Virginia, who like Levine supports decriminalizing marijuana possession.

“The public is paying attention to this issue right now. People are watching this debate in Washington state with interest,” Gettman said.

Their analysis mirrors earlier research on racially biased enforcement of marijuana laws in this state, but this report goes deeper. Relying on crime data compiled by the FBI, they found arrests for marijuana possession spiked 178 percent from 1986 to 2010, while the state population grew by 50 percent.

Usage is highest among younger people, and so were arrests: 58 percent of those arrested in the past decade were 24 or younger.

Arrest rates in dense Puget Sound counties, including King, were lower than the state average, and the overall arrest rate dipped after Seattle voted in 2003 to de-emphasize marijuana arrests.

But the rate spiked back up, peaking at 15,065 arrests in 2008. It has been highest in farming counties in Eastern Washington and in Whitman County, home to Washington State University.

“There are cities and counties around the state and the country who generate (federal) revenue through drug-arrest statistics,” said former Seattle police Chief Norm Stamper, a supporter of Initiative 502. “Often time, instead of targeting bigger time traffickers, local law enforcement will target low-hanging fruit,” such as minor marijuana cases.

The report’s findings about arrest rates for whites and minorities were stark: Although whites report, nationwide, using marijuana at the highest rates, African Americans in Washington were arrested 2.9 times more often than whites in the past decade.

At an I-502 debate Wednesday night, the Rev. Leslie David Braxton, an I-502 supporter, made that point. He said there were “more black boys and girls in prison” than in colleges and universities, “not because we smoke more weed than white boys and girls, but because the laws are enforced in a discriminatory pattern.”

The report estimates the cost of marijuana arrests using a 2001 study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, putting the figure at $1,500 per arrest.

Based on that estimate, the state has spent $306 million since 1986 on marijuana enforcement — a figure that does not include defense costs or fines, should the defendant be convicted.

The state Institute recently updated the per-arrest cost for police, prosecutors and the court to $871 for misdemeanor cases, according to Steve Aos, Institute director.

But an earlier analysis, by two University of Washington professors, estimated that each misdemeanor arrest costs $3,656 in booking and jail costs.

While it’s difficult to tally all the costs associated with an arrest, Levine said his analysis tried to provide conservative “ballpark estimates,” and said that not all the costs are financial. He noted that arrest reports, which are included in some criminal background checks, cannot be easily expunged and can result in loss of a job or student aid.

“Contrary to what people think, the simple arrests carry enormous consequences way beyond the fines and the night in jail,” said Levine.

He conceded he views marijuana arrests to be “a scandal.”

“Like toxic waste or exploding Pintos, they are something that should be exposed,” he said.

News researcher Miyoko Wolf contributed to this report.

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: Jonathan Martin, Seattle Times Staff Reporter
Published: October 11, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/

13 Oct 2012

It’s Time For A New Approach To Marijuana

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

I-502 is not pro-pot

Back in the late 1980s, I agreed to be the anonymous “responsible businessman who supports drug law reform” guest on Jim French’s KIRO radio show.  My pseudonym: Jerry.  My stance: Our society would be better off by taking the crime out of the marijuana equation.  Back then, it felt risky to use my own name when talking drug policy.  The next day, I was walking through Edmonds, out for my morning cup of coffee.  Someone I didn’t know drove by, rolled down their window, and hollered, “Hey, Jerry…right on!”

About twenty-five years later, I was more comfortable publicly owning my role as an advocate for rethinking our society’s approach to marijuana laws.

By this time, I was a board member of NORML ( the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws ) and had started giving talks around town on why we should learn from the Europeans and, rather than lock up pot smokers, embrace a “pragmatic harm reduction” approach that treats drug abuse as a health and educational challenge.

One evening, a police sergeant whom I consider a friend asked me, “Why are you so committed to this? You and your friends could smoke pot with discretion all you want, and no one’s going to bother you.”

Only then did I realize why I was so committed to drug policy reform.

Well-off white guys in the suburbs can smoke pot.  But the majority of the 800,000 people arrested in the USA on marijuana charges this year ( and the 9,000 people arrested in Washington State ) were poor and/or people of color.  Some have dubbed the war on drugs “the New Jim Crow.”

Marijuana use-and how we deal with it-is a serious, expensive, and persistent challenge in our society.  And it’s time for a new approach.  That’s why I am co-sponsoring Initiative 502, which will legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana, allowing adults to buy up to one ounce from state-licensed stores ( much like the liquor store model ).

I-502 keeps marijuana illegal for those under 21 ( as we are committed to keeping marijuana away from young people ).  It comes with strict DUI provisions ( as we believe anyone driving intoxicated-with anything-should have the book thrown at them ).

And it calls for taxes on the legal sale of marijuana, which will raise ( according to government estimates ) $500 million a year for our state ( about $200 million for our general fund and about $300 million for health care and drug abuse prevention work ).

I-502 is not “pro-pot.” ( Most of its sponsors and supporters don’t even smoke marijuana.  ) Rather, it is anti-prohibition.

We believe that, like the laws that criminalized alcohol back in the 1930s, our current laws against marijuana use are causing more harm to our society than the drug itself.

Marijuana is a drug.  It’s not good for you.  It can be addictive.  But its use is a reality, and no amount of wishing will bring us a utopian “drug-free society.”

Marijuana is a huge underground business in our state-some experts estimate that it’s our second biggest crop, after apples.  Untold billions of untaxed dollars are enriching gangs and empowering organized crime.  And tens of thousands have died in Mexico because of the illegal drug trade in the USA.

Facing this challenge, we believe the safest approach is to bring cannabis out of the black market and regulate it.

I-502 is a smart law.  It has been endorsed by the NAACP; the Children’s Alliance ( representing about a hundred social service organizations in Washington State, including Catholic Community Services and the Boys and Girls Clubs of King County ); the mayors of Seattle, Tacoma, Bellingham, and Kirkland; the entire Seattle City Council; Seattle City Attorney Peter Holmes; former federal prosecutor John McKay; current King County Sheriff Steve Strachan ( and his opponent in the upcoming election ); many of our state senators and representatives ( including Mary Helen Roberts, who represents my town, Edmonds, in Olympia ); the editorial boards of The Seattle Times, The Olympian, The Columbian, and The Spokesman-Review; and many other caring people and organizations who have studied this issue.

Most arguments against I-502 are based on the assumption that more people will smoke pot if the law passes.  Some opponents seem to believe that there’s a huge reservoir of people wishing they could ruin their lives smoking pot, if only it were legal.

I believe most people who want to smoke pot already do, and consumption won’t change substantially if I-502 becomes law.  Surveying societies that have decriminalized marijuana, there appears to be no evidence that marijuana use goes up with decriminalization.

For example, in the Netherlands-which is famous for its relaxed marijuana laws-per capita cannabis use is about on par with the US, and use among young people is actually lower than in the US.

Many say marijuana itself isn’t so bad, but it’s dangerous as a gateway drug-”one toke and you’re on your way to heroin addiction.” European societies have learned that the only thing “gateway” about marijuana is its illegality.

When it’s illegal, you have to buy it from criminals on the street who have a vested interest in getting you hooked on something more profitable and more addictive.

In 2001, faced with a troublesome spike in hard drug abuse in their society, Portugal decriminalized the consumption of all drugs.

Ten years later, according to Portuguese government statistics, marijuana use had not gone up ( in fact, cannabis use among Portuguese young adults is about half the European average ), while their hard drug-addicted population has been reduced by half.

Most importantly, drug-related crime is down, freeing up Portuguese law enforcement to focus on other priorities.  And remaining hard drug users see the government as an ally in beating their addiction rather than an enemy out to arrest them.

Many worry about safety on the roads if marijuana is legalized.  Of the 17 states with provisions for medical marijuana, there has been no evidence of an increase in DUI cases involving cannabis.

But just to be sure, I-502 comes with very strict and specific DUI provisions.

And some are concerned that if we legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana, the federal government will override the will of the people of Washington State.

No one knows for sure how the feds will react.  But our country was designed for states to be the incubators of change.  And, in the case of drug policy, there will be no change that doesn’t come from the states.

After all, it was individual states that defied the federal government and made possible the end of alcohol prohibition in the 1930s.  Since the 1990s, individual states ( currently 17 ) have allowed patients to use medicinal marijuana in direct opposition to federal law.  And, when strict parameters are set and followed, the feds have generally stayed out.

I-502 is just taking this to the next stage in a natural evolution of how our society views the challenges of marijuana-both keeping it away from young people, and regulating its responsible adult recreational use.  At the same time, it promises to replace a huge underground industry with a carefully regulated and taxed one.

There are so many reasons to end the prohibition on marijuana.  Whether you’re concerned about the well-being of children, fairness for our minority communities, redirecting money away from criminals and into our state’s coffers, stemming the horrific bloodshed in Mexico, or civil liberties, it is clearly time for a new approach.

When assessing the best way for our society to deal with the challenge of marijuana use, we need to be realistic.

There has never been a drug-free society in the history of humankind.  Marijuana is here to stay.  That’s the reality.  Rather than being hard on drugs or soft on drugs, with I-502 we can finally be smart on drugs.  Please vote yes on I-502.

Source: Edmonds Beacon (WA)
Copyright: 2012 Edmonds Beacon
Contact: 806 5th Street, Mukilteo, WA 98275
Website: http://edmondsbeacon.villagesoup.com/
Author: Rick Steves

4 Oct 2012

L.A. To Repeal Ban on Medical Marijuana Shops

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

The Los Angeles City Council voted to rescind a newly enacted ban on storefront medical marijuana shops on Tuesday, allowing the city to avoid a referendum next year that some officials said would likely succeed in reversing the prohibition.

The council, in a blow to an industry that operates in violation of federal law, voted in July to ban pot dispensaries and replace them with a system that would allow up to three patients to collectively grow marijuana.

But medical marijuana advocates collected in August the necessary 27,425 valid signatures to put the decision to a March 2013 referendum. Under city rules, that number of signatures – 10 percent of the total number of votes cast in the city’s last mayoral election – put the ban on hold until the vote.

The backtracking comes a week after federal authorities moved to close about 70 such dispensaries in the city in a renewed effort to crack down on the operations through the use of asset-forfeiture lawsuits and warning letters.

“Legally it appears that almost nothing we do is a surefire approach,” City Councilman Paul Koretz said during the meeting on Tuesday.

“But I think the surefire least positive approach is to have a ban, but have it on hold … have it fail in March and basically be back where we started,” said Koretz, who voted in favor of repeal.

Pot remains illegal under federal law, but 17 states and the District of Columbia allow it as medicine. Los Angeles has between about 500 and 1,000 medical marijuana dispensaries, more than any other city in the nation.

Medical marijuana in California, which in 1996 became the first state to allow it, is used to treat everything from cancer to anxiety, and many police officials complain recreational users are taking advantage of the system.

The Los Angeles City Council’s decision to repeal the dispensary ban must return for a second vote next week because the 11-2 vote was not a unanimous one.

Separately, the council approved a resolution asking the state Legislature to give municipalities clear guidelines on how to regulate the distribution of medical marijuana.

Councilman Mitchell Englander complained that many badly run dispensaries in the city have “ruined it” for a minority of storefronts that are truly helping patients.

City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who has cancer and diabetes and has taken medical marijuana, made an impassioned plea during the meeting for allowing a limited number of dispensaries.

“Where does anybody go, even a councilman go, to get his medical marijuana?,” Rosendahl said in a hoarse voice, moments after revealing that doctors told him he might not have “much time to live.”

Reporting By Alex Dobuzinskis; editing by Todd Eastham and Cynthia Johnston

Source: Reuters (Wire)
Author: Alex Dobuzinskis, Reuters
Published: October 2, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Thomson Reuters

1 … 16 17 18 19 20 21 22