pass a drug test

Monday, November 09, 2009

DOESN'T LIKE ASKING SHERIFF FOR MEDICINE

Well, another week has arrived. Again I will have to ask the sheriff for my medicine. I will be writing him separately. I still must ask you to free our medical marijuana.

I am going to try not to be vulgar or threatening. It has been hard to do of late because I am not even able to get my prescription medication. Can I borrow $50? I really could use my medication. I cannot believe in what was the greatest nation in history I cannot get my pain medication. Oh, have we so fallen.

Here I am in the United States, a U.S. natural-born citizen, and I am unable to get medication. Where is my right to life? How am I supposed to live without my medication that I need to live? Where should I go to get redress of my grievances? Where am I to look for justice?

I know the FBI has said it couldn't do anything. Why don't I believe that? The FBI, I will bet, has hundreds of pounds of medical grade marijuana that has been seized. They could release me my medicine, if they cared about us. As I have said I would keep any info or help to myself. I wouldn't go run out and tell everyone, if said help was offered. I can show you in secret if need be.

What are you waiting for? Do you also not care about being on the right side of history?

Scott Carriere

Springfield






URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n1010/a03.html
Newshawk: http://www.illinoisNORML.org
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Wed, 4 Nov 2009
Source: State Journal-Register (IL)
Copyright: 2009 The State Journal-Register
Contact: letters@sj-r.com
Website: http://www.sj-r.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/425
Author: Scott Carriere

Sunday, November 08, 2009

MEDICAL MARIJUANA SUPPORTERS TO ADDRESS TULARE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Some operators of medial marijuana dispensaries in Tulare County said they plan to ask the county's Board of Supervisors to rewrite a series of proposed ordinances that they say could harm their businesses as well as the people who smoke and ingest the plants to treat pain and other ailments.

That may include trying to get the supervisors to better understand how the growing and dispensing of medical marijuana works, said Jeff Nunes, director of the Visalia Compassionate Care, a dispensary south of Ivanhoe.

He said he plans to address the supervisors during their regular meeting Tuesday, during which they may vote to approve the ordinances.

"We're gong to basically insist that the Board of Supervisors tour our [marijuana] farms," some of which are run by professional farmers who also grow nuts, oranges and other large cash crops, Nunes said.

He said he's also hoping to form a group of local experts to further educate the supervisors on the industry and how it helps people.

This follows last week's vote by the supervisors to go forward with the ordinance following some minor revisions. If approved Tuesday, those ordinances would be the first regulating medical marijuana in unincorporated Tulare County.

Among the provisions of the ordinances:

Dispensaries would have to obtain business licenses. Part of that licensing would involve criminal background checks of dispensary operators.

Anyone smoking medicinal marijuana must do so inside a habitable, private residence and not in garages or detached buildings.

Cultivating and storing would be done in fully enclosed, secure buildings with roofs, no visible signage, and monitored alarms. Structural designs would restrict the smell of marijuana from blowing to other buildings and public areas.

An individual, collective or cooperative would be limited to no more than 99 plants.

There could be no more than three collectives or cooperatives in unincorporated Tulare County.

There are five medical marijuana dispensaries in the unincorporated areas, along with two others in the city of Tulare. Those two wouldn't be affected directly by the ordinance, though customers and people growing for the dispensaries outside the city limits might be affected.

Some growers aren't professional farmers producing marijuana as a side crop for extra money. Instead, many are people who grow the plants to treat there own medical conditions and trade some of it to dispensaries for other strains -- which can be more effective against certain illnesses -- or they sell it to the dispensaries.

Nunes said his dispensary alone has more than 3,500 patients, and curtailing how many plants his growers can produce or store could make it difficult to supply his clients, all of whom have doctor's prescriptions for marijuana.

He estimated about 10,000 patients in Tulare County use medicinal marijuana.

Tammy Murray, director of the Compassionate Cannabis Information Center, a dispensary in Goshen, said she believes part of the problem is county officials greatly underestimate the number of people here who depend on marijuana as medicine.

A big reason for that is patients still are leery about getting medical marijuana cards from the county even though it is legal in the state, she said.

The cards are not mandatory for patients.

Unfortunately, Murray said, she believes the county supervisors' decisions also are being driven by misconceptions about people who use medical marijuana and the people who run the dispensaries.

"I do feel the county is being a bit discriminatory of what we're doing because of past taboos that are really unfounded," and paint the patients getting high and posing dangers to the public, she said.

"I have attorneys and all kinds of professional people who come to this dispensary, and a lot of them would be people you would never expect to smoke cannabis."

And about a quarter of those clients are military veterans, Murray said.

"Another problem with this industry is the fear it's being run by thugs," she added. "In my case, at least, that's simply not the case."

All this could be moot, however, because the ordinance states that the county regulation would take effect only if both California and federal laws allow for growing and use of medical marijuana.

No such federal law exists, though federal law enforcement agencies have been directed to avoid arresting people who comply with their states' medical marijuana laws.

Nunes said he's optimistic that could happen within a couple of years.

Strip Clubs

That same set or ordinances includes new rules for strip clubs that include:

Permits and criminal history background checks for dancers.

$60 permit that would include the performers' photos, names, stage names, height, weight and address.

Dancers would be 21 and older and have to cover specified parts of their bodies

Dancers on stage would have to be at least 10 feet from spectators and couldn't make direct physical contact when receiving tips.

[sidebar]

ADDITIONAL FACTS

How to Attend

What: Tulare County Board of Supervisors

When: 9 a.m. Tuesday

Where: Board chambers, 2800 W. Burrel Ave., Visalia

Public comment: 9 a.m.

Get the agenda: Go to www.co.tulare.ca.us, click on "County Government," "Board of Supervisors," "Board Agendas," then the meeting date.








URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n1010/a09.html
Newshawk: Herb
Votes: 0
Webpage: http://drugsense.org/url/5zlP5NpZ
Pubdate: Mon, 9 Nov 2009
Source: Visalia Times-Delta, The (CA)
Copyright: 2009 The Visalia Times-Delta
Contact: http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/customerservice/contactus.html
Website: http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2759
Author: David Castellon
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/dispensaries
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?253 (Cannabis - Medicinal - United States)

Saturday, November 07, 2009

CONFRONTATION WITH BUSINESS OWNER A MISUNDERSTANDING, GEORGINA COUNCILLOR CLAIMS

High Street bong shop owners completely misunderstood the intentions and tone of a conversation Oct. 20 with a longtime politician.

That's the message from Councillor Ken Hackenbrook after returning from a Florida vacation last weekend and finding out Shisha shop owner Gurbaksh Dhoofar had filed a police report stating they were "afraid" to do business in town after talking to Mr. Hackenbrook last month.

But scaring them was definitely not the intent of his visit to the shop, Mr. Hackenbrook told The Advocate Monday night.

"Look, they absolutely took me the wrong way," he said, adding his wife, Lorraine, said nothing to them, but came into the store after being across the street to see what was keeping her husband so long.

"I looked around at all the pipes and asked what they are used for. ( Mr. Dhoofar ) said they are for tobacco. I have never seen these products before," Mr. Hackenbrook said.

"I didn't want to threaten anybody and I wasn't about to tell them to get out of the store. My biggest concern is the kids," Mr. Hackenbrook said.

As far as a police report goes, "( police ) are not going to do anything," Mr. Hackenbrook said, adding he has talked to District No. 3 officers confirming this development.

York Regional Police Const. Laurie Perks confirmed there is an investigation under way regarding a police report filed by Dr. Dhoofar Oct. 23.

"Police are looking into ( all the report's allegations ). The investigation has not concluded but we believe there was no criminal incident here," Ms Perks said, adding any statements made do not appear to be "criminal in nature".

"We won't speculate on whether the comments were appropriate but there is no indication of criminal activity" on Mr. Hackenbrook's part, she said.

There is also no criminal activity going on at the shop, she added.

If there is no advertisement along with the bongs regarding their purpose that they are to be used to smoke marijuana and if there is no marijuana found in or around the bongs, there is nothing illegal about the products being sold, she said.

"There is no offence here," Ms Perks said.

Mr. Hackenbrook told the The Advocate the only reason he brought up any family connections to the police ( several family members are officers with the York force and his brother-in-law is a retired staff sergeant ) was to ensure Mr. Dhoofar and his partner that he is community-minded and encourages peaceful relations as a longtime member of York Regional Police Chief Armand La Barge's Canadian Federation of inter-cultural friendship community police liaison committee.

The councillor said he went in to the shop after receiving several complaints and as a part of his welcoming tour of new businesses that day in town, adding he handed Mr. Dhoofar a town pin and a business card.

The councillor said the shop owners told him they close down every day at lunch so as not to entice teenagers from Sutton District High School, which is walking distance to the store.

"The kids are my biggest concern," he said.

Several readers have made comments about how one councillor's actions might reflect on the town and the way it conducts business.

Mayor Rob Grossi had this to say:

"As far as this incident is concerned, although it's a business I would not patronize and I don't necessarily agree with the legality of the products that are sold there, my responsibility as an elected official is to ensure that the rules and regulations and/or bylaws of the municipality are adhered to. As for any new business that is opened anywhere, its success will be based simply on the patronage by the residents of the area."

Mr. Dhoofar is still in town with a "closing soon" sign on his door.






URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n1010/a08.html
Newshawk: Herb
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Thu, 5 Nov 2009
Source: Georgina Advocate (CN ON)
Copyright: 2009 Georgina Advocate
Contact: http://www.yrmg.com/forms/lettertotheeditor.html
Website: http://www.yorkregion.com/news/Georgina
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2433
Author: Tracy Kibble

Friday, November 06, 2009

CONSENT SEEMS LIKELY

To the editor:

Money, while important, is not all that matters ( Taylor Armerding: "State can fill its coffers by treating pot like gambling," Oct. 24 ). What also matters is that our laws comply with the federal and state constitutions; both suppose the consent of the governed. The vote on Question 2 annihilated the notion prohibition of possession backed by criminal sanction had such consent. The vote on Question 2 and the rampant civil disobedience to the law -- over 10 percent of Massachusetts voters consumed it last month -- establish there is not consent here for the prohibition of its commerce.

According to the U.S. Justice Department's medical marijuana policy memorandum issued Oct. 19, the black market provides "significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises." So too did alcohol prohibition. The only constitutional policy toward marijuana consists of regulations and a level of taxation reasonable enough so that the people will generally send their money to the state rather than resorting to the black market in their pursuit of their subjective happiness.

Steven S. Epstein

Georgetown



URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n1010/a07.html
Newshawk: http://www.masscann.org/
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Thu, 5 Nov 2009
Source: Georgetown Record (MA)
Copyright: 2009 GateHouse Media, Inc.
Contact: georgetown@cnc.com
Website: http://www.wickedlocal.com/georgetown/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3519
Author: Steven S. Epstein

Thursday, November 05, 2009

LIES ABOUT MARIJUANA DRIVE PEOPLE TO A MUCH MORE HARMFUL DRUG -- BOOZE

Anti-Pot Propaganda Drives Most People to Drink Alcohol Instead. But Booze Is Far More Dangerous Than Marijuana.

Professor David Nutt didn't play the game. As the chief drug policy advisor in the British Government, an unspoken part of his job description was to help maintain a public fiction about marijuana - or cannabis, as it is known in the U.K. and other parts of the world. Specifically, he was expected to further the misperception of cannabis as a substance worthy of being classified and prohibited in a manner similar to more dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine.

He made a big mistake at the end of last month. In a lecture at King's College in London, he spoke honestly - and truthfully - about the fact that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and urged the government to factor the relative harms of substances into their policy-making. Moreover, he accused the British government of ignoring the evidence about the true harms of cannabis in order to reclassify the drug and increase penalties for possession.

Reacting with the logic and reason of pub patron after last call, Home Secretary Alan Johnson immediately demanded that Prof. Nutt resign as the head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. He said Prof Nutt had "crossed the line between offering advice and ... campaigning against the government on political decisions."

More accurately, Prof. Nutt crossed the line between deceiving citizens and being honest with them. The home secretary, a former member of Parliament, is no doubt comfortable with a little verbal jousting over public policy decisions. What he could not abide by was a top ranking official threatening the anti-cannabis mythology embraced at the very top level of government. Based on Nutt's fateful bout of truthfulness, Johnson said he had "lost confidence" in Nutt as an advisor.

In a letter to Professor Nutt, Mr. Johnson explained how the system is supposed to work. He said: "As Home Secretary it is for me to make decisions, having received advice from the [Council] ... It is important that the Government's messages on drugs are clear and as an adviser you do nothing to undermine the public understanding of them . I am afraid the manner in which you have acted runs contrary to your responsibilities."

The Home Secretary's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson put a similar spin on this hostile reaction to fact-based statements to the public. "These things are best sorted out behind the scenes," he said, "so that the government and their advisers can go to the public with a united front."

In the real world, what this means is that advisors are free to provide research or reports based on an honest assessment of the scientific evidence, but when this research is completely ignored in setting policy, they are expected to keep their mouths shut and move on as if nothing ever happened.

This is all part of the game the government plays in order to maintain marijuana prohibition. In the United States, there are many examples of significant advisory opinions related to marijuana being completely ignored - even where the opinions were part of a decision-making process that should have led to action by the federal government.

In 1970, Congress established the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse to study marijuana and make recommendations about how to control its use. The Commission's final report suggested removal of criminal penalties, noting, "The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior." President Nixon ignored the Commission's findings and launched and all-out war on marijuana users.

In 1988, Francis Young, an administrative law judge at the Drug Enforcement Administration ( DEA ), following hearings to determine whether marijuana should be placed into a less restrictive category under the Controlled Substances Act, wrote that marijuana should be moved from Schedule I ( the most restrictive category ) to Schedule II and it would be "unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious" to conclude otherwise. More than 20 years later, marijuana remains a Schedule I drug.

A recently as February 2007, an administrative law judge at the DEA issued an opinion concluding that it would be in the public interest for the agency to grant a license to the University of Massachusetts to grow a limited amount of marijuana to be used to study its potential therapeutic benefits. Faced with this seemingly rational opinion, the political powers at the DEA sat on it for nearly two years and then rejected it by formally denying the University the license in the very last days of the Bush administration.

Of course, ignoring fact- and evidence-based advice about marijuana is just one part of the game our government has played over the past four decades. It has also gone out of its way to promote and spread myths about the drug - from the "gateway" theory to marijuana's supposed connection to cancer to the notion that "potent pot" is somehow more dangerous than "your father's marijuana." Each one has been debunked or proven wrong or misleading, but there is no doubt that they have helped keep marijuana illegal.

Yet there is one myth more insidious than the rest. And it is one that is as devastating as it is subtle.

You see, whether intentional or not, the government's greatest achievement when it comes to keeping marijuana illegal has been its ability to convince a majority of Americans that marijuana is as harmful as, if not more harmful than, alcohol. By doing so, it has secured alcohol's place as the recreational substance of choice for the vast majority of the public.

Influenced by the government's anti-marijuana propaganda, a large segment of our population is comfortable with a system that bans the use of marijuana but allows - and even celebrates - the use of alcohol, despite the fact that alcohol is objectively far more harmful.

Let's consider just a few facts about the two substances. For starters, alcohol is far more toxic than marijuana. Just ten times the effective dose of alcohol can be fatal. Yet there has never been a recorded marijuana overdose death in history. The highly toxic nature of alcohol is also what leads to the all-too-frequent occurrences of nausea and vomiting from over-indulgence.

Over the long-term, alcohol consumption is also far more likely to lead to the death of the user. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, between 33,000 and 35,000 Americans die annually from the effects of alcohol. The comparable number for marijuana? Zero. The supposed cancer-causing properties of marijuana? Non-existent.

Perhaps most disturbingly, as almost anyone who has been exposed to the two substances could tell you, alcohol is far more likely to produce dangerous and socially destructive behavior. It is cited as a contributing factor in 25-30 percent of violent crimes in this country and in about 100,000 sexual assaults on college campuses annually. These kinds of negative associations simply don't exist with marijuana.

As mentioned at the beginning, facts like this were quite familiar to Professor Nutt. Even after his firing, he endeavored to spread the truth about the relative harms of marijuana and alcohol and urged parents to be especially wary of the one that posed the greatest potential for damage.

"The greatest concern to parents," he said, "should be that their children do not get completely off their heads with alcohol because it can kill them ... and it leads them to do things which are very dangerous, such as to kill themselves or others in cars, get into fights, get raped, and engage in other activities which they regret subsequently. My view is that, if you want to reduce the harm to society from drugs, alcohol is the drug to target at present."

Our nation's leaders might think this is a game, but it isn't. There are children and adults seriously suffering and even dying because of alcohol, and it is time our leaders started being honest and realistic about how it compares to marijuana - both in terms of public education and public policies. Neither propaganda nor policy should be used to steer adults - or teens, for that matter - toward alcohol instead of marijuana. This does not mean that marijuana is harmless; it simply means, and all of the evidence indicates, that it is less harmful than alcohol.

And no one should be fired for saying that.






URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n1010/a06.html
Newshawk: Kirk
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Mon, 9 Nov 2009
Source: AlterNet (US Web)
Copyright: 2009 Independent Media Institute
Website: http://www.alternet.org/
Author: Steve Fox
Note: Steve Fox is the director of state campaigns for the Marijuana
Policy Project and co-author of Marijuana Is Safer: So why are we
driving people to drink? (Chelsea Green, August 2009).

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

POT IS MORE MAINSTREAM THAN EVER, SO WHY IS LEGALIZATION STILL TABOO?

More members of Congress have publicly questioned whether President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii than have endorsed legalizing marijuana.

This comes despite the birth announcements printed in the Honolulu Advertiser in August 1961 and marijuana's deep inroads into the cultural mainstream.

Almost every voter under 65 in this country has either smoked cannabis or grew up with people who did. Among its erstwhile users are the last three presidents, one Supreme Court justice and the mayor of the nation's largest city. The pot leaf's image pervades popular culture, from Bob Marley T-shirts to billboards for Showtime's Weeds.

So why is actually legalizing it still considered a fringe issue? Why haven't more politicians -- especially the ones who inhaled -- come out and said, "Prohibition is absurd and criminal. Let's treat cannabis like alcohol"?

Allen St. Pierre, head of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, blames the hypocrisy of the "baby boomer elite." There are many people in Washington's political and media circles "who know the right end of a joint to light, but are too embarrassed to admit their knowledge," he says. There are members of Congress, he adds, who will greet him at a party with "Allen, got any weed?" but are afraid to go out on a limb for legalization.

Only two current members of Congress have openly advocated ending cannabis prohibition: Reps. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Ron Paul, R-Texas.

Even in a Congress inhabited by Republicans Tom "Lesbians Are Terrorizing Our High Schools" Coburn of Oklahoma and Michelle "Carbon Dioxide Is Natural, It Is Not Harmful" Bachmann of Minnesota, the left-liberal Kucinich and the libertarian-conservative Paul might be the two most widely derided as kooks.

A handful of others, such as Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., have given some indications that they would support legalization. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., has sponsored a bill to end federal penalties for possession of less than 100 grams, but has not explicitly endorsed making marijuana as legal as alcohol.

In contrast, Salon in July identified 17 members of Congress as "birther" sympathizers who had either openly questioned Obama's birth, co-sponsored a bill on the issue or refused to answer yes when asked if they believed he was a natural-born citizen. The 17 included Sens. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala.

St. Pierre particularly resents the way the media treat the issue as a joke, in which almost any headline has to include a bad pun on "doobie," "high" or "mellow."

It's deadly serious when more than 800,000 people a year are arrested for it, he argues. Obama's "chuckle," he says, was emblematic. When legalizing marijuana was the top issue cited by visitors to Obama's transition Web site, the president dismissed it with a joke implying that there must be a lot of stoned people on the Internet.

"It's still an issue people are giggling about, not taking seriously," says Noelle Davis, former head of Texans for Medical Marijuana.

State legislators who have sponsored marijuana-related bills say that the two biggest obstacles are fear and cultural stereotypes.

"Elected officials are largely very concerned about being labeled 'soft on drugs,'" says New York State Assemblyman Richard Gottfried. Gottfried, a Manhattan Democrat who sponsored the state's 1977 decriminalization law, has introduced several bills to legalize medical marijuana.

Polls have shown medical marijuana to have the support of 70 to 80 percent of New Yorkers, he says, but "many legislators are afraid to touch it."

Washington State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles says that many legislators, particularly in the state's more conservative rural areas, "buy into the cultural stereotypes about marijuana," such as the idea that it's a gateway to harder drugs.

The Seattle Democrat, who is sponsoring a bill to reduce the penalty for less than 40 grams of pot from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction, says that the state's prosecutors' support for legalizing medical marijuana gave conservatives political cover to vote for it but that law enforcement has largely opposed her decriminalization bill.

One reason for the lack of urgent political pressure, says Deborah Small of Break the Chains, is that the people most likely to get busted for pot are the ones who "don't have a political voice" -- young people of color from poor neighborhoods. In Atlanta, Baltimore and New York, which have among the highest marijuana-arrest rates in the nation, three-fourths of those popped are black or Latino and under 25, she points out. Adults and more affluent youths are largely safe from arrest, she adds.

Frontlines of the Debate

California is the one state where legalization is legitimately on the agenda. "Obama might have dismissed it, but we're having the most serious conversation in 35 years," says Quintin Mecke, spokesman for Assemblyman Tom Ammiano. Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat, is sponsoring a bill that would legalize marijuana in California. It would let people grow up to 10 plants for their own use and license commercial cultivation and sales, with a smoking age of 21 and a $50-an-ounce tax.

Hearings on the bill are scheduled for January. It would obviously conflict with federal law, but Mecke says, "the intent is to provoke a states' rights conversation A lot of folks are looking to California to push that issue."

Several factors make legalization politically possible in California, Mecke explains. First, it has had legally regulated medical marijuana for 13 years, and people have "seen that the sky did not fall. California may be in a fiscal crisis, but it's certainly not due to marijuana." Taxes and fees on cannabis could raise $1.4 billion in revenue for the cash-strapped state, the state Board of Equalization estimates. In addition, marijuana cultivation is an integral part of the local economy in many areas, especially the rural north.

"We're not expecting this to happen overnight," Mecke says. "But looking at the poll numbers, it will happen."

A Gallup poll conducted in early October backs that prediction. It found 44 percent of the people surveyed supporting legal marijuana, with 54 percent against. In contrast, previous surveys showed Americans rejecting legalization 73 percent to 23 percent in 1985 and 64 percent to 31 percent in 2000.

An overwhelming majority of liberals supported it, as did more than half of Westerners, Democrats and people under 50. Opposition was strongest among Republicans, conservatives and people over 65, but even in those groups, more than a quarter backed legalization.

"Public mores on legalization of marijuana have been changing this decade and are now at their most tolerant in at least 40 years," the Gallup organization stated. "If public support were to continue growing at a rate of 1 to 2 percentage points per year, as it has since 2000, the majority of Americans could favor legalization of the drug in as little as four years."

Disconnect Between the Country and Its Capital

There is a "huge disconnect" between the corridors of power in Washington and the rest of America on marijuana, contends St. Pierre.

Today, even the hardest-line prohibitionists rarely argue that people should go to jail for possession. In Washington, says Kohl-Welles, police and prosecutors claimed that decriminalization would be unnecessary because they don't put a lot of resources into making such minor arrests.

In New York, where Mayor Michael "You Bet I Did -- And I Enjoyed It" Bloomberg has continued Rudolph Giuliani's war on pot smokers, a police department spokesperson tried to convince reporters that there was no such crackdown, because the number of summonses issued for marijuana possession declined over the last decade. ( Having less than 25 grams carries only a $100 fine under state law, but possession in public is a misdemeanor. New York City police have been arresting more than 40,000 people a year on that charge, mostly young black and Latino men. )

Liberal politicians who believe that the laws are too harsh but don't want to take the risk of siding with stoners often support decriminalization as a middle ground. Decriminalization has definitely been an improvement -- as Gottfried points out, it's made the difference between spending a night in jail and a year in prison for having a small bag of pot -- but it is actually a harsher regime than alcohol Prohibition was. Under Prohibition, home winemaking and medical use of alcohol were legal, and people could keep liquor acquired before the law went into effect in 1920. ( The New York governor's mansion had one such stash of booze, and the Yale Club in Manhattan stockpiled a 14-year supply. )

Obama's Oct. 19 guidelines that federal prosecutors not pursue medical-marijuana cases in states where it's legal are encouraging. On the other hand, like so much in Obama's tenure, they might also be far more symbolic than real. They contain enough wiggle room to permit federal aid to local prosecutors who go after medical marijuana, such as Steve Cooley in Los Angeles.

In general, Obama's positions have evolved in a typically hypocritical manner. He endorsed decriminalization when he was an Illinois state legislator campaigning on a college campus, but he now states flatly that he does not support legalization -- although he wrote in his autobiography that while pot didn't solve your problems, "it could at least help you laugh at the world's ongoing folly and see through all the bullshit and cheap moralism." ( There are photos of Obama as a straw-hatted college student, smoking an ambiguous cigarette with his thumb and forefinger and looking blissfully slit-eyed. )

"Legalization is not in the president's vocabulary, and it is not in mine," federal drug czar Gil Kerlikowske has reiterated, although he is relatively liberal on other drug issues.

According to St. Pierre, the staff of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., specifically warned the pot-legalization movement not to pressure the Obama administration or congressional Democrats because they were preoccupied with the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and health care. The message, he says, was "We are not going to advance this issue, and you need to cut us some slack."

Change You Can Put in Your Pipe

What can be done? What would change the political climate to enable a reasonable discussion of legalizing and regulating marijuana?

Deborah Small says it would take a society that cared about black and Latino youth instead of criminalizing them in the name of "quality of life" policing.

Politicians talk about keeping young people in school and getting them jobs, but then they support "policing tactics guaranteed to bring them into the criminal-justice system for relatively minor offenses." If Obama had been busted for pot when he was a young man, she asks, would he be president today? "Certainly not."

She finds it remarkable that the hip-hop generation that emerged after the crack epidemic of the late '80s eschewed hard drugs in favor of marijuana -- and the system responded by arresting them more, with policies that rewarded large numbers of petty-possession busts.

Kohl-Welles says legalizing cannabis would take a critical mass of legislators, and that budget issues might help create the climate for that. Gottfried says that it will take "very strong public support for it to become part of mainstream debate, let alone pass the Legislature."

To win that support, St. Pierre says, the legalization movement needs to sustain grassroots activism and become more multiracial instead of being almost all-white and mainly male. Advancing legalization would also need the support of charismatic politicians early in their careers, as "it's impossible to flip a 50- or 60-year-old alpha male in Washington."

Another danger, he says, is politicians who modify their positions to suit their ambitions. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, he notes, was an early and "full-throated" supporter of medical marijuana, but is now running for governor of California and opposes legalization.

In Texas, says Noelle Davis, activists face the daunting task of trying to persuade legislators in the Republican majority -- and the primary voters who elect them. This would require educating them about the safety of marijuana versus alcohol and the economic benefits that cannabis cultivation and sales could bring to the state.

One largely overlooked issue in Texas, she says, is drug violence on the border. Infighting among rival smuggling gangs has claimed hundreds of lives in the Mexican cities of Nuevo Laredo, just across the river from Laredo, and Juarez, across from El Paso.

For all the hype about potent domestic homegrown, commercial-grade Mexican dominates the cheaper end of the cannabis market, and "a lot of marijuana comes up IH-35," from Laredo through San Antonio, Austin and Dallas.

"We're still putting our hands over our ears and saying 'la-la-la,' " she says. "If marijuana were legal on a federal level, it would dramatically reduce the deaths associated with the drug trade."

Meanwhile, she says, the "silent majority" of pot smokers has to overcome their fear and get vocal. "When I was circulating a petition for medical marijuana, often people would giggle and say 'I'm not putting my name on a list,' " she recalls. "Don't be afraid of your legislator. Take time and build a relationship."

St. Pierre agrees. "We have not achieved the political legitimacy of the gay and lesbian community," he concludes. "As long as 0.1 percent of cannabis consumers are involved with their own liberation, reform is unlikely." If just 1 percent of the nation's estimated 36 million pot smokers would get involved, he says, that would be a constituency of 360,000 activists.

Legalizing cannabis may not be as life-and-death an issue as health care, global warming or the war in Afghanistan, but it is not a frivolous cause. Not any more than repealing Prohibition was in the depths of the Depression.

When the nation is mired in an economic and environmental crisis, why should we waste lives and money enforcing repressive, racist and crime-creating laws? In May 1932, thousands of people marched in the streets of New York, Detroit and other cities to demand the legalization of beer. They carried signs reading "We Want Beer and We Will Pay the Tax" and "We Want Beer but We Also Want Jobs."

Later that summer, the Democratic party, battered for being "wet" in the previous presidential election, endorsed the repeal of Prohibition. On Dec. 5, 1933, the 21st Amendment went into effect, and Americans could legally drink again.

Of course, there was a fanatical former Prohibition official named Harry Anslinger, who had recently become head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics -- and was looking for a new way to advance his career.






URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n983/a07.html
Newshawk: Kirk
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Thu, 29 Oct 2009
Source: AlterNet (US Web)
Copyright: 2009 Independent Media Institute
Website: http://www.alternet.org/
Author: Steven Wishnia
Note: Steven Wishnia is a New York-based journalist and musician. The author of Exit 25 Utopia and The Cannabis Companion, he has won two New York City Independent Press Association awards for his coverage of housing issues. He is looking for a job.

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

LAWMAKERS HEAR HOW FORFEITURE LAWS WORK IN THEORY, IN REALITY

After hearing hours of testimony Thursday about how state forfeiture laws are supposed to work, many legislators had vanished by the time two citizens spoke of their problems after police seized their property.

One of them was Terrance Frelix Sr., 34, of Minneapolis. He and a business partner owned some properties and were running behind on a mortgage in 2006, Frelix testified at a hearing. His partner borrowed $4,000 and had just given Frelix the money when a Metro Gang Strike Force officer took them in for questioning.

Police released them without charging them with a crime. The strike force later informed Frelix they were forfeiting the cash and Frelix's truck.

Frelix had been outside his vehicle when police swooped in and -- unbeknownst to him, he said -- a relative was smoking a marijuana joint inside. Police said the small amount of marijuana was the reason they were forfeiting the property.

Frelix went to court but hasn't gotten his property back. He said he's still out the $4,000, plus $3,500 in attorney's fees. His truck is gone, along with the property management equipment inside.

"Even to this day, I'm still frustrated," he said after Thursday's hearing.

Earlier in the hearing, legislators had been walked through flow charts and other documents explaining how the state's forfeiture laws work.

After hearing Frelix's account, Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, said the information about what was happening on the streets was "nowhere near what happens on the flow chart."

Thursday marked the fourth joint legislative committee hearing held in the wake of the Metro Gang Strike Force's demise.

An independent review of the now-defunct strike force, released in August, found some officers seized money and property from people never accused of a crime, then took the property for personal use. The FBI is investigating.

The August report said some gang strike force members felt they needed to obtain forfeiture funds to keep the multi-agency task force running after its budget was cut.

The review panel recommended the Legislature "examine whether Minnesota's current forfeiture statute should be revised to provide more protections against the type of conduct described in this report." Legislators heard about how the law works, but Thursday's hearing wasn't intended to cover suggested changes.

In basic terms, under state law, police can seize all money, guns, cars, "precious metals, and precious stones" found in proximity to drugs, drug manufacturing or distribution operations. The property can be seized without drug-or gang-related criminal charges filed against the owner.

The law requires property owners be notified within 60 days of their right to try to get their property back through "judicial determination." If the owner files no claim within that time, the property is considered unclaimed and it's forfeited.

A legislative auditor's report on the gang strike force released in May found the gang unit couldn't document that it had served seizure notices in 202 of 545 cash seizures that auditors tested. Frelix told legislators he wasn't initially served notice and that his attorney had to discover where his property was.

Because it is a civil statute, citizens who challenge forfeiture must prove they acquired the property through legal means.

Police and prosecutors told legislators Thursday about safeguards they take to ensure property is properly seized and forfeited.

Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, questioned whether the forfeiture laws needed to be changed if law enforcement is given proper training and current statutes are followed.

"Do we need to overhaul everything?" asked Cornish, who is the Lake Crystal police chief.

Stearns County Sheriff John Sanner said, "If there are officers that are misusing these tools ... either intentionally or unintentionally, they have got to be held accountable because it's a black eye for everyone in law enforcement."

But he continued by asking legislators to consider that the "overwhelming majority of task forces" are doing things correctly and said sweeping legislative reform would be "unwarranted and damaging."

One problem with the administrative forfeiture process, as was evidenced by the problems with the Metro Gang Strike Force, is it "puts too much authority and too much discretion into the hands of
law enforcement  officers," said Howard Bass, American Civil Liberties
of Minnesota board member. Because there are no real checks and
balances, "this creates a potential for abuse," he said.

Because forfeitures are a civil matter, public defenders aren't assigned to such cases. Many people can't afford to hire private attorneys; if they can, attorneys' fees can "vastly ... exceed" the value of property taken, Bass said.






URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n982/a06.html
Newshawk: Herb
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Thu, 29 Oct 2009
Source: St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN)
Copyright: 2009 St. Paul Pioneer Press
Contact: letters@pioneerpress.com
Website: http://www.twincities.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/379
Author: Mara H. Gottfried
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)