January 2012 marks the beginning of a new legislative session in all 50 states. Already, marijuana law reform legislation is pending (or has been pre-filed) in nearly a dozen states. To keep up to date with what’s pending, and how you can support marijuana-friendly reform measures in your state, please visit NORML’s ‘Take Action Center’ here.

You can also stay abreast of 2012 statewide ballot initiative efforts, such as those ongoing in Colorado and elsewhere, via NORML’s Legalize 2012 Facebook page here.

Below is this week’s edition of NORML’s Weekly Legislative Round Up — where we spotlight specific examples of pending marijuana law reform legislation from around the country.

** A note to first time readers: NORML can not introduce legislation in your state. Nor can any other non-profit advocacy organization. Only your state representatives, or in some cases an individual constituent (by way of their representative; this is known as introducing legislation ‘by request’) can do so. NORML can — and does — work closely with like-minded politicians and citizens to reform marijuana laws, and lobbies on behalf of these efforts. But ultimately the most effective way — and the only way — to successfully achieve statewide marijuana law reform is for local stakeholders and citizens to become involved in the political process and to make the changes they want to see. Get active; get NORML!

ARIZONA: Legislation has been reintroduced to defelonize marijuana possession penalties in Arizona. House Bill 2044 amends state law so that the adult possession of up to one ounce of marijuana is reduced from a potential felony (punishable by 1.5 years in prison and a $150,000 fine) to a “petty offense” punishable by no more than a $500 fine. You can contact your state House member in support of this measure here.

CALIFORNIA: State lawmakers have until January 27 to act on a pair of 2011 marijuana reform measures. Assembly Bill 1017 would reduce penalties for marijuana cultivation from a mandatory felony to a “wobbler” or optional misdemeanor. Senate Bill 129 makes it unlawful “for an employer to discriminate against” persons who are authorized under state law to use medical cannabis. You can learn more about these important measures by visiting the California NORML website here. You can read my testimony in favor of SB 129 here.

INDIANA: For the first time in recent memory, legislation has been introduced to ‘decriminalize’ marijuana possession penalties in Indiana. Senate Bill 347 amends state law so that the adult possession of up to three ounces of marijuana is reduced from a potential felony (punishable by up to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine) to a noncriminal infraction. Senate Bill 347 also amends Indiana’s traffic safety code to halt the prosecution of motorists who test positive for the presence of inactive marijuana metabolites in their urine (so-called zero tolerance per se legislation) but who do not otherwise manifest any other evidence of behavioral impairment. Indianans are strongly encouraged to contact their state Senators in support of SB 347 via NORML’s ‘Take Action Center’ here.

NEW JERSEY: A coalition of lawmakers have pre-filed legislation for introduction in the 2012 session to significantly reduce penalties for those who possess personal use quantities of marijuana. Assembly Bill 1465 removes criminal penalties for the possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana (presently punishable by up to six-months in prison and a $1,000 fine) and replaces them with civil penalties punishable by no more than a $150 fine. Additional information is available from NORML NJ here or via NORML’s ‘Take Action Center’ here.

VIRGINIA: Legislation seeking to establish a joint study committee to investigate the fiscal impact of regulating the production and sale of marijuana to adults 21 and over is before the Virginia House of Delegates. To learn more about House Joint Resolution 140, please visit Virginia NORML or consider contacting your state officials here.

To be in contact with your state officials regarding these measures and other pending legislation, please visit NORML’s ‘Take Action Center’ here.

Nearly 14 months after Arizona voters approved Proposition 203, the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), Republican Gov. Jan Brewer is finally directing the Arizona Department of Health Services to move forward to fully implementation the law.

A brief history: In November 2010 Arizona voters narrowly decided in favor of ballot measure 203, which removes state-level criminal penalties for the use and possession of up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana by patients who have written certification from their physician indicating that cannabis may alleviate their condition. The measure also mandated the state to adopt rules to govern the establishment of up to 125 nonprofit cannabis dispensaries, which would be legally authorized to produce and dispense marijuana to authorized patients on a not-for-profit basis.

In April 2011, the Arizona Department of Health Services formalized rules regarding an online ID-card registration for qualified patients. (More than 16,000 Arizona residents are now registered with the state to legally possess cannabis.) The Department also announced at that time that it would begin accepting applications from would-be dispensary operators by June 1. That deadline came and went, however, when Gov. Brewer — who had opposed the passage of AMMA — filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that her administration’s compliance with the law’s state-licensing provisions would put state employees in danger of federal prosecution. In response to Gov. Brewer’s suit, attorneys representing the American Civil Liberties Union and the NORML Legal Committee co-authored a Motion to Dismiss the case.

Their efforts were successful. Earlier this month, a federal judge rejected Gov. Brewer’ challenge, asserting “[T]he Complaint does not detail any history of prosecution of state employees for participation in state medical marijuana licensing schemes. [and] fails to establish that Plaintiffs are subject to a genuine threat of imminent prosecution and consequently, the Complaint does not meet the constitutional requirements for ripeness. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ claims are unripe and must be dismissed.”

So, has Gov. Brewer finally gotten the message? Apparently so.

Today, Brewer’s office stated for the record that they would no longer challenge the state’s nascent law in court and instead will cooperate to see that the voters’ demands are once and for all fully enacted. Said the Governor in a press release:

“The State of Arizona will not re-file in federal court a lawsuit that sought clarification that State employees would not be subject to federal criminal prosecution simply for implementing the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. Instead, I have directed the Arizona Department of Health Services to begin accepting and processing dispensary applications, and issuing licenses for those facilities once a (separate) pending legal challenge to the Department’s medical marijuana rules is resolved. … With our request for clarification rebuffed on procedural grounds by the federal court, I believe the best course of action now is to complete the implementation of Proposition 203 in accordance with the law.”

According to the website of the Arizona Department of Health, the department hopes to begin accepting applications for dispensaries this summer. To date, only three states — Colorado, Maine, and New Mexico — have granted licenses to allow for the state-sanctioned production and distribution of cannabis. (Several other states, including Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont, have enacted licensing legislation but to date have refused to issue any actual dispensary licenses.)

Under Arizona law, qualified patients may cultivate their own cannabis at home if they do not reside within 25 miles of an operating cannabis dispensary.

Additional information regarding Arizona’s medicinal cannabis program is available from the Arizona Department of Health Services here.

In December I blogged about rumors that the Obama Justice Department was finalizing plans to expand its recent crackdown on medical cannabis producers and providers to include state-licensed facilities in Colorado. Today, the federal government made good on its threats.

According to numerous media reports, federal authorities today issued warning letters to 23 state-licensed dispensaries in Colorado stating that “action will be taken to seize and forfeit their property” if they continue operating within 1,000 feet of a school. The letters, sent by U.S. Attorney John Walsh, say that the dispensaries have 45 days from today to close shop or face federal sanction.

It states, in part:

“Federal law prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. … (This) dispensary is operating in violation of federal law, and the department of Justice has the authority to enforce federal law even when such activities may be permitted under state law. Persons … who operate or facilitate the operation of such dispensaries are subject to criminal prosecution and civil enforcement actions under federal law. Moreover, because the dispensary is operating within 1,000 feet of a school, enhanced federal penalties apply.

… This letter … constitutes formal notice that action will be taken to seize and forfeit (your) property if you do not cause the sale and/or distribution of marijuana and marijuana-infused substances at (this) location to be discontinued.”

While the federal government in recent months has utilized similar tactics to close down cannabis providers in California and has also coordinated DEA-led raids of dispensaries in other states, most notably in Washington and Montana, today’s efforts mark the first time that the federal authorities have specifically targeted facilities that are operating explicitly under a state license. (To date, only officials in the states of Colorado, Maine, and New Mexico have formally issued licenses to authorized cannabis providers.) It is estimated that that some 700 state licensed dispensaries are presently operating in Colorado.

Once again, the federal government’s actions belie the administration’s claim that it only intends to target those medical cannabis operators that “use marijuana in a way that’s not consistent with the state statute.” In this case, the operations in question were grandfathered in under local or state regulations. They are acting in compliance with state law and explicitly with the state’s permission.

Nonetheless, the imprimatur of the state apparently carries little if any weight with the Obama administration, whose first priority in Colorado appears to be matters of zoning enforcement.

Legislating medical marijuana operations and prosecuting those who act in a manner that is inconsistent with state law and voters’ sentiment should be a responsibility left to the state and local officials, not the federal government. It is time for this administration to fulfill the assurances it gave to the medical cannabis community and to respect the decisions of voters and lawmakers in states that recognize its therapeutic efficacy.

Exposure to cannabis smoke, even over the long-term, is not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function. That’s the conclusion of a major clinical trial published today in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Investigators at the University of California, San Francisco analyzed the association between marijuana exposure and pulmonary function over a 20 year period in a cohort of 5,115 men and women in four US cities.

Predictably, researchers “confirmed the expected reductions in FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration) and FVC (forced vital capacity)” in tobacco smokers. By contrast, “Marijuana use was associated with higher FEV1 and FVC at the low levels of exposure typical for most marijuana users. With up to 7 joint-years of lifetime exposure (eg, 1 joint/d for 7 years or 1 joint/wk for 49 years), we found no evidence that increasing exposure to marijuana adversely affects pulmonary function.”

The study concludes, “Our findings suggest that occasional use of marijuana … may not be associated with adverse consequences on pulmonary function.”

To those familiar with the science of cannabis, JAMA’s findings should come as no great surprise. They are consistent with previous findings reporting no significant decrease in pulmonary function associated with moderate cannabis smoke exposure. For instance, according to a 2007 literature review conducted by researchers at the Yale University School of Medicine and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine (and summarized by NORML here), cannabis smoke exposure is not associated airflow obstruction (emphysema), as measured by airway hyperreactivity, forced expiratory volume, or other measures.

Further, in 2006, the results of the largest case-controlled study ever to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking reported that cannabis use was not associated with lung-related cancers, even among subjects who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints over their lifetime. (Read NORML’s summary of this study here.)

“We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use,” the study’s lead researcher, Dr. Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles stated. “What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect” among marijuana smokers who had lower incidences of cancer compared to non-users.

A previous 1997 retrospective cohort study consisting of 64,855 examinees in the Kaiser Permanente multiphasic health checkup in San Francisco and Oakland also reported, “[E]ver- and current use of marijuana were not associated with increased risk of cancer … of the following sites: colorectal, lung, melanoma, prostate, breast, cervix.”

Separate studies of cannabis smoke and pulmonary function have indicated that chronic exposure may be associated with an increased risk of certain respiratory complications, including cough, bronchitis, phlegm. However, the ingestion of cannabis via alternative methods such as edibles, liquid tinctures, or via vaporization — a process whereby the plant’s cannabinoids are heated to the point of vaporization but below the point of combustion –- virtually eliminates consumers’ exposure to such unwanted risk factors and has been determined to be a ‘safe and effective’ method of ingestion in clinical trial settings.

As we approach the middle of January, Election 2012 is in full swing. Fresh off of the Iowa Caucuses, the six remaining Republican candidates move on to New Hampshire for their January 10th primary. As a non-profit organization, we are not permitted to endorse candidates for public office, but we hope this guide helps inform you of the marijuana policy positions of the various candidates.

(Note: NORML is not endorsing any of the candidates listed below and this is intended only as an educational overview of the candidates positions on marijuana policy.)

Republican Presidential Candidates 2012

Mitt Romney

Governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007)

Public Statements:

“People talk about medicinal marijuana, and, you know, you hear that story: People who are sick need medicinal marijuana. But marijuana is the entry drug for people trying to get kids hooked on drugs. I don’t want medicinal marijuana. There are synthetic forms of marijuana that are available for people who need it for prescription. Don’t open the doorway to medicinal marijuana.” 

(“Ask Mitt Anything” Event in Bedford, NH 2007 – source)

 

“We’ve got to not only continue our war on drugs from a police standpoint but also to market again to our young people about the perils of drugs.”

(New Hampshire Voter Event, August 17, 2011 – source)

 

“I believe marijuana should be illegal in this country. It is the pathway to drug usage by our society, which has made great scourges; it is one of the great causes of crime in our cities. I believe if we are at a state were, of course we are very concerned about people who are suffering in pain, and there are various means of providing pain management. And those who have had loved ones that have gone through an end of life with cancer know nature of real pain. I watched my wife’s mom and dad going through cancer treatments suffering a great deal of pain, but they didn’t have marijuana, and they didn’t need marijuana. Because there were other sources of pain management that worked as effectively.”

(Oct. 4 2007 at St. Anselm’s College, Manchester, NH – source)

 

“But having legalized [medical] marijuana is, in my view, an effort by a very committed few to try to get marijuana out in the public and ultimately legalize marijuana. They have a long way to go. We need less drugs in this society, not more drugs. I would oppose the legalization of marijuana in the country or legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes because pain management is available from other sources.”

(Oct. 4 2007 at St. Anselm’s College, Manchester, NH – source)

 

UPDATED 01/09/12:

“Q: I want to know what you thought about industrialized hemp?

Romney: About what?

Q: Industrialized hemp.

Romney: Industrialized hemp? I’m not quite sure what industrialized hemp is.”

(Peterborough, NH Town Hall on January 5, 2012 – source)

 

“Q: Are you in favor of arresting medical marijuana patients?

Romney: I’m in favor of the law not allowing legal marijuana.”

(Tilton School Meet and Greet on January 6, 2012 – source)

 

Prior Activity: None

 

Ron Paul

House of Representatives for Texas’ 22nd (1976-1977, 1979-1985, 1997-Present)

Public Statements:

“This war on drugs has been a detriment to personal liberty and it’s been a real abuse of liberty, Our prisons are full with people who have used drugs who should be treated as patients — and they’re non-violent. Someday we’re gonna awake and find out that the prohibition we are following right now with drugs is no more successful, maybe a lot less successful, than the prohibition of alcohol was in the ’20s.”

(Comments Post-Iowa Caucus, 01/04/12 – source)

 

“Well, removing [marijuana] from the jurisdiction of the federal government and allowing the states to regulate it, like they would alcohol. And this seems to be strange for a lot of people, but I’m only going back to 1937 when that’s the way it was handled. The states always did this, and I’m motivated strongly also because the states legalize it for the use of medicinal purposes and it is helpful to people who have cancer or are getting chemotherapy. So this is not a huge radical idea, it’s something that was legal for a long, long time. And the war against marijuana causes so much hardship and accomplishes nothing. So I would say that marijuana, as far as causing highway problems, is miniscule compared to alcohol, and yet we knew prohibition of alcohol was very bad. So this is just getting back to a sensible position on how we handle difficult problems. And, for me, it should be the states.”

(Kudlow Report, June 23, 2011 - source)

 

“The role of the federal government is to protect our liberties. That means they should protect our religious liberties to do what we want; our intellectual liberty, but it also should protect our right to do to our body what we want, you know, what we take into our bodies.”

(Jay Leno Show, Dec. 2011 – source)

 

UPDATED 01/12/12

“Q: Why don’t the other candidates talk about drug policy?

Ron Paul: I think they are easily intimidated and they think people are going to hold it against them if they talk sensibly about drug policy.  Yet I think they are about 20 years behind the time. I think prohibition of anything doesn’t work, the only thing we should prohibit is violence.”

(Manchester, NH January 10, 2012 – source)

Prior Activity:

Co-sponsored HR 2306: Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011

Sponsored HR 1831: Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011

 

Rick Santorum

House of Representatives for Pennsylvania’s 18th District (1991-1995)

US Senator from Pennsylvania (1995-2007)

 

Public Statements:

“There is a difference between legitimate issues of character — someone’s behavior — and the issue of whether someone who has done something wrong in their life, now because of those mistakes, can’t talk about what is the right thing to do. Politicians who have stumbled personally, are capable of making values-based arguments. I don’t think that’s hypocritical. That’s a dangerous line that many folks tend to cross over — that because you made a mistake, you can’t talk about this or that issue. We all make mistakes.

For example, I smoked pot when I was in college. Does that mean that I can’t talk about drug use? Does that mean that I can’t talk about how that’s a bad thing? Of course not. You learn from those experiences.

Even during that time, I knew that what I was doing was wrong. But just because I failed, that does not mean that I shouldn’t be able to talk about it. That’s a different issue. It’s not hypocrisy, as long as you don’t say, ‘I thought it was right, and now think it was wrong.’ If you knew what was going on, and mostpeople do, you have moments of weakness. It happens to all of us. But that should not deter people from talking about what they believe is right.”

(National Review, March 2011 – source)

 

“Well, yeah, I admitted you know, back when I was running for the Senate, that when I was in college that I smoked pot and that was something that I did when I was in college. It was something that I’m not proud of, but I did. And said it was something that I wish I hadn’t done. But I did and I admitted it. I would encourage people not to do so. It was not all it’s made up to be.”
(Piers Morgan Tonight, August 31st, 2011 – source)

 

“I would think that [legalizing marijuana] would be an activity that is not consistent with American values.”
(Ames Straw Poll, September 2011 – source)

 

“I am adamantly opposed to the legalization of marijuana and other illegal narcotics I believe that this would lead to increased drug usage, especially among young people. While it is true that many Americans blatantly defy federal laws against the trafficking, sale, and use of illegal drugs, I believe a greater number of people are deterred from illegal drug use by the threat of arrest and prosecution.”

(1998 Constituent Letter Supplied to NORML – source)

 

“I believe that the drugs which are currently illegal should remain illegal. I am committed to maintaining the federal government’s role in the “war on drugs”, which is fought on many fronts by federal agents, local law enforcement, substance abuse counselors, teachers, parents, and concerned citizens.”

(1998 Constituent Letter Supplied to NORML – source)

 

UPDATED 01/09/12:

“Q: As a champion of family values and keeping America strong, would you continue to destroy families by sending non-violent drug offenders to prison?

Santorum: Uh, wow. The federal government doesn’t do that.”

(College Convention 2012 in Concord, NH – source)

 

“Santorum: I guess I would take the opinion that federal laws are laws that are in place right now that say these are narcotics, right?  I don’t know, I assume they are…

 Audience Member: I’m sorry, they’re not.

 Santorum: Ok, alright, I don’t know my medical marijuana laws very well. I know should know everything, but I don’t, I apologize, I’m trying my best. But I think they are a hazardous thing to society. So I would..

 Audience Member: How did you form that opinion?

 Santorum: I formed that opinion from my own life experiences, and having experience that…I went to college too. So, I would make the argument that states have the rights, but they don’t have the right to do anything they want to, states don’t have the right to sterilize people. They did at one time, but we said, “No, we aren’t going to do that anymore.” States under the constitution probably have the right to do it, just like they have the right to do marijuana laws…legally, but I don’t think they morally have the right to do things that are harmful to the people in their community and therefore I think the federal government should step in.”

(College Convention 2012 in Concord, NH – source)

 

“Q: I’m a marijuana user should I be arrested?

Santorum: Well, depends on what the laws in your state are, I guess.”

(Hollis, NH on January 7, 2012 – source)

 

“Well you know, obviously state drug laws are the principle drug laws. I have concerns about obviously drug use and its impact on our society. So, I would say that the federal government does have a role, that states don’t go out and legalize drugs, there are drugs that are hazardous to people, that do cause great harm to both the individual as well as to society as a whole. The federal government has a role to make sure that those drugs are not in this country and not available and that people who use them illegally are held accountable. Ideally, states should enforce these laws, but the federal government has a role because it is a public health issue for the country.”

(Nashua, NH on January 9, 2012 – source)

Prior Activity:

Voted ‘Yes’ on HR 3540 in 1996 to add an additional $53 million (raising the total to $213 million) to international narcotics control funding, and pay for it by taking $25 million from international operations funding and $28 million from development assistance.

 

Newt Gingrich

House of Representatives for Georgia’s 5th District (1979-1999)

House Minority Whip (1989-1995)

Speaker of the House (1995-1999)

Public Statements:

“I think Jefferson or George Washington would have rather strongly discouraged you from growing marijuana and their techniques with dealing with it would have been rather more violent than our current government.”

(New Hampshire Voter Event, January 2012 – source)

 

“I would continue current federal policy, largely because of the confusing signal that steps towards legalization sends to harder drugs…I think the California experience is that medical marijuana becomes a joke. It becomes marijuana for any use. You find local doctors who will prescribe it for anybody that walks in.”

(Yahoo! News Interview, November 28th, 2011 – source)

 

“I don’t have a comprehensive view. My general belief is that we ought to be much more aggressive about drug policy. And that we should recognize that the Mexican cartels are funded by Americans. In my mind it means having steeper economic penalties and it means having a willingness to do more drug testing.”

(Yahoo! News Interview, November 28th, 2011 - source)

“I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.

It has always struck me that if you’re serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting–I don’t think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long-term policy.”

(Yahoo! News Interview, November 28th, 2011 - source)

UPDATED 01/09/12

“Q: I’m a recreational drug user, should I arrested?

Gingrich: No you shouldn’t be arrested, but you also shouldn’t do it.”

(January 4, 2012 at Concord, NH Town Hall Meeting – source)

 

“Gingrich: There is a general belief over the last couple hundred years that people who are drug addicted citizens are not capable of participating as independent citizens. They are not capable of exercising independent judgment. So if you look at cocaine and heroin addicts, they loose the ability to be fully participating citizens.

Q: That doesn’t seem to match with the consistency of how many people seem to use drugs in this country. So, I’m saying well over the majority of individuals in this country use or have used drugs, what you are saying is the majority of individuals are incapable of participating…

Gingrich: No, what I’m saying is even among the majority of those who have would agree they shouldn’t be legalized.

Q: What polls are you referring to?

Gingrich: The polls in terms of legalizing heroin and cocaine, there’s never been any support for that.

Q: Oh, well I’m talking about marijuana.

Gingrich: Well…I’m just talking about cocaine and heroin.”

(Gingrich Town Hall in Concord, NH, January 4, 2012 – source)

 

UPDATED 01/12/12

“Every place where drugs become legalized, matter of fact is more people on welfare, more people who are dependent, more people with bad health outcomes, fewer people who are able workers who can pay attention on the job, and a drain of money into illegality.  Because immediately behind legalized marijuana, comes cocaine and heroin. And the very people who were busy selling marijuana branch into even more aggressive sale of the harder illegal drugs.  So, I think it is a big net economic loss and a job killing idea.”

(Florida, 2009 – source)

Prior Activity: Introduced and Sponsored the Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996

Rick Perry

House of Representatives from Texas’ 64th District (1985-1991)

Lt. Governor of Texas (1999-2001)

Governor of Texas (2000-Present)

Public Statements:

“Crucial to understanding federalism in modern-day America is the concept of mobility, or “the ability to vote with your feet.” If you don’t support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don’t come to Texas. If you don’t like medicinal marijuana and gay marriage, don’t move to California….”
(“Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America From Washington” by Rick Perry)

“When the federal government oversteps its authority, states should tell Washington they will not be complicit in enforcing laws with which they do not agree. Again, the best example is an issue I don’t even agree with—the partial legalization of marijuana. Californians clearly want some level of legalized marijuana, be it for medicinal use or otherwise. The federal government is telling them they cannot. But states are not bound to enforce federal law, and the federal government cannot commandeer state resources and require them to enforce it.”
(“Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America From Washington” by Rick Perry)

 

“[If] you want to go somewhere where you can smoke medicinal weed, then you ought to be able to do that.”

(Daily Show Interview, November 2010 – source)

 

“We can win the war on drugs but we have to fight it first. I know, I have to deal with this.”

(Republican Jewish Coalition 2012 Presidential Candidates Forum – source)

 

“The Governor does not support legalizing any drug. The Governor supports federal drug laws where appropriate. And while the Governor is personally opposed to legalizing the use of medical marijuana, if states want to allow doctor prescribed medical marijuana, it seems to him that under the 10th amendment, they have the right to do so.”

(Perry Spokesman Mike Miner to the Washington Post – source)

Prior Activity: None

 

Jon Huntsman

Governor of Utah (2005-2009)

US Ambassador to China (2009-2011)

Public Statements:

“Question: would you prosecute growers and sellers of marijuana in states where it has been made legal?

Jon Huntsman: I would let states decide that.”

(Townhall in Exeter, NH, June 2011 – source)

 

“I never saw him inhale.”

(Huntsman’s Childhood Friend in Politico – source)

Prior Activity: None

Gatewood Galbraith – a prominent Kentucky attorney, longtime cannabis activist, and perennial candidate for various state and federal offices – died in his sleep Tuesday evening as a result of complications from asthma and chronic emphysema. He was 64 years old.

[Listen to NORML SHOW LIVE's interview with Gatewood Galbraith - December 3, 2010]

Galbraith was widely known as an outspoken advocate for legalizing cannabis, particularly the non-psychoactive variety of the plant. While campaigning for public office, Galbraith typically wore suits made from hemp fiber and sometimes traveled in a station wagon fueled by hemp oil. He also formerly served on NORML’s Board of Directors.

Galbraith ran five times for governor — three times as a Democrat, once on the Reform ticket and last year as an independent. He also campaigned unsuccessfully for state agriculture commissioner, attorney general and Congress.

In 2006, Galbraith published his autobiography, “The Last Free Man in America.” He was also recently featured in the documentary film, “A NORML Life.”

Several notable state politicians – including Gov. Steve Beshear, House Speaker Greg Stumbo, and US Senator Mitch McConnell – released public statements lamenting Galbraith’s sudden passing.

Said Beshear: “(Galbraith) was a gutsy, articulate and passionate advocate who never shied away from a challenge or potential controversy. His runs for office prove he was willing to do more than just argue about the best direction for the state — he was willing to serve, and was keenly interested in discussing issues directly with our citizens. He will be missed.”

Added McConnell: “I am saddened to hear of the passing of Gatewood Galbraith. He was a truly memorable character who loved our state and its people.”

NORML Founder Keith Stroup said, “Gatewood was someone who placed a high priority on the legalization of cannabis, and firmly believed industrial hemp — including hemp based ethanol — could help save the planet. In his several campaigns for public office in Kentucky, he was fearless in his pro-hemp advocacy. He will be missed by all of us who care about legalizing marijuana.”

Adds Patrick S. McClure, a member of the NORML Legal Committee from Danville, Kentucky: “In spite of his controversial stance, he was much beloved on both sides of the aisle for his humor, his grace, and for always being the smartest guy in the room. He was funny, inspiring, and a true gift to young lawyers who were willing to listen to his bold stance against the machine, almost always given in a courtly and informed tone and tenor. Some Kentucky politicians may have gotten more votes, but none in my lifetime has been more endearing.”

Galbraith is survived by three daughters.

NORML expresses its sincere condolences to the friends and family of Gatewood Galbraith.

[Editor's note: This post is excerpted from this week's forthcoming NORML weekly media advisory. To have NORML's news alerts and legislative advisories delivered straight to your in-box, sign up here.]

Physicians who prescribe opioid drugs to patients with neuropathy (nerve pain) ought to consider recommending cannabis as an alternative therapy, according to a peer-reviewed paper published online this week in the Harm Reduction Journal.

“There is sufficient evidence of safety and efficacy for the use of (cannabis/cannabinoids) in the treatment of nerve pain relative to opioids,” the commentary states. “In states where medicinal cannabis is legal, physicians who treat neuropathic pain with opioids should evaluate their patients for a trial of cannabis and prescribe it when appropriate prior to using opioids. … Prescribing cannabis in place of opioids for neuropathic pain may reduce the morbidity and mortality rates associated with prescription pain medications and may be an effective harm reduction strategy.”

The author notes that between the years 1999 and 2006, “approximately 65,000 people died from opioid analgesic overdose.” By contrast, he writes “[N]o one has ever died from an overdose of cannabis.”

In clinical trials, inhaled cannabis has been consistently shown to reduce neuropathic pain of diverse causes in subjects unresponsive to standard pain therapies.

In November, clinical investigators at the University of California, San Francisco reported that vaporized cannabis augments the analgesic effects of opiates in subjects prescribed morphine or oxycodone. Authors of the study surmised that cannabis-specific interventions “may allow for opioid treatment at lower doses with fewer [patient] side effects.”

Neuropathy affects between five percent and 10 percent of the US population. The condition is often unresponsive to conventional analgesic medications such as opiates and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Full text of the paper, “Prescribing cannabis for harm reduction” is available online here.

#1 NORML Sues to Halt Government’s Prosecution of Medical Cannabis Providers
In October, the United States Deputy Attorney General, along with the four US Attorneys from California, announced their intentions to escalate federal efforts targeting the state’s medical cannabis dispensaries and providers. In response, members of the NORML Legal Committee filed suit in November against the federal government arguing that its actions were in violation of the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. Plaintiffs further argued, using the theory of judicial estoppel, that the Justice Department had previously affirmed in federal court that it would no longer use federal resources to prosecute cannabis patients or providers who are compliant with state law. NORML’s lawsuit remains pending. Read the full story here.

#2 Members of Congress Introduce First Bill Since 1937 to Legalize Cannabis
House lawmakers introduced legislation in Congress in June to end the federal criminalization of the personal use of marijuana. The bipartisan measure – HR 2306, the ‘Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011′ – prohibits the federal government from prosecuting adults who use or possess cannabis by removing the plant and its primary psychoactive constituent, THC, from the five schedules of the United States Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The bill awaits Congressional action. Read the full story here.

#3 Gallup: Majority of Americans Support Legalizing Cannabis
A record 50 percent of Americans now believe that marijuana ought to be legalized for adult use, according to a nationwide Gallup poll of 1,005 adults published in October. The 2011 survey results mark the first time ever that Gallup has reported that more Americans support legalizing cannabis (50 percent) than oppose it (46 percent). Read the full story here.

#4 Over One Million Americans Now Use Cannabis Legally Under State Law
Between one million to one-and-a-half million US citizens are legally authorized by the laws of their state to use marijuana, according to data compiled in May by NORML from state medical marijuana registries and patient estimates. Read the full story here.

#5 Marijuana Prosecutions For 2010 Near Record High
Police made 853,838 arrests in 2010 for marijuana-related offenses according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual Uniform Crime Report, released in September. The annual arrest total is among the highest ever reported by the agency. Marijuana arrests now comprise more than one-half (52 percent) of all drug arrests in the United States. Read the full story here.

#6 Largest State Doctors Association Calls For Legalizing Cannabis
The California Medical Association in October called for the “legalization and regulation” of cannabis for adults. The association, which represents some 35,000 physicians, recommends that cannabis be taxed and regulated “in a manner similar to alcohol.” Read the full story here.

#7 Connecticut Decriminalizes Cannabis Possession Offenses
Statewide legislation took effect in July reducing the penalties for the adult possession of up to one-half ounce of marijuana from a criminal misdemeanor (formerly punishable by one year in jail and a $1,000 fine) to a non-criminal infraction, punishable by a $150 fine, no arrest or jail time, and no criminal record. Read the full story here.

#8 Vaporized Cannabis Augments Analgesic Effect of Opiates in Humans
Vaporized cannabis significantly augments the analgesic effects of opiates in patients with chronic pain, according to clinical trial data published online in the journal Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics in November. Investigators surmised that cannabis-specific interventions “may allow for opioid treatment at lower doses with fewer [patient] side effects.” Read the full story here.

#9 State Governors Call on Obama Administration to Reclassify Cannabis
In December, governors from Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington formally requested the Obama administration to reclassify cannabis under federal law in a manner that would allow states to regulate its therapeutic use without federal interference. The administration in July had previously rejected a nine-year-old petition calling on the agency to initiate hearings to reassess the present classification of marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance without any ‘accepted medical use in treatment.’ Read the full story here.

#10 Delaware Becomes 16th State to Legalize Limited Medical Use of Marijuana
State lawmakers in May approved legislation to allow patients with a qualifying illness may legally possess up to six ounces of cannabis, provided the cannabis is obtained from a state-licensed, not-for-profit ‘compassion center.’ The law is anticipated to be implemented in 2012. Read the full story here.

The Fall of 2011 saw a major increase in reach and support from around the country and the world. The Alliance is now active on three continents and in five countries. The Facebook page has more than 20,000 followers and reaches over 65,000 people a week. Over 15,000 supporters have signed up for our email list and almost 1,000 have signed up to volunteer.

The NORML Women’s Alliance/SSDP Sister-to-Sister program has matched almost 500 women. While the NORML Women’s Alliance is still in its infancy (the program is barely 2 years old), it is evolving quickly into an effective platform (and forum) for women to speak out and support marijuana legalization. It’s a very exciting time to be a woman in the marijuana law reform movement.

1. 
   
   
   NORML Women’s Alliance
   

    

   NORML Women’s Alliance
   
   October 26, 2011 12:45:44 PM EDT
2. Fall 2011 Events & Fundraisers
3. [October] Redway, CA: 707 Cannabis College Open Mic and Mixer.

4. [October] Woodbridge, VA: Sabrina Fendrick and Brooke Napier discuss the origin and purpose of the NORML Women’s Alliance/SSDP Sister-to-Sister Program at the SSDP Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference.

5. 
   
   SSDP Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference | Facebook
   

    

   Facebook
   
   December 26, 2011 2:24:44 PM EST
6. [October] Austin, TX: The NORML Women’s Alliance South-West Coordinator Cheyanne Weldon partnered with Texas NORML to raise over $2500 for the Susan G. Komen’s Race for the Cure.
7. [November] Los Angeles, CA: NORML Women’s Alliance Vice Chair Kyndra Miller, SSDP Associate Director Stacia Cosner and NORML Women’s Alliance Mid-West Regional Coordinator Tonya Davis all had a major presence (including speaker roles) at the Drug Policy Alliance’s 2011 International Drug Policy Reform Conference.
8. [November] Nashville, TN: NORML Women’s Alliance South-East Regional Coordinator (and NORML board member) Greta Gaines hosted a seminar on the benefits of hemp.
9. [November] Los Angeles, CA: The NORML Women’s Alliance hosted a Black Comedy Night “A Cause to Laugh” at the Comedy Union, the first Black owned and operated Comedy Club in Los Angeles.  Comedian’s included Simply Cookie, Brooks Colyar and more.  Unconventional Foundation for Autism founder and director, Mieko Hester Perez was also in attendance.  We would like to thank Kandice Hawes and OC NORML for their effort in promoting this event.
10. 
    
    Taking California – Nov 2011 | Facebook
    

     

    Facebook
    
    December 26, 2011 2:24:44 PM EST
11. 
    

    Changing the world.

    The Comedy Union – Los …

    
    

     

    Facebook
    
    December 26, 2011 2:24:00 PM EST
12. [November] Philadelphia, PA: NORML Women’s Alliance Vice Chair Diane Fornbacher held a tri-state area meetup.
13. [November] San Francisco, CA: NORML Board Member Richard Wolfe hosted a benefit for the NORML Women’s Alliance at his home with a private screening of “A NORML Life.”  Attendees included Lynette Shaw (Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana), Paul Armentano NORML’s Deputy Director, Ellen Komp of CA NORML, Jack Rikess of Toke of the Town, NORML Attorney Matt Kumin, actress/author Heather Donahue of the Blair Witch Project, and many others at the forefront of reform in California. Executive Producer of the film, Mr. Pitman, gave a very entertaining free form Q&A session after the screening.
14. [December] Humboldt, CA: West Coast Coordinator Melissa Sanchez provided a presence for the NORML Women’s Alliance while Kyndra Miller spoke lead a panel on recent federal lawsuits at the 2011 Emerald Cup.

15. Emerald Cup Marijuana Competition Returns To Mendo Saturday …

    Dec 7, 2011 … n1140933335_30420814_7644628.jpeg · Kyndra Miller. Kyndra Miller, who heads California NORML/Women’s Alliance, will… Tokeofthetown
16. [December] Canada: The community leaders started organizing in November and are moving full steam ahead.  They have already held several meetups across the country, including Toronto and Vancouver.  There is no doubt that next year they will have a major presence in Canada’s marijuana law reform movement.

17. “Jodie joined more… | Facebook

    ?”Jodie joined more than a dozen other ladies at the first Vancouver meeting of the NORML Canada Women’s Alliance. The next wi…
    

     

    Facebook
18. [December] Portland, OR: NORML Women’s Alliance representatives Anna Diaz and Madeline Martinez organized and hosted the Oregon Medical Cannabis Awards at the World Famous Cannabis Cafe. Co-Vice Chair Diane Fornbacher was a featured speaker and guest.
19. Outreach & Activism

20. New Community Leaders and Regional Coordinators:  The NORML Women’s Alliance would like to welcome the following women who have volunteered to represent the Alliance and spread the message of reform in their local communities.

    Cara Crabb-Burnam – New England Regional Coordinator Melissa Sanchez – West Coast Regional Coordinator Alexis Wilson Briggs – San Francisco Bay Area Community Leader Kayla Williams and Kelly Coulter - Canada Regional Coordinators Kelli Dodds – Humboldt County Community Leader Patti Gordon – Orange County Community Leader Cheri Sicard – Los Angeles Community Leader ________________________________________________________________________________________________

Join the NORML Women’s Alliance as a community organizer by clicking the link below:

• Get Involved

  Thank you so much for your interest in becoming a local representative for the NORML Women’s Alliance. You will be standing up for millio… Norml
• ________________________________________________________________________________________________

• California Tour: In November of this year Diane Fornbacher, Melissa Sanchez, Sabrina Fendrick and Kyndra Miller held several outreach events as they toured California from Humboldt County to Los Angeles.

• From 707 to the City of Angels

  From the majestic redwoods of Humboldt county to the glitz and glamour of Hollywood, the NORML Women’s Alliance’s Sabrina Fendrick, Kyndr… Norml
• Media Re-Leaf Magazine conducted an interview with Diane Fornbacher. The Daily Caller notes the NORML Women’s Alliance in an article about the now infamous Miley Cyrus Birthday Video in which she declares herself a “true stoner.” [Podcast] A Different View: Sabrina Fendrick was interviewed by Moms for Marijuana Director Serra Frank, Iva Cunningham and others about the importance of the Women’s Alliance as well as the different efforts and projects currently being developed.
• “ A Different View #8 – RadicalRuss ustre.am/:1hyuU
  

   

  NORML Women
  
  December 26, 2011 4:29:11 PM EST ReplyRetweet
• The Plain Dealer (Cleveland’s local publication) quoted Tonya Davis discussing her work with the Ohio Patient Network and the group’s effort to put a medical marijuana initiative on the 2012 ballot.

• Medical marijuana project moves along, while Lewis proposals on hold: Whatever Happened To … ?

  A push to legalize marijunana use that was started in May by billionaire Peter B. Lewis has been waiting for a decision since several pro… Cleveland
• Upcoming Events in 2012
  **If you are interested in holding an event in your area please call 202-483-5500.

• NORML Canada Women’s Alliance Calgary & Area Meeting | Facebook

  Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them. People use Facebook to ke…
  

   

  Facebook

• NORML Canada Women’s Alliance – Victoria Meets! | Facebook

  Sign UpFacebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life. NORML Canada Women’s Alliance – Victoria Meets! Going (4)…
  

   

  Facebook

• Spring Fling 2012

  Come out of the cold and join us for a cocktail mixer/silent auction where you can meet the National NORML Board of Directors, high-profi… Pingg
• Support the NORML Women’s Alliance
• If you too believe in a better and safer world, please consider donating to the NORML Women’s Alliance today. Thank you so much for your financial and moral support.

• Women will be the deciding factor in moving public opinion towards repealing marijuana prohibition. In order to reach out to more women, and continue to build a powerful coalition, the NORML Women’s Alliance is looking to raise money to spread awareness in several different ways:

  1) PSAs and educational announcements on websites, blogs and magazines.

  2) Produce and distribute literature/educational materials about the NORML Women’s Alliance, and the negative effects of marijuana prohibition on women and families.

  3) Develop resources for our community organizers. Funding for travel, training and recruitment.

  4) Provide scholarships to send more women to NORML conferences and related conventions/festivals.

• Donate

  Women will be the deciding factor in moving public opinion towards repealing marijuana prohibition. In order to reach out to more women, … Norml

There is something inherently communal about cannabis. When used in groups, unlike with alcohol and tobacco products, cannabis is shared among willing participants (and where hogging something to oneself is frowned about: "Don’t Bogart that joint!").

A smoke circle–not a square, triangle or pentagon, comes to mind.

With nearly forty one years of cannabis consumer advocacy in NORML’s rearview mirror, and fast approaching a momentous presidential election cycle–which will most likely include up to four state initiatives to either medicalize or legalize cannabis–NORML’s large grassroots network again will be relied upon to rally supporters from coast to coast to continue to advance these long overdue cannabis law reforms forward.

With Gallup polling now indicating the long awaited the fifty percent mark in public support for full cannabis legalization having been crossed, the long-sought public effort to end Cannabis Prohibition is more politically viable than at any previous time, in any of our lifetimes.

With no major endowment, billionaire supporters or sufficiently large enough membership base (NORML is not the NRA, AARP or Girl Scouts) to provide the necessary funding to run nationwide ad campaigns, commit a legion of lobbyists in Washington, D.C. and the state capitals or lard incumbent political campaigns with loads of cash contributions, NORML’s central base of support is from folks like you, your like-minded friends and family.

From folks–like me–who responsibly use and enjoy cannabis for whatever reason, and hardly see ourselves as criminals. From folks who both care about cannabis law reform as well as share some of their resources to make these important public policy changes happen as soon as possible.

This is the essence of NORML.

Recognizing this, a documentary producer and director independent of NORML have recently released a DVD entitled "It’s a NORML life", which was filmed over nearly three years to produce a compelling and inspired view of both the political momentum of cannabis law reform these days, but also the can-not-be-denied spirit ever-present among cannabis law reformers.

Please make an end of the year donation to NORML or the NORML Foundation (where donations are fully tax deductible) for at least $20 and we’ll send you a copy of It’s a NORML life. Make a generous donation of $100 or more and we’ll include a 100% hemp backpack from Rick Steves and NORML!

Gather some friends around, maybe in a circle, and inspired on a few levels (if you know what I mean), enjoy the DVD as a great motivational vehicle for 2012, a year like the previous forty one, which will be the busiest one ever for ending Cannabis Prohibition.

Thanks again for both caring and sharing!

Cannabem liberemus,

Allen St. Pierre
Executive Director
Washington, D.C.
director@norml.org

 

[Fact: Drugs are pervasive in our society and, one way or another, adolescents will be exposed to mind-altering substances.]

It is an unmistakable reality that a significant number of high school students will try marijuana.  According to the recent 2011 Monitoring the Future Survey, nearly 40 percent of all high school seniors admit to having smoked marijuana in the past year – a percentage that has held relatively stable since the study’s inception over 35 years ago.

Some want to use this fact as a justification to deny any opportunity to rationally discuss marijuana, its use, and its risks with children in an open and honest manner.  They think that saying anything about marijuana other than encouraging its total abstinence is condoning its use.  This couldn’t be further from the truth.

When society teaches sex education, are we suggesting that all the teenagers go out and engage in sexual intercourse? No.  Rather, it is an acknowledgement that the best way to reduce the negative effects associated with sex (unwanted pregnancy, STD’s, etc) is through honest, objective information that allow people to understand their options and provides them with the tools they need to make informed decisions.

When we talk to teenagers about the dangers of drinking and driving, are we condoning alcohol use among minors?  No, of course not.  It is, however, a reality that many adolescents will a) likely consume alcohol as seniors in high school and b) have access to a car. Yes, we encourage students not to drink. But, we urge them specifically not to drink and drive.

We can all agree that teens should not smoke pot, or be using any mind-altering substances. Those are important, developmental years. Still, teens should be educated regarding how smoking marijuana can affect their body’s development specifically, how to reduce any harms associated with its use, and to distinguish between use and abuse. There should be honest, truthful drug education.

As Kristen Gwynne states in her AlterNet article, “Give young people accurate information, and they will use it to make better decisions that result in less harm to themselves, because teens, like everybody else, do not actually want to get hurt or become addicts.”

She goes on to say, “Giving students honest information about drugs [will]…increase the odds that they will use drugs safely, and reduce the likelihood of experiencing the [relative] harms associated with [it].”

By contrast, the Drug Czar and federal law advocates for complete prohibition, limited information explaining the real effects of marijuana and condemning any opportunity, as Gwynne states, to provide “education that helps teens understand their health options, and ways of reducing the harm of drugs.” When it comes to our children, like everything else we teach in school for development and behavioral growth, drug education should be based in reality, not a denial of it.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “If a state expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Follow on twitter @NORMLwomen

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

George Washington University law professor and longtime jury nullification proponent Paul Butler pens a noteworthy op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times.

Notable not only because of the important subject matter vis-à-vis the first example proffered by Professor Butler, but also too because of the defendant in the case at bar cited.

Professor Julian Heicklen has been protesting Cannabis Prohibition laws since the mid 1990s, mainly around the Penn State campus where he was a longtime Chemistry professor, principally by causing a ruckus around jury nullification and protesting without permits.

Here is a related story NORML featured about Prof. Heicklen in 1998.

Well, to his ever-loving credit, in his retirement, this 79-year-old freedom loving activist is still–through his own pain and suffering–working hard to inform the public and potential jurors that they (better said, we) all have the right to vote our conscience when in judgment of our fellow citizens in a criminal court of law.

I too join Professors Heicklen and Butler in what some prosecutors deem a ‘crime’ and that is to educate as many citizens as possible that they don’t have to keep upholding bad laws like Cannabis Prohibition by voting to punish citizens for non-violent cannabis-related criminal offenses.

American citizens when acting as jurors have the right and responsibility to “Just Say No” to enforcing the country’s failed and expensive Cannabis Prohibition laws.

Many thanks to John Peter Zenger, Julian Heicklen, Paul Butler and all citizens who fully exercise their rights to nullify bad laws.

A new study out today estimates that one-third of US young people will be arrested or taken into custody for illegal or delinquent offenses (excluding arrests for minor traffic violations) by the age of 23.

CBS News/Web MD reports on the findings here:

Study: Nearly 1 in 3 U.S. youths will be arrested by age 23

Parents and non-parents alike might be shocked to learn a new study estimates that roughly 1 in 3 U.S. youths will be arrested for a non-traffic offense by age 23 – a “substantively higher” proportion than predicted in the 1960s.

The study, posted online by the journal Pediatrics, shows that between about 25% to 41% of 23-year-olds have been arrested or taken into police custody at least once for a non-traffic offense. If you factor in missing cases, that percentage could lie between about 30% and 41%.

What was learned was that the risk was greatest during late adolescence or emerging adulthood. The study also shows that by age 18, about 16% to 27% have been arrested.

… The researchers base their conclusion on data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, ages 8 to 23. Data analyzed in the new study came from national surveys of youth conducted annually from 1997 to 2008.

Their finding contrasts with a 1965 study that predicted 22% of U.S. youths would be arrested for an offense other than a minor traffic violation by age 23.

Why the Rise in Arrests?

The researchers cite some “compelling reasons” for the increase.

“The criminal justice system has clearly become more aggressive in dealing with offenders (particularly those who commit drug offenses and violent crimes) since the 1960s,” the authors, all criminologists, write. In addition, “there is some evidence that the transition from adolescence to adulthood has become a longer process.”

From the 1920s through the 1960s, the proportion of the population that was incarcerated remained remarkably stable at about 100 inmates per 100,000 people, researcher Robert Brame, PhD, of the department of criminal justice and criminology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, tells WebMD. Today, Brame says, that figure has soared to 500 inmates per 100,000 people.

While it is commendable that CBS is highlighting the findings of this troubling data, it’s frustrating that the network’s editors appear blissfully unaware
of what is one of the most painfully obvious drivers of this surge in juvenile arrests: the ever-increasing enforcement of marijuana prohibition.

As I stated from the stage at the 2008 NORML national conference, “It’s Not Your Parents’ Prohibition,” the so-called ‘war’ on pot is largely a criminal crackdown on young people.

Young people, in many cases those under 18-years-of-age, disproportionately bear the brunt of marijuana law enforcement.

… According to a 2005 study commissioned by the NORML Foundation, 74 percent of all Americans busted for pot are under age 30, and 1 out of 4 are age 18 or younger. That’s nearly a quarter of a million teenagers arrested for marijuana violations each year.

… [I]f we ever want the marijuana laws to change, that we as a community have to better represent the interests of young people, and we must do a better job speaking on their — and their parent’s — behalf.

(Read my entire remarks here.)

Since 1965, police have made an estimated 21.5 million arrests for marijuana-related offense, according to cumulative data published by the FBI. Some 8 million of these arrests have occurred since 2000.

Assuming that nearly three out of four of those arrested in the past decade were under age 30, that equates to the arrest of some 6 million young people — including 2 million teenagers — for marijuana-related offenses since the year 2000.

In short, marijuana prohibition isn’t protecting kids; its endangering them. We now have an entire generation that has been alienated to believe that the police and their civic leaders are instruments of their oppression rather than their protection.

And the sad fact is: they’re right.

So what are you going to do about it?

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the primary sponsor of HR 2306: The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011, appeared on ‘This Week with Christiane Amanpour’ on ABC with fellow guests George Will of the Washington Post and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).

The conversation found its way to marijuana legalization which led to Barney Frank calling out the hypocrisy of most of his conservative colleagues.

“It’s a great embarrassment to the conservatives,” said Frank, “They want to tell people who they can have sex with. Come on, all this is big government! Who can I have sex with? Who can I marry? What can I read? What can I smoke? You guys, on the whole — not all of you — but the conservatives are the ones who intrude on personal liberty there.”

The debate got heated between Frank and George Will. “I mean, personal liberty, if someone wants to smoke marijuana who’s an adult, why do you want to make them go to jail?” Frank questioned.

“I need to know more about whether it’s a gateway drug to other drugs, I need to know how you’re going to regulate it,” George Will replied.

“Anything is a gateway to anything,” Representative Frank shot back, “That’s the slippery slope argument which is a very anti-libertarian argument. The fact that if somebody is doing something that’s not in itself wrong, that it might lead later on to something else then stop the something else. Don’t lock them up for smoking marijuana.”

Will defended himself claiming, “What you’re calling a cop-out, I’m calling a quest for information.”

“How long’s it going to last, George?” Frank asked, “We’ve been doing this for decades.”

Watch the clip below:

You can read more coverage of this story here and here.

Over the past several months, the Federal government escalated its war against medical marijuana to previously unseen heights. The Drug War machine kicked into high gear starting in October when the IRS began applying an obscure part of the US tax code, meant to target drug cartels, against medical dispensaries in attempts to shut them down. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms joined in the fight when it issued a heavy handed one page memo to every gun and ammunition dealer nationwide informing them that they must, by law, deny sales to lawful medical cannabis patients. 

The hammer really fell when the US Attorneys for the four federal districts in California formally announced a crackdown on medical marijuana dispensing operations and began issuing memos threatening operators and landlords of these properties. Threats were even waged against news publications who ran advertisements for medical marijuana businesses. All of this in an environment where over 70% of Americans support medical use of cannabis, the country’s largest physicians group endorsed full legalization, and at least four governors are petitioning the DEA to reclassify marijuana based on overwhelming evidence of its medicinal value. Unfortunately, It doesn’t appear an end is in sight as new threats of intervention are looming in Colorado. 

That is why today, in cooperation with other reform organizations, NORML is encouraging you to contact President Obama and tell him to end his administrations war on cannabis patients.  Click here to use NORML’s Take Action Center to directly email the below letter to the White House and tell President Obama to stand by his promise to not interfere with state medical marijuana laws.

Dear President Obama:

I urge you to end your war on medical marijuana patients. More than 70 percent of Americans are in favor of legal medical marijuana. 16 states and the District of Columbia have passed medical marijuana legislation.

At least four governors are petitioning the DEA to reclassify marijuana based on overwhelming evidence that it has medicinal value. While this reclassification is pending, your Administration should respect — not attack –state medical marijuana laws that provide patients with safe and reliable access to this medicine.

Given the fiscal crisis our country finds itself in, it doesn’t make sense to waste federal tax dollars and law enforcement resources interfering with state medical marijuana laws.

In recent months, the federal Justice Department has engaged in concerted efforts to crack down on the proliferation of medical cannabis related activities in states that allow for its therapeutic use under state law, including California, Montana, and Washington.

Now, according to a CBS News report, the next state on the federal government’s ‘hit list’ is Colorado — arguably the state with the most comprehensive and stringent statewide regulations governing medical cannabis activities. These regulations explicitly license state-authorized cannabis dispensaries, of which there are now some 700 operating statewide.

Nonetheless, the imprimatur of the state apparently carries little if any weight with the Obama administration at this time — despite promises (reiterated before Congress just last week by US Attorney General Eric Holder) that such prosecutions are “not a (federal) priority” and that the Justice Department only intends to target those entities who “use marijuana in a way that’s not consistent with the state statute.”

Predictably, today’s CBS special report tells a different story.

Crackdown On Colorado’s Medical Pot Business On The Horizon
via CBS News Denver

Federal authorities are planning to crack down on the medical marijuana business in Colorado on a large scale for the first time.

Warning letters will be going out to dispensaries and grow facilities near schools, CBS4 investigator Rick Sallinger has learned. So far it’s not clear how soon that will happen.

Dispensaries that receive the letters will be given 45 days to shut down or move operations. If they don’t comply, they will be shut down by the U.S. attorney in Colorado.

The dispensaries who are set to be targeted are the ones that are located within 1,000 feet of schools. That measurement is being used because that distance already appears in federal law as a factor in drug crime sentencing.

The move comes after the Justice Department sent out a memo clarifying that marijuana has been and remains illegal under federal law despite what has taken place with state regulations. Colorado is one of 16 states where medical marijuana laws have been approved.

Many of the state’s dispensaries that are closer than 1,000 feet to a school have already been approved to be there under local laws. They usually have been grandfathered in.

… Robert Corry, an attorney who represents dispensaries, said medical marijuana operations are now strictly regulated under Colorado state laws.

“The federal apparatus here has better things to do,” said Corry. “My reaction would be the federal government is essentially declaring war on the voters of our state (who) passed a Constitutional amendment.”

U.S. attorneys in California recently announced in a separate medical marijuana crackdown that they would be targeting landlords who rent retail space to dispensaries, as well as dispensary owners themselves.

Does anyone really believe that this is an appropriate use of scarce federal resources? Or that these actions are in any way consistent with Obama’s public pledge to cease utilizing “Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws on this issue?” I didn’t think so.

If the federal government is truly concerned about the diversion of
medical marijuana or its potential abuse in states that have authorized it then it would be better served to encourage — rather than to discourage — statewide and local efforts to regulate these actions accordingly. The Obama administration’s enforcement actions in California, Colorado, and elsewhere will only result in limiting adults’ regulated, safe access to cannabis therapy. It will also cost local jobs and needed tax revenue, and likely result in hundreds — if not thousands — of unnecessary criminal prosecutions.

Legislating medical marijuana operations and prosecuting those who act in a manner that is inconsistent with state law and voters’ sentiment should be a responsibility left to the state and local officials, not the federal government. It is time for this administration to fulfill the assurances it gave to the medical cannabis community and to respect the decisions of voters and lawmakers in states that recognize its therapeutic efficacy.

58% support in Massachusetts for legalizing marijuana and regulating it as other agricultural commodities

Georgetown, MA – This evening, attendees at the Second Annual Massachusetts Cannabis Convention hosted by the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition/NORML (MassCann/NORML) at the Crowne Plaza in Natick heard the major results of a live telephone poll conducted in November by DAPA Research Inc. of 600 Massachusetts voters with a margin of error of +/-4%.

The most significant findings:

*Fifty-eight percent (58%) support legalizing marijuana and regulating it in the same manner as other agricultural commodities with sales prohibited to underage persons (69% Democrats, 44% Republicans, 54% Other).

*Sixty-two percent (62%) are more likely to support legalization if the proposed law would regulate the cultivation and sale of marijuana to adults and tax it in the same manner as the state currently regulates alcohol (70% Democrats, 56% Republicans, 60% Other).

*Fifty-four percent (54%) oppose the federal government disregarding state law in states legalizing marijuana, while only 35% support the federal government’s disregarding state law.

“The data strongly suggests that Massachusetts voters are more ready than voters in any other state to end prohibition and establish reasonable regulation of cannabis cultivation and commerce for all purposes,” said Steven S. Epstein, a founder and currently an officer of MassCann/NORML. “The data also establishes that if the legislature does not enact a law allowing medical use of marijuana this session the voters will overwhelmingly, perhaps 80%+, approve the voter initiative for the Humanitarian Medical Use of Marijuana at the ballot box in November.”

“Legalization is essential to ending crime created by the prohibition of cannabis,” said Cara Crabb-Burnham, a member of MassCann/NORML’s Board of Directors. “It is important to recognize legal vendors will card customers and keep it out of the hands of children.”

* * *

For more information contact:
Michael Crawford, 978-502-4080
Attorney Steven Epstein, 978-352-3300

Update: Huffington Post article and C-Span video.

I’ve spoken to two reporters today inquiring about Colorado Congressman Jared Polis’ medical cannabis-related questions to Attorney General Holder at a congressional committee hearing that was otherwise a ‘bloodbath’ for Holder—getting grilled about the guns and Mexico fiasco—when Polis, who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee, was allowed to ask Holder two questions about medical cannabis enforcement.

Generally written…

Polis first wanted assurances that Colorado’s medical cannabis dispensaries/cultivation centers compliant with state laws—unlike California’s medical cannabis businesses that are not regulated by the state—are not a Department of Justice (DOJ) target. Holder affirmed the basic tenets of the previous Ogden and Cole memos, and wouldn’t provide assurances, but, re-iterated the DOJ stance that enforcing medical cannabis laws, notably in a state like Colorado with its rules and regulations, and with limited federal resources at hand, is a low law DOJ enforcement priority.

The second Polis question was about banking and medical cannabis businesses in Colorado, where he pushed Holder to acknowledge that the DOJ is not placing a priority on interfering with state compliant medical cannabis businesses and banking concerns.

I assume there will be news and industry coverage later today and tomorrow about this unexpected, but informative exchange between Representative Polis and Attorney General Holder.

To: DEA, HIDTA, Federal task force partners in California for internal law enforcement use only. Not for public use or circulation [Editor's note: Hah! Also, this memo is only applicable in California---not Colorado, New Mexico and Maine, where these states regulate the medical cannabis industry (whereas California does not, arguably opening the door to federal incursions and prosecutions).]

From: California United States Attorneys

This memorandum outlines factors that all four California U.S. Attorneys Offices (the USAOs) agree may render a particular marijuana case suitable for federal prosecution. Identification of these factors is intended to assist federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in determining whether a particular marijuana case has significant potential for federal prosecution and conducting investigations in a manner that develops the best evidence to support federal prosecution (Footnote 1). The USAOS will consider for federal prosecution cases investigated by federal, state or local law enforcement agencies that implicate federal interests as reflected in the factors. Cases investigated by federal agencies will generally be given priority over cases adopted from state or local investigations. The factors listed below are relevant to the USAOs consideration of whether a marijuana case should be prosecuted federally but the presence or absence of one or more of the factors will not guarantee or preclude federal prosecution in any case. In general the federal interest will be greater in prosecuting leaders and organizers of the criminal activity as opposed to lower level workers.

The memorandum is intended as prospective guidance only, is not intended to have the force of law and is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied on to create any right, privilege or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any person or entity against any type of the USAOs, DOJ or the United States.

1) Domestic distribution cases.
Federal prosecution of a case of domestic distribution of marijuana should generally involve at least 200 or more kilograms of marijuana and also include additional factors that reflect a clear federal interest in prosecution (Footnote 2—This guidance for domestic distribution cases does not apply to cases involving distribution within or smuggling into a federal prison.18 USC 1791). Typically the more marijuana above 200 kilograms the better the potential for federal prosecution. Domestic distribution cases involving quantities of marijuana below 200kilograms should demonstrate an especially strong federal interest or should not be prosecuted with marijuana distribution as the sole federal charge. Set forth below is a non-exhaustive list of factors that USAOs believe indicate a federal interest in a domestic distribution case.

*Distribution by an individual or organization with provable ties to an international drug cartel or a poly-drug trafficking organization.

*Distribution of significant quantities to persons or organizations outside California.

*Distribution by individuals with significant prior criminal histories.

*Distribution by individuals with provable ties to a street gang that engages in drug trafficking involving violent conduct.

*Distribution for the purpose of funding other criminal activities.

*Distribution near protected locations or involving underage or vulnerable people (e.g. in violation of 21 USC 859 persons under 21, 860 near schools, playground and colleges, 861 employment of persons under 18).

*Distribution involving the use or presence of firearms or other dangerous weapons including cases that would support charges under 18 USC 924c.

*Distribution generating significant profits that are used or concealed in ways that would support charges of federal financial crimes such as tax evasion, money laundering or structuring. Note: Generation of significant profits alone generally will not be viewed as a factor weighing in favor of federal prosecution.

*Distribution in conjunction with other federal crimes involving violence or intimidation.

2. Cultivation cases.

Federal prosecution of a marijuana case involving cultivation on non-federal or non-tribal land, indoor or outdoor, should generally involve at least 1,000 marijuana plants so that the quantity necessary to trigger the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence can be clearly proven and also include additional factors that reflect a clear federal interest in prosecution. Typically, the more marijuana above 1,000 plants, the better the potential for federal prosecution. Non-federal or non-tribal land cases involving quantities below 1,000 plants should demonstrate an especially strong federal interest or should not be prosecuted with marijuana cultivation as the sole federal charge. Federal prosecution of a marijuana case involving cultivation on federal or tribal land should generally involve at least 500 marijuana plants and also include additional factors that reflect a clear federal interest in prosecution. Cases on federal or tribal land involving quantities below 500 plants will be considered if they demonstrate a strong federal interest, if the cultivation has caused significant damage to federal or tribal lands or has occurred in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction (Footnote 3– The USAOs will consider the totality of circumstances with respect to all marijuana plant quantities in these guidelines. For example, the presence of especially mature, large or robust plants will generally weigh in favor of prosecution while the presence of seedlings or immature plants will generally weigh against prosecution). Set forth below is a non-exhaustive list of factors that the USAOs believe indicate a federal interest that may justify federal prosecution of a marijuana case involving cultivation whether on federal, tribal or other lands.

*Cultivation causing significant environmental damage, risk to human health or interference with particularly sensitive land or significant recreational interests, ie damage to wilderness area or wildlife, danger to innocent families using a recreation area or use of toxic or dangerous chemicals.

*Cultivation by an individual or organization with provable ties to an international drug cartel or poly-drug trafficking organization.

*Cultivation of significant quantities on behalf or persons or organizations outside California.

*Cultivation by individuals with significant prior criminal histories.

*Cultivation by individuals with provable ties to a street gang that engages in drug trafficking involving violent conduct.

*Cultivation for the purpose of funding other criminal activities.

*Cultivation near protected locations or involving under-age or vulnerable people (eg,  in violation…

*Cultivation involving the use or presence of fire-arms, booby traps or other dangerous weapons including cases that would support charges under 18 USC 924c.

*Cultivation generating significant profits that are used or concealed in ways that would support charges for federal financial crimes such as tax evasion, money laundering or structuring. Note—generation of significant profits alone will not be viewed as a factor weighing in favor of federal prosecution.

*Cultivation in conjunction with other federal crimes involving violence or intimidation

3. Dispensary cases.

Given California state law, prosecution of marijuana stores or “dispensaries” purporting to comply with state law face additional challenges. Federal prosecution of a case involving a marijuana store should generally involve a) provable sales through seizures or records of over 200 kilograms or 1000 plants per year. b) sales clearly in violation of state law, eg sales to persons without legitimate doctors’ recommendations, side-sales occurring outside of the store or shipping to persons outside of California (Note—selling for profit, though a violation of state l aw, typically alone will not alone satisfy this requirement), and c) additional factors that reflect a federal interest in prosecution. Set forth below is a non-exhaustive list of such additional factors. Nothing herein should be taken as a limitation on investigation by federal law enforcement to determine the existence of these factors. However, search warrants or other more intrusive investigative techniques directed at marijuana stores should be closely coordinated with the USAOs.

*Marijuana “inventory” obtained from cultivation on federal or tribal land.

*Targets involved in cultivation or distribution outside of the dispensary that merits federal prosecution based on consideration of factors set forth in sections 1 and 2 above.

*Targets using profits from the dispensary to support other criminal activity.

*Store linked to physician providing marijuana recommendations without plausible legitimate justification, eg doctor on site providing recommendation with no on-site examinations or legitimate medical procedures.

*Targets have significant prior criminal histories.

*Targets have provable ties to a street gang that engages in drug trafficking involving violent conduct.

*Store operations involve the use or presence or firearms or other dangerous weapons including cases that would support charges under 18 USC 924.

*Store generates significant profits that are used/concealed in ways that would support charges for federal financial crimes such as tax evasion, money laundering or structuring. Note–generation of significant profits alone generally will not be viewed as a factor weighing in favor of federal prosecution

*Store operations in conjunction with other federal crimes involving violence or intimidation.

*Store employs minors under 18 and/or sells a significant portion of marijuana to minors under the age of 21 especially where evidence that minors aren’t using for medical purposes

4. Civil forfeiture.

The USAOs general preference is to pursue forfeiture through criminal forfeiture or civil forfeiture filed in parallel with a criminal case. Nevertheless circumstances may arise in which civil forfeiture alone is the best option. Those cases will generally involve one or more of the following:

*Significant forfeitable assets clearly traceable to marijuana trafficking in violation of federal criminal law that would merit federal prosecution based on consideration of factors set forth in sections 1-3 above.

*Significant forfeitable assets clearly traceable to non-marijuana related violations of federal law such as structuring or money-laundering. Large scale “medical marijuana” cultivation operations that 1) are operating in violation of state law 2) involve real property that has been the subject of a warning letter or similar prior notice or 3) involve real property that has been the subject of a prior forfeiture proceeding arising from marijuana cultivation or a property owner who has been a claimant in such proceedings or individual targets not subject to criminal prosecution eg fugitives or persons whose involvement in marijuana trafficking is too marginal to justify criminal prosecution including off-site land lords and non-resident owners falsely claiming ignorance of tenant’s marijuana trafficking.

By: Diane Fornbacher

From the majestic redwoods of Humboldt county to the glitz and glamour of Hollywood, the NORML Women’s Alliance’s Sabrina Fendrick, Kyndra Miller, Melissa Sanchez and I toured almost the entire Sunshine State for nine days prior to Thanksgiving to rally our sisters and brothers in preparation for what will be a mighty 2012 for us all in drug policy reform.

The tour began at a beach-side co-op in the company of our NORML Women’s Alliance colleague Annarae Grabstein of Steep Hill Lab. We enjoyed a brainstorming session and sunset barbecue, then prepared for the incredibly scenic drive north up to Humboldt county the next day to attend 707 Cannabis College’s Hempfest event at the Mateel Community Center in Garberville.

The panel was moderated by Terri Klemetson, News Coordinator for Redwood Community News (KMUD). Speaking were the esteemed Paul Gallegos, Humboldt County District Attorney; Mark Lovelace, Humboldt County Supervisor; Dan Rush, Director of the Medical Cannabis and Hemp Division of United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; Matt Witemyre, Chief of Staff at Medi-Cone; Alexis Wilson-Briggs, Esq., Criminal Defense Attorney/Pier 5 Law Offices and recently named San Francisco and Sacramento NORML Women’s Alliance Community Leader; Samantha Miller, President-Chief Scientist at Pure Analytics, LLC; and Paul J. Von Hartmann, Cannabis Scholar and Biodynamic Agriculturist.

The panel was very lively, and at times heated, with Wilson Briggs asking for clarification from D.A. Gallegos on many different topics, most specifically regarding enforcement tactics, difficulties reconciling state law versus the federal stance on cannabis and protecting local citizens. Overall, the energy was receptive, friendly and informative. Citizens addressed the panelists at the culmination of the event and what was most enlightening to us was how open and honest the farmers were with officials, genuinely wanting to work with the system, be respected in their industry by the government and have best practices so that they may do clean as well as successful business.

Afterward, we were treated to a tour of 707 Cannabis College with Kellie Dodds, Pearl Moon and Donna King. 707 is located in the heart of the “Emerald Triangle” where, “the highest quality education in the health benefits of appropriate cannabis use, sustainable cannabis horticulture and evolving cannabis law” is provided. We were delighted to see that the NORML Women’s Alliance has a huge presence at 707 with a permanent education access table, lots of enthusiasm and solidarity.

The next day, before heading to our evening fundraiser and screening of “A NORML Life” in San Francisco, we spent the day at the historic Pier 5 Law offices of Tony Serra, where NWA’s Kyndra Miller, Esq. has an office. Pier 5 has a long history of defending human rights and is an environment that has a strong female presence. While we were nearing the end of our workday, we were treated to a visit from the humble and sweet, Mr. Clint Werner. He stopped by with his amazing book “Marijuana: Gateway to Health”, a new release.

At the screening of Rod Pitman’s, “A NORML Life”, many NORML principals are featured in the film including Members of the Board: Dale Gieringer, Madeline Martinez, George Rohrbacher, William Panzer, Esq., Allen St. Pierre, and Keith Stroup . Tonya Davis, winner of NORML’s Pauline Sabin Award (In Honor Of And Recognition For The Crucial Need And Importance Of Women Leadership In Ending Marijuana Prohibition) was prominently featured in an inspiring narrative. Also in the house was Lynette Shaw (Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana), Paul Armentano (Deputy Director NORML) who gave a rousing speech in support of the NWA, Ellen Komp (CANORML), Jack Rikess (Toke of the Town), NORML Attorney Matt Kumin, actress Heather Donahue of the Blair Witch Project, and many others at the forefront of reform in California. Executive Producer of the film, Mr. Pitman, gave a very entertaining free form Q&A session after the screening. The event was hosted by NORML Board member Richard Wolfe and his terrific assistant, Grynn. Catering was provided by the lovely Caitlin Martens.

The next day, we headed south to Los Angeles and the Hollywood Hills for our fundraiser, A Cause to Laugh, at The Comedy Union in Los Angeles. The event was hosted by Brooks Colyar and comedienne Simply Cookie emceed. In the house was Co-Founder and Director of Unconventional Foundation for Autism, Ms. Mieko Hester-Perez, well known also as Joey’s Mom. We want to thank everyone who participated in making this event amazing, especially Enss Mitchell, purveyor of the Comedy Union for believing in the NWA and providing valuable insight to achieve our goals for all demographics. Also, special thanks to Cheri Sicard for volunteering, as well as Kandice Hawes (OCNORML) for attending with friends.

It’s really quite difficult to summarize the trip into words but Melissa Sanchez was able to really encapsulate the energy of what we experienced during our whirlwind tour. She explained that, “from the people of Humboldt – people with so much heart living in the beautiful old forest – to the people of San Francisco who are dedicated to the never-ending work of politics and activism to Los Angeles where we were reaching out to a community who knows all about the real impact of the war on drugs, it was inspirational journey. Our movement is large and encompasses people who are not yet active in it: People whose families are affected by the drug war in Latin America, mothers who are patients but can’t speak out because they are afraid of the state taking their children, seniors who are fed up with taking medicine that may end up hurting them instead of healing them, and many others. The NORML Women’s Alliance is here to help bring more people into the movement. The more diverse and broad our movement, the sooner we will see significant change.”

————————-

If you too believe in a better and safer world, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to the NORML Women’s Alliance today. Thank you so much for your financial and moral support.