No Easy Options for Feds in Legal Marijuana States

Posted on April 15, 2013 by XploreLA.com

The federal government may not have much choice but to continue its mellow attitude toward legal marijuana in Washington and Colorado.

New laws legalizing recreational marijuana use in Washington and Colorado probably fall under the states’ “power to decide what is criminal and what is not,” according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The report analyzes court precedent and lays out what the Justice Department and the Obama administration might do to enforce federal law now that several states have passed marijuana laws that contradict it.

The agency’s conclusion: The feds face an array of unappealing options.

The Justice Department could choose to challenge the marijuana laws in federal court, according to CRS. However, the researchers cast doubt on the argument that that the state laws preempt federal authority, or directly violate the intent of the federal Controlled Substances Act, which classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, just as dangerous as heroin and LSD.

But if a legal victory is a long shot, so is trying to enforce federal law without one, according to CRS. Without the cooperation of the states, CRS notes, federal agents simply do not have the resources or manpower to arrest and prosecute every person who violates the federal Controlled Substances Act by growing, selling or using marijuana.

At the same time, according to the report, declining to enforce the federal law may “pose a threat to federal supremacy by acknowledging that states are free to make policy decisions in direct conflict with those made at the federal level.”

In November 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado agreed to directly challenge the federal marijuana prohibition and legalize the growing, selling and consuming of marijuana for all people age 21 and older. State officials have spent the last few months working on regulatory schemes that would not run afoul of federal authorities, who have so far taken a hands-off approach to marijuana enforcement in both states.

Attorney General Eric Holder still has not given any indication of the administration’s response to the laws and has remained silent since testifying at a Senate hearing in March that “we’ve had good communication (with Colorado and Washington) … I expect that we will have an ability to announce what our policy is going to be relatively soon.”

The legal ambiguity laid out in the report hasn’t stopped more states from moving forward with changes to their marijuana laws. Maryland lawmakers just approved a bill allowing the medical use of marijuana, and New Hampshire lawmakers seem to be heading in the same direction. Nevada lawmakers are debating a medical marijuana law and a bill to legalize and regulate marijuana that is similar to the laws passed in Colorado and Washington. Vermont also is well on its way to decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Since 2009, the Justice Department has made prosecuting individual marijuana users a low-level priority, which has made the states feel more comfortable loosening marijuana restrictions. Currently 19 states and the District of Columbia allow for some medical marijuana use.

States also are responding to evolving public opinion. For the first time since polling began on marijuana legalization in the 1960s, a majority of Americans now favors legalizing marijuana, according to a new Pew Research Center poll. The poll found that 52 percent of Americans say that marijuana use should be legal and 45 percent say its use should remain illegal.

Source courtesy of The Pew.

Kentucky Industrial Hemp Legislation Becomes Law Without Governor’s Signature

Posted on April 10, 2013 by XploreLA.com

On Friday, April 5th, Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky stated that he will let Kentucky’s industrial hemp measure become law without his signature. Gov. Beshear had expressed concerns that marijuana growers could hide their illegal growing operations with hemp plants. Despite his concerns, he allowed the measure to become law without his signature and did not veto the legislation.

House and Senate lawmakers passed an amended version of Senate Bill 50, “An Act relating to industrial hemp”, in March during the final hours of the 2013 legislative session. Noting that “public pressure to pass the bill helped achieve the last-minute deal.”

After the bills approval by the state legislature, Kentucky Agriculture Commissioner James Comer stated that “by passing this bill, the General Assembly has signaled that Kentucky is serious about restoring industrial hemp production to the commonwealth and doing it in the right way. That will give Kentucky’s congressional delegation more leverage when they seek a federal waiver allowing Kentucky farmers to grow hemp.”

Kentucky is now the ninth state to have passed a law allowing for farmers to cultivate industrial hemp. Hemp cultivation is still prohibited by the federal government, so until the feds alter their current policy, it is unlikely that Kentucky farmers will begin to grow this crop. Of the eight states who previously approved industrial hemp legislation, only Hawaii has received a federal waiver allowing them to grow an acre of hemp for research purposes.

Federal legislation, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013, to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana is currently pending in the US Senate and House of Representatives and has been sponsored by prominent politicians such as Senators Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell. You can click here to write your federal officials in support of this legislation.

Content courtesy of The Weed Blog

Feds Aim to Seize $1.5 Million Property Over $37 Marijuana Sale

Posted on March 20, 2013 by XploreLA.com

The Justice Department (and the federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies underneath it) aren’t really sure how they want to treat medical marijuana dispensaries. One moment we hear they are a “low priority” and the next we see agents raiding them with weapons drawn. In their wishy-washy behavior, it’s not surprising to see they are now seeking to seize a building that once housed a dispensary. It’s not surprising, but it’s still troubling and enraging.

An Anaheim couple consisting of a dentist and a computer engineer with government security clearance, bought an office building on Ball Road as an income generator. The wife had her practice there for many years and they leased space to insurance agents, and other law abiding business owners. The building was their retirement plan.

When the “Ogden memo” of 2009 came down saying dispensaries would be a “low priority” of federal prosecutors, medical marijuana dispensaries multiplied. The couple, seeing these dispensary owners as similarly-minded business people, decided to lease space to one.

“I’m a law-abiding citizen,” said the man. “I didn’t think I was doing anything wrong.” After all, the dispensary-owners were operating business that were legal under California state law and they held business permits.

pre '98 bubba The DEA saw otherwise. The Feds didn’t use their own investigation and instead relied on a single purchase of medical marijuana for $37 made by an Anaheim police officer posing as a medical marijuana patient. He even had his legitimate doctor’s recommendation for pot in hand. The sale didn’t break state law. But, according to U.S. Attorney Greg Parham, it was enough.

A lawsuit was filed in August of 2012 to seize the property valued at $1.5 million based on this single sale.

After receiving notification of the suit, the building owners evicted the dispensary and sent letters to the feds and the city of Anaheim, hoping to smooth things over and avoid the seizure. But like a shark that smells blood, Parham’s sights were set and he wouldn’t be dissuaded.

He wouldn’t be dissuaded even after U.S. District Court Judge Andrew J. Guilford gave him several chances to change his mind, pointing out several inconsistencies in the federal medical marijuana policies and essentially asking if of all landlords to threaten with forfeiture, this was the landlord Parham really wanted to tangle with.

“Don’t you think in this world of change and whatever, progress or regress, depending on your point of view, this is the exact case that you don’t want presented as a test case on the interaction of federal and state [law] and medical and dispensaries and forfeiture?” Guilford asked. “[Y]ou know, a poor dentist has to turn over a whole bunch of money just because they maybe were relying on what they had heard federal agents say?”

This is happening in the city that sponsors the annual Kush Expo at their convention center—a medical marijuana festival of edibles, smokeables, and doctors standing by to write out recommendations. The case marks just another hypocrisy in the federal government’s War on Drugs, a war that often seems to be motivated by nothing more than money and a bullish mindset. The ease and aggressive manner in which the government is willing to engage in asset forfeiture is an outrageous abuse of power in service to a completely failed policy.

Content courtesy of California Criminal Defense Lawyers

Forcing the feds’ hand on marijuana [Blowback]

Posted on March 7, 2013 by XploreLA.com

In opposing HR 689, a bill by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) to federally reclassify marijuana as most other legalprescription drugs and remove oversight from the Drug Enforcement Administration and give it to the states, The Times states in its Feb. 28 editorial that it would be better to regulate cannabis at the federal level than have a patchwork of conflicting state laws.

The Times’ reasoning in opposing the bill, co-sponsored by 12 representatives from both sides of the aisle, is shortsighted. In fact, it’s virtually impossible to regulate marijuana as other prescription drugs because of the restrictions placed on researching cannabis, the very kind of research that the Food and Drug Administration requires to bring a drug to market.

Since 1970, the Controlled Substances Act has upheld marijuana as one of the most dangerous drugs available, defining it as having a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. This stance has been consistently challenged by the medical research community, patient groups and other advocates in addiction medicine. Underlying their complaints is that marijuana’s Schedule I classification, which places it alongside heroin, defines it as being too dangerous for most research. Consequently, almost no research on marijuana’s medical benefits gets funded, so there’s practically no way to find the evidence that would result in marijuana’s reclassification.

Marijuana has been caught in this catch-22 for more than 40 years. Blumenauer’s bill would address this by moving marijuana out of Schedule I, thereby freeing up and funding researchers to do the kind of studies that would result in cannabis’ wider availability. Marijuana research to date has not been able to move beyond animal models and pre-clinical research because of this barrier, and the legislation would enable scientists to use the plant in their research on marijuana as a treatment for cancer, multiple sclerosis, post-traumatic stress disorder and myriad other illness where even limited research has shown promise.

But Blumenauer’s bill is about more than advancing research; it would also protect access. Recently, Cathy Jordan, a woman from Florida who uses marijuana as a treatment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig’s disease, and who is the namesake for a medical marijuana law proposed in Florida, had her 23 marijuana plants confiscated by federal authorities mere hours after her name was linked to the legislation. HR 689 would protect patients like Jordan by stopping the federal government, which is essentially statutorily prohibited from recognizing marijuana’s medical value, from undermining states that wish to take a different approach. This conflict makes HR 689 not only necessary for conducting research but vital for patients in medical marijuana states and in states considering such legislation.

In a perfect world, the government would work with the states and researchers to develop and implement an evidence-based federal medical marijuana program, similar to programs that have been developed in Israel, Canada and the Netherlands. But the states have largely been left to fend for themselves; in many cases, they have to fend off the feds. Still, even in this environment of murkiness and contradictions, many states plus the District of Columbia have developed highly regulated medical marijuana programs, complete with licensing and tax structures, oversight committees within state government, quality control and unionized labor. California has not yet achieved this level of state oversight, which has resulted in conflict with Washington. HR 689 would strengthen existing state programs and provide guidance for new ones while protecting patients and providers.

Until the federal government is ready to take an honest look at medical marijuana, we must protect state programs for safe access. HR 689 not only affords protection to the states, it finally forces the federal government to take a real look at the science behind marijuana. After 40 years of trying the “old” way, patients cannot afford to wait. Allowing states the ability to regulate, and scientists the ability to conduct research, is the right way forward on medical marijuana.

Content courtesy of The Los Angeles Times

Medicinal Cannabis Benefits

Posted on February 20, 2013 by XploreLA.com

After a lengthy and successful career in law enforcement, Major Neill Franklin learned about the medicinal qualities of cannabis after leaving the force and is sharing his insights with as many people that will listen.

Americans for Safe Access (ASA) opened the eyes of this thirty-three year law enforcement veteran. Caught in the whirlpool of drug prohibition policy, prohibitionist law enforcement folks as I once was, forget the importance of maintaining an open mind. Unfortunately, “ group-think” is where most of us tend to feel comfortable. Until roughly four years ago, I knew virtually nothing of medical marijuana. I must say that I was somewhat skeptical of the claim for its medicinal properties.

My knowledge of marijuana originated from two places, my experimentation as a teen in 1975 and from an enforcement perspective throughout my lengthy law enforcement career. Neither provided any meaningful insight to the medicinal properties or benefits of marijuana. One of the first people I met when I assumed the role of LEAP’s executive director was ASA’s executive director, Steph Sherer. People had told me of ASA and Steph, but it wasn’t until I met with Steph that I began to educate myself regarding all there is to learn of medical marijuana (properties, policies and patients).

My interaction with ASA encouraged me to visit medical marijuana dispensaries in California where I met dispensary owners like Steve DeAngelo and Debby Goldsberry. I toured Oaksterdam University where I met Richard Lee and Dale Sky-Jones. Educationally, I benefited tremendously from my firsthand experience.

The quality of the dispensaries, the marijuana and the people managing them is exceptional, but it was my interaction with patients that gave me the best insight. Hearing patients speak of the benefits was truly eye opening. They spoke of their weaning from debilitating opiate based prescription drugs and the quality of life returning once again. I heard of marijuana’s effectiveness in combating many illnesses with virtually no side effects. And to this day I continue learning.

This is why I am attending the ASA conference this month in Washington DC. Do you know any law enforcement types in need of an education? Do you know of anyone in need of a medical marijuana education? If so, invite them to the conference and let’s open some minds. Education and public policy changes are so desperately needed in acquiring safe and legal access.

Content courtesy of Medical Marijuana 411

Obama’s Drug Problem

Posted on January 30, 2013 by XploreLA.com

Some years ago a colleague of mine who, like Obama, had snorted coke and smoked weed, experienced a mild state of conflict when called to jury duty for a case involving a teenager accused of possession of an illegal substance: 15 amphetamine pills. He had to resolve his conflict rather quickly, however, when he was appointed jury chair and oversaw a guilty conviction and a four-year prison sentence for the young man.

Barack Obama admits to having tried cocaine and marijuana but has overseen the largest increase in imprisonment for drug possession in the country’s history. Whether with his approval or of its own volition, the drug-enforcement establishment (including state and federal agencies) continues to enforce federal anti-drug laws even in states that have legalized medical marijuana. And since November 2012 these agencies have been facing a dilemma: Will they enforce drug laws in Washington and Colorado, where voters themselves have approved referenda legalizing the recreational use of marijuana? If they do not enforce these laws in Washington or Colorado, how can they enforce them in Oregon and Wyoming?

Of course, they can, and they will. Law-enforcement agencies are themselves “addicted” to drugs. They have grown dependent on the crime-fighting statistics generated by drug arrests. The employment of prison staff depends on extraordinary rates of incarceration. The money that law-enforcement agencies generate from confiscating property seized in drug busts funds equipment, enhances salaries and pays for weapons. Among the properties confiscated are homes owned by women whose partners are accused of selling or storing drugs in their homes (they need not be convicted), whether or not the women were aware of their partners’ activities.

The hypocrisy of drug laws is but a small part of the problem. In an era when the search is on to save money on education, road building and medical care, vast sums are wasted on the so-called “war on drugs” with absolutely no benefits and many negative effects. The budget for the DEA is over $2 billion a year for enforcement, and it’s increasing every year. State and local law enforcement spend just as much. There are additional units in the State Department, the Department of Defense and several other federal agencies. State prisons are overflowing with people sentenced for drug offenses, at a cost of $31,000 a year per prisoner.

In spite of these exorbitant expenditures, drug use has not declined since the war on drugs began. According to the University of Michigan’s annual surveys of drug use among high school students, the rate of drug use has remained constant since the surveys began in 1991, with slight variations up and down as drugs come into and out of fashion.

Data on drug use show that drug dealers, both youth and adults, are more likely to be white (especially at the wholesale level), and that, controlling for variables like socioeconomic status, the white population uses all types of illegal drugs (even crack cocaine) at a higher rate than the black population. Nevertheless, it is the black population that is the major resource sustaining the law-enforcement establishment, bolstering the prosecutor’s record of accomplishment and filling the prisons to create jobs — especially in rural areas, where unemployment rates are highest. And the price paid by the black community is devastating. Working-age men who do not have a prison or arrest record are becoming increasingly rare. Black communities cannot depend on, nor do they trust, law-enforcement agencies to be fair and impartial. Ask any black man on the street if the enforcement of drug laws is colorblind, and he will laugh at the question.

The U.S. is one of the few industrialized countries still enforcing draconian anti-drug laws. Most European countries either have adopted policies that make possession of drugs a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or have decriminalized drugs altogether. Portugal, the most progressive country in Europe with respect to drug laws, has decriminalized all drugs. In Portugal and other European countries the results have been almost uniformly positive: a decline in drug-related illnesses (e.g., AIDS and hepatitis), an increase in people seeking help for drug addiction and no increase in drug use or an influx of addicts from other countries.

Obama and his Attorney General could decriminalize drugs without having to pass legislation. The opportunity to start down this road is provided by the states that have legalized medical marijuana and those that have legalized the recreational use of marijuana. But for fortune, Obama himself could have been sent to prison for using illegal drugs. Instead, he became the president fo the United States. One would hope that such a life experience would make him an enlightened president. Enlightened or not, does Obama have the courage to go against the law-enforcement establishment?

Content courtesy of Huffington Post.

The Gateway Drug Theory

Posted on January 25, 2013 by XploreLA.com

Since the 1950s, United States drug policies have been guided by the assumption that trying cannabis increases the probability that users will eventually use “harder” drugs. This hypothesis has been one of the central pillars of anti-cannabis drug policy in the United States, though the validity and implications of this hypothesis are hotly debated. Studies have shown that tobacco smoking is a better predictor of concurrent illicit hard drug use than smoking cannabis. No widely accepted study has ever demonstrated a cause-and-effect relationship between the use of cannabis and the later use of harder drugs like heroin and cocaine.

Medical use

Cannabis used medically has several well-documented beneficial effects. Among these are: the amelioration of nausea and vomiting, stimulation of hunger in chemotherapy and AIDS patients, lowered intraocular eye pressure (shown to be effective for treating glaucoma), as well as general analgesic effects (pain reliever). Less confirmed individual studies also have been conducted indicating cannabis to be beneficial to a gamut of conditions running from multiple sclerosis to depression. Synthesized cannabinoids are also sold as prescription drugs.

Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved smoked cannabis for any condition or disease in the United States, largely because the FDA claims good quality scientific evidence for its use from U.S. studies is lacking. Eighteen states and the District of Colombia have legalized cannabis for medical use. The United States Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop and Gonzales v. Raich that it is the federal government that has the right to regulate and criminalize cannabis, even for medical purposes. Canada, Spain, The Netherlands and Austria have legalized some form of cannabis for medicinal use.

Positive effects of the drug have also been observed. For example, in a recent study researchers found that compared with those who did not smoke cannabis, long-term cannabis smokers were roughly 62% less likely to develop head and neck cancers.

Addictiveness

Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of NIDA ranked the relative addictiveness of 6 substances (cannabis, caffeine, cocaine, alcohol, heroin and nicotine). Cannabis ranked least addictive, with caffeine the second least addictive and nicotine the most addictive.

Content courtesy of Wikipedia.

Pardon Medical Marijuana Grower Aaron Sandusky

Posted on January 14, 2013 by XploreLA.com

Aaron Sandusky was wrongfully indicted and convicted by the federal government for operating a medical marijuana dispensary in CA in which it is fully legal within the state.

Aaron was operating in accordance to state guideline. He was visited and reassured by FBI officials that he and his business were not of interest and could continue to operate. In Nov. 2011 he was raided by the federal government, charged and convicted without a defense.

It is our request that the President grant a full pardon to Mr. Sandusky on the ground that California has legalized medical marijuana and President Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, had assured the American public that the federal government would not prosecute medical marijuana dispensary operators in those states where it was legalized.

Content courtesy of The Weed Blog.

Aaron Sandusky Sentenced!?

Posted on January 10, 2013 by XploreLA.com

We are sad and upset to report that Aaron was sentenced Monday to 10 years in federal prison for operating medical marijuana dispensaries — even though they are legal in the state of California. This is a case of an out-of-date judge, a federal government that loves to flex its muscle, and a weak state. Aaron is their victim du jour. Our hearts and thoughts go out to Aaron and his friends and family as we challenge the system and light one up for him.

We can’t believe they are still putting people in jail for non-violent offenses. NPR this morning was discussing how the state is being forced to reduce it’s prison population — and their solution is to reduce sentences across the board. Aaron didn’t even come up!

In the video, Cheri says, “the marijuana movement is strong and growing in popularity, this judge needs to catch up with the time.” She is absolutely correct and helps builds a case.

We also can’t believe the judge is an African American man saying, “I’m going to take a stand for the rule of law.” Does he not know of the abolitionist allies Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Beecher Stowe, John Brown, and Angelina Grimké who took a stand against the “rule of law” of slavery for the sake of reason and humanity and turned a despised fringe movement against chattel slavery into a force that literally changed the nation!? While slavery and the right to smoke, possess, and grow marijuana are by no means equal, they both deal with freedom. Percy missed a unique opportunity to start a prohibition style movement and make a pragmatic decision for the people.

Legalize it, don’t criticize it.

The following is an article from the Huffington Post.

Rancho Cucamonga resident Aaron Sandusky, 42, ran three Inland Empire dispensaries known as G3 Holistics. “I want to apologize to those with me and their families who have been victimized by the federal government who has not recognized the voters of this state,” Sandusky said in court Monday. His G3 dispensaries served 17,000 medical marijuana patients, according to marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access.

“It’s really sad that Justice Department is able to find the resources to repeatedly undermine President Obama’s campaign pledges not to interfere with state medical marijuana laws,” Tom Angell, chairman of marijuana advocacy group Marijuana Majority, told The Huffington Post.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office said Sandusky was abusing the state system on a large scale — with at least 1,000 marijuana plants — and making a large profit. In a memo, prosecutors said Sandusky is an “unrepentant manipulator who used the perceived ambiguity surrounding ‘medical’ marijuana to exploit a business opportunity for himself.”

Sandusky “used G3 as a means to replace the vast income he lost from the collapse of his real estate business,” the prosecution memo continued. “Defendant built a veneer of legitimacy around his criminal enterprise using his customers’ good-faith search for pain relief. There is absolutely no altruistic component to defendant’s continued and sustained criminality.”

Kevin A. Sabet, former senior White House official in charge of drug policy, told HuffPost that the sentencing was appropriate because Sandusky was “exploitative.” “People aren’t supposed to parade around with a green cross slapped onto their storefront when they’re really just about distributing marijuana to anyone who can pay $100 to get a card,” Sabet said. “Even advocates admit that it’s a ruse.”

But Sandusky “still feels really strongly … that what he was doing was right,” said his girlfriend, Darlene Buenrostro. “He’s very passionate and very caring and generous, and everybody that is here to support him has been witness to that,” she said in the video above, referring to about a dozen supporters who came to the courthouse Monday.

Free Aaron Sandusky

A terrible crime has been committed. Aaron Sandusky was not one of the criminals involved.