Juicing Raw Cannabis for Greater Health
If you find yourself in the doctors chair at the office of Dr. William Courtney, Willits, California you will be advised; we shouldn’t be smoking our marijuana, we should be eating it! After I read the story in the Washington Post, “Form of medical marijuana won’t get you high but is creating quite a buzz” written by Karl Vick, I decided to look into it more.
CBD (Cannabidiol), one of the main constituents of the cannabis plant has been proven medically to relieve convulsion, inflammation, anxiety and nausea, as well as inhibit cancer cell growth. Recent studies have shown it to be an effective atypical anti-psychotic in treating schizophrenia. CBD also interferes with the amount of THC your brain processes, balancing the psychotropic effect of marijuana.
In my report,Sativex: Liquid medical marijuana, I talked about GW Phamacueticals, a British company who, with Japanese pharmaceuticals company Otsuka, have been granted permission by the New drug Administration and the FDA to enter into late stage trials here in the US for treatment of cancer pain and the side effects of chemotherapy with their cannabinoid based oral mouth spray, Sativex. The THC/CBD spray is already available to patients in the United Kingdom, Canada and Spain for the treatment of MS.
According to GW Pharma’s cultivation FAQ their scientists in the UK can precisely control the cannabinoid composition of the plant and they have bred an extremely CBD high strain. Both Dr. Courtney and some of his patients tried to find a similar strain available here in Northern California but to no avail. Recently, an emboldened lab, operating in the hope they can avoid DEA interference here in the Bay Area has begun testing plants for CBD, THC and pathogens like mold. Steep Hill Lab has found only one bankable strain, “Soma A+” that contained significantly more CBD than any other strain tested.
“What has happened is, almost all strains available in America through the black market are THC concentrates,” said Ethan Russo, a Seattle area physician who is senior medical adviser to GW. “The CBD in almost all cases has been bred out. The reason, cannabis in this country has been cultivated for its intoxicating effect.”
“It’s going to be a few years yet,” said Russo, who in the mid-’90s left his neurology practice in Montana, concerned by the toxic side effects of medicines he was prescribing. He returned from a sabbatical to Peru convinced that marijuana holds the greatest potential among medicinal plants.
“There’s a tendency to discount claims when something appears to be good for everything, but there’s a reason this is the case,” he said. “CBD works on receptors, and as it turns out, we have cannabinoids in our bodies, endogenous cannabinoids, that turn out to be very effective at regulating immune functions, nerve functions, bone functions.”
Russo: “The endogenous cannabinoid system acts as a modulator in fine-tuning a lot of these systems, and if something is deranged biochemically in a person’s body, it may well be that a cannabinoid system can bring things back into balance.”
On an important side note, laboratory studies on cannabinoids including CBD, by other companies and research schools has been largely hindered by federal restrictions on marijuana research.
The catch 22 is the continued classification of cannabis as a Schedule I drug. This impedes research on marijuana’s therapeutic value, thereby making it’s re-evaluation and re-scheduling through the normal drug approval process extremely unlikely. In fact, speaking to The New York Times in a January 19, 2010 article entitled, “Researchers Find Medical Study of Marijuana Discouraged,” NIDA spokeswoman Shirley Simson said: “As the National Institute on Drug Abuse, our focus is primarily on the negative consequences of marijuana use. We generally do not fund research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana.”
In the perhaps $15 billion underground economy that flows from marijuana in California: No one knows for certain what they’re buying. “I can’t breed analytically,” said Jim Hill, a pot farmer in Mendocino’s Potter Valley. “I can only go by patient anecdote: ‘Yeah, that really worked for me.’ I can’t go by graph paper.” reports the Washington Post article.
Sixties activist Fred Gardner edits O’Shaughnessy’s, a quarterly devoted to medical marijuana and named for the physician who brought cannabis to the attention of European medicos. “I think people owe it to the industry, owe it to the people, to do something honestly medical,” Gardner said. “And CBD is honestly medical.”
CBD’s could finally be the link between medical marijuana and science.
Back to Dr. Courtney in Mendocino- maybe nowhere else in the country could a cannabis doctor advise growing 40 plants — enough for one juicing each day on the 45-day cycle required of the auto-flowering strain. What’s striking is the number of patients who truly do not want to get high. Juicing the fresh leaves instead of burning the dried plant matter does not deliver the same concentrate of THC (the psychoactive component) and recent research has shown that CBD works better consumed raw. The THC needs heat for activation and because of that, the raw leaves don’t produce a “high”. The doctor recommends that his patients mix the cannabis juice (1 part) with carrot juice (10 parts) to counteract the bitterness. Information I found online explained that any cannabis plant has the highest CBD at 70-90 days after sowing. After 90 days they rapidly produce more THC. He recommends drinking the juice three times a day.
Unfortunately for most of us, growing 40 plants on constant light cycles so you can provide yourself with enough fresh leaves for juicing will never be a viable option but it’s very interesting to see where this movement could go and what new cannabis products could come of it. Once labs can analyze the medicine, the cultivators can begin to use selective breeding techniques to develop strains that have a higher or more balanced CBD to THC ratio and then identify them as such.
Dr. William Courtney is pioneering the raw cannabis concept and for his own validation he explains, he only need look to his once seriously ill girlfriend who consumes the fresh juice daily and has made a recovery from several debilitating illness’ which are chronicled in her“New Settlement“ interview found on Dr. Courtney’s website, Leaves of Grass. His site includes links to several articles and studies regarding cannabinoid research and interviews with him on the topic so check it out for more information.
I’ve also been advised by a patient that is planning to grow medicine for fresh juicing, that a very CBD high strain was tested at Spannabis this year called “Cannatonic” and seeds may be available online.
http://berkeleypatientscare.com/2010/09/18/juicing-raw-cannabis-for-greater-health/
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Law Enforcement Community Members Urge Obama, Holder To Respect State Marijuana Legalization Laws
Two weeks ago, Washington and Colorado passed historically unprecedented measures legalizing the recreational use of marijuana for adults dealing a major blow to the decades-long drug war.
Since the marijuana measures passed, the federal government has remained mostly silent on the issue, but members of law enforcement are asking President Barack Obama as well as U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to respect these states' new marijuana legalization laws.
Niell Franklin, director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and a former narcotics police officer, delivered a letter to Holder's office at the Department of Justice Tuesday morning urging him not interfere with voters in Colorado and Washington who wish to have marijuana legalized and regulated.
Read the text of the letter that LEAP's Neill Franklin delivered to Eric Holder this morning, below:
Dear Mr. Attorney General and Our Colleagues in the Department of Justice,
As fellow law enforcement and criminal justice professionals we respectfully call upon you to respect and abide by the democratically enacted laws to regulate marijuana in Colorado and Washington. This is not a challenge to you, but an invitation – an invitation to help return our profession to the principles that made us enter law enforcement in the first place.
We went into law enforcement, despite its long hours and constant frustrations, because we wanted to serve our communities. We wanted to save people, to protect them, and there are few more selfless and noble callings on this earth. But the second we overthrow the will of the people, we fail to live up to the promise of that calling.
The great American political writings upon which this country was founded were based in John Locke’s concept of the social contract, which recognizes that the authority of police, and of all government, is derived from the people. And the people have spoken. To disregard the fact is to undermine the legitimacy of the ideas for which our forefathers fought and died.
This is not merely an academic argument. August Vollmer, father of professional policing and primary author of the Wickersham Commission report that served to bring an end to the prohibition of alcohol, opposed the enforcement of drug laws, saying that they "engender disrespect both for law and for the agents of law enforcement." His words ring as true today as they did in 1929. After 40 years of the drug war, people no longer look upon law enforcement as heroes but as people to be feared. This is particularly true in poor neighborhoods and in those of people of color, and it impacts our ability to fight real crime.
Read the full letter and see the 73 law enforcement community members that signed off on it, here.
On Tuesday afternoon, LEAP held a teleconference call announcing the delivery of the letter and Frankin was joined by former Seattle chief of police Norm Stamper, 36-year veteran former Denver police lieutenant Tony Ryan, former police lieutenant commander Diane Goldstein & California NAACP President Alice Huffman.
"This is the perfect opportunity for this administration, under the leadership of President Obama, to do the right thing," Franklin said on Tuesday's teleconference call. "In Washington State and in Colorado, voters have gone to the polls and overwhelmingly sent a message that it's time for a new drug policy for marijuana in their state. It's a perfect opportunity for the president to respect democracy and the demonstration of it."
Members of state and federal government are also keeping the pressure on Obama and Holder to respect states like Colorado and Washington that have passed marijuana legalization measures.
Last week, Colorado Reps Jared Polis and Diana DeGette introduced the "Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act" that would exempt states from the federal laws banning the sale, possession and use of small amounts of marijuana by adults, The Colorado Independent reported.
Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) alo announced last week that they are urging President Barack Obama to "respect the wishes of voters in Colorado and Washington" who voted to legalize marijuana.
"We have sponsored legislation at the federal level to remove criminal penalties for the use of marijuana because of our belief in individual freedom," Frank and Paul wrote in a letter to Obama. "We recognize that this has not yet become national policy, but we believe there are many strong reasons for your administration to allow the states of Colorado and Washington to set the policies they believe appropriate in this regard, without the federal government overriding the choices made by the voters of these states."
Both Frank and Paul are ardent supporters of marijuana legalization. In 2011, the two pushed legislation to end the federal ban on marijuana and let the states decide on legalization.
Just days after Frank and Paul's letter to the White House, 18 members of Congress signed a letter to Eric Holder and and Drug Enforcement Administrator Michele Leonhart requesting that the federal government respect state laws regarding marijuana allowing states be permitted to function as "laboratories of democracy." Read Congress' full letter to Holder here.
When asked about Holder's expected reaction to the letter, Franklin said during Tuesday's teleconference call, "I think that not only what they are hearing from us, but from members of Congress and other citizens, as well as looking at the numbers and the trends -- I think they probably realize it was a good decision not to advocate for the continuation of prohibition in Colorado and Washington. Personally, I'm an optimist regarding all of this and I see it as a good sign that they didn't go into Colorado and Washington."
The federal government's enforcement intent on marijuana law remains unclear, now two weeks since Amendment 64 passed in Colorado and Initiative 502 passed in Washington. Holder, who was a vocal opponent of California's legalization initiative in 2010 saying he would "vigorously enforce" federal marijuana prohibition, remained silent on the issue during the election cycle and has continued to remain silent now that the measures have passed.
Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, who has been a vocal opponent of Amendment 64 but has said that he intends to respect the wishes of the voters, did have a recent phone call with Holder to discuss Colorado's legalizing of marijuana and how the feds might respond, but the results of that call gave no clue as to whether or not the Department of Justice will sue to block the marijuana measures in Colorado and Washington, according to The Associated Press.
If the Obama administration does decide to crackdown on legalized marijuana in Colorado -- where more people voted for marijuana legalization than for the president's reelection -- the administration could face some serious political fallout with much of the same population of the Centennial State that handed him Colorado on election night.
However many proponents of legalization say they don't foresee federal agents interfering in states that have legalized cannabis, NBC News reported, citing the federal government's silence on the issue this election cycle.
There is also the July report from GQ which stated that President Obama wants to "pivot" on the war on drugs during his second term. Marc Ambinder writes:
Don't expect miracles. There is very little the president can do by himself. And pot-smokers shouldn't expect the president to come out in favor of legalizing marijuana. But from his days as a state senator in Illinois, Obama has considered the Drug War to be a failure, a conflict that has exacerbated the problem of drug abuse, devastated entire communities, changed policing practices for the worse, and has led to a generation of young children, disproportionately black and minority, to grow up in dislocated homes, or in none at all.
Optimism about a second-term Obama administration that turns its stance around on marijuana might be difficult for some pot business owners who have seen the DOJ aggressively crack down on medical marijuana dispensaries in states like California and Colorado where hundreds of pot shops have been shuttered just since the beginning of 2012.
"During his first term, President Obama really disappointed those of us who hoped he might follow through on his campaign pledges to respect state medical marijuana laws," said Franklin, in a statement about the letter delivered to Holder on Tuesday. "Still, I'm hopeful that in his second term he'll realize the political opportunity that exists to do the right thing."
During his closing remarks on Tuesday's call, Franklin outlined the process that President Obama could go through: "It's a very simple process here for the administration and President Obama," Franklin began. "Tomorrow, or maybe later today, he can take his ink pen and sign an executive order for the DEA to remove marijuana from Schedule I, place it into a three or four category, and allow the states and the voters to do what they feel is best for their communities."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/cops-obama-holder-respect-marijuana-legalization_n_2165852.html?utm_hp_ref=email_share
Since the marijuana measures passed, the federal government has remained mostly silent on the issue, but members of law enforcement are asking President Barack Obama as well as U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to respect these states' new marijuana legalization laws.
Niell Franklin, director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and a former narcotics police officer, delivered a letter to Holder's office at the Department of Justice Tuesday morning urging him not interfere with voters in Colorado and Washington who wish to have marijuana legalized and regulated.
Read the text of the letter that LEAP's Neill Franklin delivered to Eric Holder this morning, below:
Dear Mr. Attorney General and Our Colleagues in the Department of Justice,
As fellow law enforcement and criminal justice professionals we respectfully call upon you to respect and abide by the democratically enacted laws to regulate marijuana in Colorado and Washington. This is not a challenge to you, but an invitation – an invitation to help return our profession to the principles that made us enter law enforcement in the first place.
We went into law enforcement, despite its long hours and constant frustrations, because we wanted to serve our communities. We wanted to save people, to protect them, and there are few more selfless and noble callings on this earth. But the second we overthrow the will of the people, we fail to live up to the promise of that calling.
The great American political writings upon which this country was founded were based in John Locke’s concept of the social contract, which recognizes that the authority of police, and of all government, is derived from the people. And the people have spoken. To disregard the fact is to undermine the legitimacy of the ideas for which our forefathers fought and died.
This is not merely an academic argument. August Vollmer, father of professional policing and primary author of the Wickersham Commission report that served to bring an end to the prohibition of alcohol, opposed the enforcement of drug laws, saying that they "engender disrespect both for law and for the agents of law enforcement." His words ring as true today as they did in 1929. After 40 years of the drug war, people no longer look upon law enforcement as heroes but as people to be feared. This is particularly true in poor neighborhoods and in those of people of color, and it impacts our ability to fight real crime.
Read the full letter and see the 73 law enforcement community members that signed off on it, here.
On Tuesday afternoon, LEAP held a teleconference call announcing the delivery of the letter and Frankin was joined by former Seattle chief of police Norm Stamper, 36-year veteran former Denver police lieutenant Tony Ryan, former police lieutenant commander Diane Goldstein & California NAACP President Alice Huffman.
"This is the perfect opportunity for this administration, under the leadership of President Obama, to do the right thing," Franklin said on Tuesday's teleconference call. "In Washington State and in Colorado, voters have gone to the polls and overwhelmingly sent a message that it's time for a new drug policy for marijuana in their state. It's a perfect opportunity for the president to respect democracy and the demonstration of it."
Members of state and federal government are also keeping the pressure on Obama and Holder to respect states like Colorado and Washington that have passed marijuana legalization measures.
Last week, Colorado Reps Jared Polis and Diana DeGette introduced the "Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act" that would exempt states from the federal laws banning the sale, possession and use of small amounts of marijuana by adults, The Colorado Independent reported.
Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) alo announced last week that they are urging President Barack Obama to "respect the wishes of voters in Colorado and Washington" who voted to legalize marijuana.
"We have sponsored legislation at the federal level to remove criminal penalties for the use of marijuana because of our belief in individual freedom," Frank and Paul wrote in a letter to Obama. "We recognize that this has not yet become national policy, but we believe there are many strong reasons for your administration to allow the states of Colorado and Washington to set the policies they believe appropriate in this regard, without the federal government overriding the choices made by the voters of these states."
Both Frank and Paul are ardent supporters of marijuana legalization. In 2011, the two pushed legislation to end the federal ban on marijuana and let the states decide on legalization.
Just days after Frank and Paul's letter to the White House, 18 members of Congress signed a letter to Eric Holder and and Drug Enforcement Administrator Michele Leonhart requesting that the federal government respect state laws regarding marijuana allowing states be permitted to function as "laboratories of democracy." Read Congress' full letter to Holder here.
When asked about Holder's expected reaction to the letter, Franklin said during Tuesday's teleconference call, "I think that not only what they are hearing from us, but from members of Congress and other citizens, as well as looking at the numbers and the trends -- I think they probably realize it was a good decision not to advocate for the continuation of prohibition in Colorado and Washington. Personally, I'm an optimist regarding all of this and I see it as a good sign that they didn't go into Colorado and Washington."
The federal government's enforcement intent on marijuana law remains unclear, now two weeks since Amendment 64 passed in Colorado and Initiative 502 passed in Washington. Holder, who was a vocal opponent of California's legalization initiative in 2010 saying he would "vigorously enforce" federal marijuana prohibition, remained silent on the issue during the election cycle and has continued to remain silent now that the measures have passed.
Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, who has been a vocal opponent of Amendment 64 but has said that he intends to respect the wishes of the voters, did have a recent phone call with Holder to discuss Colorado's legalizing of marijuana and how the feds might respond, but the results of that call gave no clue as to whether or not the Department of Justice will sue to block the marijuana measures in Colorado and Washington, according to The Associated Press.
If the Obama administration does decide to crackdown on legalized marijuana in Colorado -- where more people voted for marijuana legalization than for the president's reelection -- the administration could face some serious political fallout with much of the same population of the Centennial State that handed him Colorado on election night.
However many proponents of legalization say they don't foresee federal agents interfering in states that have legalized cannabis, NBC News reported, citing the federal government's silence on the issue this election cycle.
There is also the July report from GQ which stated that President Obama wants to "pivot" on the war on drugs during his second term. Marc Ambinder writes:
Don't expect miracles. There is very little the president can do by himself. And pot-smokers shouldn't expect the president to come out in favor of legalizing marijuana. But from his days as a state senator in Illinois, Obama has considered the Drug War to be a failure, a conflict that has exacerbated the problem of drug abuse, devastated entire communities, changed policing practices for the worse, and has led to a generation of young children, disproportionately black and minority, to grow up in dislocated homes, or in none at all.
Optimism about a second-term Obama administration that turns its stance around on marijuana might be difficult for some pot business owners who have seen the DOJ aggressively crack down on medical marijuana dispensaries in states like California and Colorado where hundreds of pot shops have been shuttered just since the beginning of 2012.
"During his first term, President Obama really disappointed those of us who hoped he might follow through on his campaign pledges to respect state medical marijuana laws," said Franklin, in a statement about the letter delivered to Holder on Tuesday. "Still, I'm hopeful that in his second term he'll realize the political opportunity that exists to do the right thing."
During his closing remarks on Tuesday's call, Franklin outlined the process that President Obama could go through: "It's a very simple process here for the administration and President Obama," Franklin began. "Tomorrow, or maybe later today, he can take his ink pen and sign an executive order for the DEA to remove marijuana from Schedule I, place it into a three or four category, and allow the states and the voters to do what they feel is best for their communities."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/cops-obama-holder-respect-marijuana-legalization_n_2165852.html?utm_hp_ref=email_share
Monday, November 12, 2012
DARE changes stance on cannabis
The country's "DARE" program - this author knows it well, having received the teachings of Drug Abuse Resistance Education in the early 90s - is set to scrap its marijuana plank, reports the aptly named Toke of the Town.
The program, long scrutinized by weed legalizers but defended by cops, will be dropping discussion of marijuana from its go-to list of drugs to avoid, which includes unarguably more dangerous substances like heroin and methamphetamine. A police officer involved with the program's outreach in Washington state confirmed that the parent organization overseeing DARE's local efforts has "deleted" pot from its agenda.
"The new curriculum starts as of December," said Kennewick, Washington police officer Mike Meyer. "It does not bring up the subject of marijuana at all."
The program, long scrutinized by weed legalizers but defended by cops, will be dropping discussion of marijuana from its go-to list of drugs to avoid, which includes unarguably more dangerous substances like heroin and methamphetamine. A police officer involved with the program's outreach in Washington state confirmed that the parent organization overseeing DARE's local efforts has "deleted" pot from its agenda.
"The new curriculum starts as of December," said Kennewick, Washington police officer Mike Meyer. "It does not bring up the subject of marijuana at all."
Sunday, November 11, 2012
220 marijuana cases dismissed in King, Pierce counties
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2012/11/09/175-marijuana-prosecutions-in-king-county-dismissed-because-of-initiative-502/
UPDATE 3:03 p.m. King and Pierce County prosecutors are dismissing more than 220 misdemeanor marijuana cases in response to Tuesday’s vote to decriminalize small amounts of pot.
In King County, 175 cases are being dismissed involving people 21 and older and possession of one ounce or less. I-502 makes one ounce of marijuana legal on Dec. 6, but King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg decided to apply I-502 retroactively.
“Although the effective date of I-502 is not until December 6, there is no point in continuing to seek criminal penalties for conduct that will be legal next month,” Satterberg said in a statement.
The dismissed cases involved arrests in unincorporated King County, as well as the state highways and the University of Washington. About 40 of the cases had already been filed in court as criminal charges; those charges will be dismissed. Another 135 cases were pending charging decisions and will simply be returned to the arresting police agency.
Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist said he was dismissing “about four dozen” pending cases where misdemeanor marijuana was the only offense. He said his staff was continuing to prosecute other cases where possession was secondary to a more serious charge, such as drunken driving.
“The people have spoken through this initiative,” said Lindquist. “And as a practical matter, I don’t think you could sell a simple marijuana case to a jury after this initiative passed.”
In an interview, Satterberg said his office would continue to prosecute marijuana possession above one ounce, allowing for “a buffer for those whose scales are less than accurate.” His office also charges felony possession — for people with more than 40 grams — although he said his staff routinely allows those defendants to plead down to a misdemeanor.
“I think when the people voted to change the policy, they weren’t focused on when the effective date of the new policy would be. They spoke loudly and clearly that we should not treat small amounts of marijuana as an offense,” he said. I-502 campaign manager Alison Holcomb said she was “incredibly moved” by Satterberg’s announcement, which she said showed “incredible courage.”
The decision supports a prime argument I-502 made during the campaign. A study by a group of academics found there had been 241,000 misdemeanor marijuana possession cases in Washington over the past 25 years, 67,000 of them in the past five years. “If 502 hadn’t passed, we’d see the same amount of marijuana possession cases every year,” she said. “What makes a difference is changing the law.” Satterberg is the first prosecutor to change charging policy after I-502, but other prosecutors are also considering these cases. Tom McBride of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys said his office “just starting to work through those issues.”
Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes has refused to prosecute misdemeanor possession cases since he took office.
Earlier this week, the chief criminal deputy prosecutor in Spokane County, Jack Driscoll, appeared to take a more conservative position. He told the Spokesman-Review that, even after Dec. 6, the only marijuana which was legal to possess was pot sold in the state-licensed stores called for in I-502. Those stores won’t be created for at least a year.
“The only thing that is legal is selling marijuana through those stores,” Driscoll said. “That will be regulated by the state. You can’t under this initiative have an ounce of marijuana that doesn’t come from a state-issued provider. You still can’t have black-market marijuana.”
Holcomb disputed that interpretation. So did Satterberg, who called it a “very narrow reading” of the initiative. “I don’t know how you trace where (the marijuana) comes from,” he said.
Satterberg said he expected federal authorities to seek an injunction to block implementation of I-502′s state licensing scheme for marijuana retailers and growers. “I think it’s the kind of issue the U.S. Supreme Court will have a final word on,” said Satterberg, calling it an “an important state’s rights issue.” But he does not expect a federal lawsuit to target the types of cases he is dismissing, noting that states already have widely divergent penalties for marijuana possession.
UPDATE 3:03 p.m. King and Pierce County prosecutors are dismissing more than 220 misdemeanor marijuana cases in response to Tuesday’s vote to decriminalize small amounts of pot.
In King County, 175 cases are being dismissed involving people 21 and older and possession of one ounce or less. I-502 makes one ounce of marijuana legal on Dec. 6, but King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg decided to apply I-502 retroactively.
“Although the effective date of I-502 is not until December 6, there is no point in continuing to seek criminal penalties for conduct that will be legal next month,” Satterberg said in a statement.
The dismissed cases involved arrests in unincorporated King County, as well as the state highways and the University of Washington. About 40 of the cases had already been filed in court as criminal charges; those charges will be dismissed. Another 135 cases were pending charging decisions and will simply be returned to the arresting police agency.
Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist said he was dismissing “about four dozen” pending cases where misdemeanor marijuana was the only offense. He said his staff was continuing to prosecute other cases where possession was secondary to a more serious charge, such as drunken driving.
“The people have spoken through this initiative,” said Lindquist. “And as a practical matter, I don’t think you could sell a simple marijuana case to a jury after this initiative passed.”
In an interview, Satterberg said his office would continue to prosecute marijuana possession above one ounce, allowing for “a buffer for those whose scales are less than accurate.” His office also charges felony possession — for people with more than 40 grams — although he said his staff routinely allows those defendants to plead down to a misdemeanor.
“I think when the people voted to change the policy, they weren’t focused on when the effective date of the new policy would be. They spoke loudly and clearly that we should not treat small amounts of marijuana as an offense,” he said. I-502 campaign manager Alison Holcomb said she was “incredibly moved” by Satterberg’s announcement, which she said showed “incredible courage.”
The decision supports a prime argument I-502 made during the campaign. A study by a group of academics found there had been 241,000 misdemeanor marijuana possession cases in Washington over the past 25 years, 67,000 of them in the past five years. “If 502 hadn’t passed, we’d see the same amount of marijuana possession cases every year,” she said. “What makes a difference is changing the law.” Satterberg is the first prosecutor to change charging policy after I-502, but other prosecutors are also considering these cases. Tom McBride of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys said his office “just starting to work through those issues.”
Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes has refused to prosecute misdemeanor possession cases since he took office.
Earlier this week, the chief criminal deputy prosecutor in Spokane County, Jack Driscoll, appeared to take a more conservative position. He told the Spokesman-Review that, even after Dec. 6, the only marijuana which was legal to possess was pot sold in the state-licensed stores called for in I-502. Those stores won’t be created for at least a year.
“The only thing that is legal is selling marijuana through those stores,” Driscoll said. “That will be regulated by the state. You can’t under this initiative have an ounce of marijuana that doesn’t come from a state-issued provider. You still can’t have black-market marijuana.”
Holcomb disputed that interpretation. So did Satterberg, who called it a “very narrow reading” of the initiative. “I don’t know how you trace where (the marijuana) comes from,” he said.
Satterberg said he expected federal authorities to seek an injunction to block implementation of I-502′s state licensing scheme for marijuana retailers and growers. “I think it’s the kind of issue the U.S. Supreme Court will have a final word on,” said Satterberg, calling it an “an important state’s rights issue.” But he does not expect a federal lawsuit to target the types of cases he is dismissing, noting that states already have widely divergent penalties for marijuana possession.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Federal Appeals Court Hears Case On Medical Value Of Marijuana
By Jonathan Bair, Americans for Safe Access
This morning, the federal Appeals Court for the DC Circuit heard an appeal in the case called Americans for Safe Access v Drug Enforcement Administration. The case is an appeal of the DEA’s rejection of a petition filed in 2002 seeking to change the placement of marijuana as a Schedule I drug per the Controlled Substances Act. Based on the scientific evidence, ASA and our fellow plaintiffs feel that it is simply untrue that cannabis is a drug with a “high potential for abuse” and “without accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” The hearing today offered a glimpse at the Court’s approach to this topic.
In front of a packed courtroom in Washington, the three-judge panel questioned ASA’s Chief Counsel Joe Elford and a federal lawyer about the merits of the scientific case, and the crucial legal issue of “standing.” Standing is a legal concept that restricts the right to sue to injured parties – people who are directly hurt by what they are fighting, and can get relief from a legal judgement. The issue of standing has been the reason why two prior appeals of the DEA’s classification of marijuana were rejected. In the past, patients have not been part of lawsuits against the Controlled Substances Act. The three judges were Merrick Garland, Karen Henderson, and Harry Edwards.
ASA’s Chief Counsel Joe Elford opened his appeal by arguing that the federal “Department of Health and Human Services plays a game of gotcha” by tightly controlling research access to cannabis and then claiming that there is not enough compelling research to justify reconsidering it as Schedule I. The Drug Enforcement Administration erred by determing that cannabis has a high potential for abuse when its findings determine its abuse and harm potential is less than other substances in less-controlled schedules, such as cocaine.
Elford opened his arguments with the issue of standing. He pointed to the affidavit of plaintiff Michael Krawitz, a veteran denied access to Veterans Administration services because of his medically necessary use of marijuana. The Veterans Administrastion’s harmful policy is based on marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance. He also spoke of the many members of Americans for Safe Access, who are fearful of the consequences of cultivating their own cannabis for their medical needs, and that a medical necessity defense in court could be allowed if marijuana were not in Schedule I.
Elford then turned to the issue of the merits of the DEA’s position on marijuana’s medical value, to prove their position was “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore impermissible. The contention that there is not a complete consensus was argued to be an unreasonable interpretation of the regulatory standard, and that many of HHS’s standards are inapplicable to an organic substance. Significantly, the lack of access to marijuana for medical research is a consequence of the scheduling, yet the lack of suitable research is cited by the DEA as a reason for maintaining the schedule. Despite this lack of research access, ASA cited a growing body of high-quality scientific and medical research into the benefits of marijuana.
Judge Garland asked Elford if he was arguing that marijuana in fact meets HHS’s standard for studies. ASA’s counsel cited over 200 studies and argued that a circular standard is impossible to meet. He also said that, given that the schedule is relative, the DEA is ignoring even its own studies showing that marijuana has merely a “mild” potential for abuse.
Joe Elford concluded by arguing that Schedule I was an inappropriate classification of marijuana and it caused harm to patients and prevented meaningful medical research. Rescheduling marijuana would allow for a reasonable policy solution for suffering patients and uphold the intent of the Controlled Substances Act.
Judge Edwards asked about the standing of Mr. Krawitz, and his access to medical marijuana. The judges asked about access in medical states and noted that marijuana would not be legal just because it were rescheduled.
Federal counsel Lena Watkins then presented her position against appealing the DEA’s decision to continue cannabis in Schedule I. She noted that state legislatures or popular votes do not determine accepted medical use. She said that research is inadequate and has not progressed, and argued that the government does provide access for research. Turning to the abuse potential, Watkins said, “marijuana is the most widely abused drug in America,” and dependency is a factor in making that assessment.
The judges questioned the level of access provided for research, and Watkins said that fifteen studies of a specific federal “quality” metric have been allowed. Pressed to explain why these studies haven’t persuaded the DEA that marijuana has medical benefits, she said, “we don’t have the final results yet.” To many in the audience, the circular nature of the government’s position on the science of marijuana was clear. The judges then invited Elford to give a rebuttal.
Focusing on rebutting the government’s claims about research, Elford argued that there has been adequate study and even more since this case was filed in 2002, and noted that he would like to admit additional evidence to the case. Summarizing by turning the government’s “no substantial evidence” argument on its head, Elford said that both sides agree more research needs to be done and that research can only happen if marijuana is released from Schedule I. Requiring the DEA to make scientific determinations on a new schedule would lead to better policy and more relief for suffering patients.
The patients spoke out at a well-attended press conference after the hearing, and Americans for Safe Access is proud to have given patients a day in court. Many observers felt the judges were willing to consider the argument of Michael Krawitz’s direct harm from the Controlled Substances Act, and this issue of “standing” has been the Achilles heel of past lawsuits against Schedule I. However, Judge Garland asked at one point, “Don’t we have to defer to the agency? We’re not scientists. They are.”
We’ll find out whether the judges felt the DEA’s science is adequate, or if patients can sue for a medical necessity defense against harsh marijuana laws, when the judges rule. We don’t expect it for a few months. This opportunity is thanks to the brave plaintiffs who took on the federal government on behalf of many others.
Jonathan Bair is ASA’s Social Media Director. Recordings of any kind were not allowed in the courtroom.
By Jonathan Bair, Americans for Safe Access
This morning, the federal Appeals Court for the DC Circuit heard an appeal in the case called Americans for Safe Access v Drug Enforcement Administration. The case is an appeal of the DEA’s rejection of a petition filed in 2002 seeking to change the placement of marijuana as a Schedule I drug per the Controlled Substances Act. Based on the scientific evidence, ASA and our fellow plaintiffs feel that it is simply untrue that cannabis is a drug with a “high potential for abuse” and “without accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” The hearing today offered a glimpse at the Court’s approach to this topic.
In front of a packed courtroom in Washington, the three-judge panel questioned ASA’s Chief Counsel Joe Elford and a federal lawyer about the merits of the scientific case, and the crucial legal issue of “standing.” Standing is a legal concept that restricts the right to sue to injured parties – people who are directly hurt by what they are fighting, and can get relief from a legal judgement. The issue of standing has been the reason why two prior appeals of the DEA’s classification of marijuana were rejected. In the past, patients have not been part of lawsuits against the Controlled Substances Act. The three judges were Merrick Garland, Karen Henderson, and Harry Edwards.
ASA’s Chief Counsel Joe Elford opened his appeal by arguing that the federal “Department of Health and Human Services plays a game of gotcha” by tightly controlling research access to cannabis and then claiming that there is not enough compelling research to justify reconsidering it as Schedule I. The Drug Enforcement Administration erred by determing that cannabis has a high potential for abuse when its findings determine its abuse and harm potential is less than other substances in less-controlled schedules, such as cocaine.
Elford opened his arguments with the issue of standing. He pointed to the affidavit of plaintiff Michael Krawitz, a veteran denied access to Veterans Administration services because of his medically necessary use of marijuana. The Veterans Administrastion’s harmful policy is based on marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance. He also spoke of the many members of Americans for Safe Access, who are fearful of the consequences of cultivating their own cannabis for their medical needs, and that a medical necessity defense in court could be allowed if marijuana were not in Schedule I.
Elford then turned to the issue of the merits of the DEA’s position on marijuana’s medical value, to prove their position was “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore impermissible. The contention that there is not a complete consensus was argued to be an unreasonable interpretation of the regulatory standard, and that many of HHS’s standards are inapplicable to an organic substance. Significantly, the lack of access to marijuana for medical research is a consequence of the scheduling, yet the lack of suitable research is cited by the DEA as a reason for maintaining the schedule. Despite this lack of research access, ASA cited a growing body of high-quality scientific and medical research into the benefits of marijuana.
Judge Garland asked Elford if he was arguing that marijuana in fact meets HHS’s standard for studies. ASA’s counsel cited over 200 studies and argued that a circular standard is impossible to meet. He also said that, given that the schedule is relative, the DEA is ignoring even its own studies showing that marijuana has merely a “mild” potential for abuse.
Joe Elford concluded by arguing that Schedule I was an inappropriate classification of marijuana and it caused harm to patients and prevented meaningful medical research. Rescheduling marijuana would allow for a reasonable policy solution for suffering patients and uphold the intent of the Controlled Substances Act.
Judge Edwards asked about the standing of Mr. Krawitz, and his access to medical marijuana. The judges asked about access in medical states and noted that marijuana would not be legal just because it were rescheduled.
Federal counsel Lena Watkins then presented her position against appealing the DEA’s decision to continue cannabis in Schedule I. She noted that state legislatures or popular votes do not determine accepted medical use. She said that research is inadequate and has not progressed, and argued that the government does provide access for research. Turning to the abuse potential, Watkins said, “marijuana is the most widely abused drug in America,” and dependency is a factor in making that assessment.
The judges questioned the level of access provided for research, and Watkins said that fifteen studies of a specific federal “quality” metric have been allowed. Pressed to explain why these studies haven’t persuaded the DEA that marijuana has medical benefits, she said, “we don’t have the final results yet.” To many in the audience, the circular nature of the government’s position on the science of marijuana was clear. The judges then invited Elford to give a rebuttal.
Focusing on rebutting the government’s claims about research, Elford argued that there has been adequate study and even more since this case was filed in 2002, and noted that he would like to admit additional evidence to the case. Summarizing by turning the government’s “no substantial evidence” argument on its head, Elford said that both sides agree more research needs to be done and that research can only happen if marijuana is released from Schedule I. Requiring the DEA to make scientific determinations on a new schedule would lead to better policy and more relief for suffering patients.
The patients spoke out at a well-attended press conference after the hearing, and Americans for Safe Access is proud to have given patients a day in court. Many observers felt the judges were willing to consider the argument of Michael Krawitz’s direct harm from the Controlled Substances Act, and this issue of “standing” has been the Achilles heel of past lawsuits against Schedule I. However, Judge Garland asked at one point, “Don’t we have to defer to the agency? We’re not scientists. They are.”
We’ll find out whether the judges felt the DEA’s science is adequate, or if patients can sue for a medical necessity defense against harsh marijuana laws, when the judges rule. We don’t expect it for a few months. This opportunity is thanks to the brave plaintiffs who took on the federal government on behalf of many others.
Jonathan Bair is ASA’s Social Media Director. Recordings of any kind were not allowed in the courtroom.
Court To Review Marijuana's Medical Benefitsby Lucia Graves, Huffington Post
October 12th, 2012
It started with a coalition of disgruntled Americans, then a handful of governors took up the cause last year, and now -- for the first time in nearly 20 years -- a federal court will hear oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging the classification of cannabis as a dangerous drug without medical benefits.
In the case, Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration, the court will be presented with scientific evidence regarding the medicinal effects of marijuana, and is expected to rule on whether or not the Drug Enforcement Administration acted appropriately in denying a petition to reclassify cannabis, filed by a collection of public interest organizations back in 2002.
"Medical marijuana patients are finally getting their day in court," Joe Elford, chief counsel with ASA, said in a recent statement. "This is a rare opportunity for patients to confront politically motivated decision-making with scientific evidence of marijuana's medical efficacy."
Under federal law, a schedule I prohibited substance is defined as having “a high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment.” Heroine and LSD are classified alongside marijuana as schedule I, while cocaine, opium and methamphetamine are classified as schedule II, meaning they have "some accepted medical use."
Other groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians, support medical access to the drug or its reclassification, while the California Medical Association has called for full legalization.
Donald Abrams, chief of hematology-oncology at San Francisco General Hospital, recently described the effectiveness of medical marijuana in the treatment regimens of cancer and HIV/AIDS patients. "I see patients who have loss of appetite, nausea and vomiting from their chemotherapy, pain on and off of opiates, anxiety, depression, and insomnia," he said in a press briefing last week, adding that these are just some of the conditions that can be alleviated by the use of medical marijuana.
In its rejection of the ASA’s rescheduling petition in 2011, the DEA cited a 4-year-old Department of Health and Human Services paper that found no consensus on medical uses for marijuana, but it did not take into account studies showing the medical benefits of marijuana on the grounds the studies did not meet the standard of double-blind FDA approval trials.
"[T]here are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving (marijuana's) efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts..." wrote DEA administrator Michele Leonhart in a July 8, 2011 letter. "At this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy."
A similar petition calling for marijuana to be reclassified as a schedule II drug was filed with the DEA in 1972, and in 1988, following a federal hearing, Administrative Law Judge Francis Young ruled that marijuana should indeed be reclassified. But that verdict was rejected by then-DEA administrator John Lawn and in 1994, his rejection was upheld by the D.C. Court of Appeals.
The current case will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Oct.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Just say no to Mitt Romney
He and his closed views would start a whole new war on personal freedoms and bump up the failed war on drugs ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpXxPsiz1uw
Just say no to Mitt Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpXxPsiz1uw
Just say no to Mitt Romney
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Closure of More Permitted SF Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Marked by Funeral Procession and Press Conference
San Francisco, CA -- As two city-permitted dispensaries are shut down today after 9 years of service to thousands of medical marijuana patients, a coalition calling itself San Francisco United for Safe Access will stage a funeral procession with somber marching band, and a press conference tomorrow to bring attention to the federal government's ongoing attack on medical marijuana. Today's closures are due to threats of criminal prosecution and asset forfeiture made by U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag against the dispensaries' landlords unless they promptly evicted their tenants. Similar threats have been made against 9 dispensaries in San Francisco, which have all shut down. Advocates argue these closures are needlessly driving patients into the illicit market.
What: Funeral procession led by The Brass Mafia Marching Band. “Mourners” will be dressed in white and black and are expect to be joined by multiple elected officials.
Where: Patient advocates bearing coffins will march from Haight & Steiner to press conference at 450 Golden Gate, Federal Building and offices of U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag
When: Wednesday, August 1st - Funeral procession starts at 4pm; Press conference starts at 5pm
Both dispensaries being forced to shut down today -- HopeNet and Vapor Room -- had been in operation since 2003 and 2004 respectively, and were fully permitted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Tenants in HopeNet's neighborhood are so concerned about the loss of security HopeNet provided that they have begun holding meetings to decide a course of action. With cameras monitoring 100 feet in every direction and security personnel, nearby tenants noted that HopeNet helped their businesses by increasing the safety of the neighborhood. The local Starbucks has said that it is anticipating a 10 percent drop in business with the loss of HopeNet.
U.S. Attorney Haag and Justice Department actions stem from a campaign being waged against medical marijuana in California and other states that have passed such laws. Early last year, U.S. Attorneys in at least 10 medical marijuana states began threatening not only patients and their providers, but also local and state officials attempting to pass their own public health laws. In October, all four U.S. Attorneys in California publicly announced an escalated attack in a unique press conference denouncing medical marijuana businesses. Since then, Haag and her Justice Department partners have sent more than 300 threatening letters to landlords across the state, resulting in the closure of more than 400 dispensaries, most of which were in full compliance with state law.
"U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag must be held accountable for her actions, which are completely inconsistent with Attorney General Holder's recent statements to Congress on medical marijuana," said Steph Sherer, Executive Director of Americans for Safe Access, the country's leading medical marijuana advocacy group and a coalition member of San Francisco United for Safe Access. "The Justice Department's attempts to undermine the implementation of state law and to deny thousands of patients a safe and legal means to obtain their medication must be stopped."
The federal attacks on dispensaries in the Bay Area have not gone without significant official opposition. Several San Francisco supervisors publicly decried the closures and federal actions, including Mayor Ed Lee, who was joined by state legislators and Betty Yee of the Board of Equalization, which collects more than $100 million annually from California dispensaries. Even the Democratic Party Committees of San Francisco and Alameda County have come out against the federal actions of Haag and other U.S. Attorneys.
http://americansforsafeaccess.org/closure-of-more-permitted-sf-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-marked-by-funeral-procession-and-press-conference
What: Funeral procession led by The Brass Mafia Marching Band. “Mourners” will be dressed in white and black and are expect to be joined by multiple elected officials.
Where: Patient advocates bearing coffins will march from Haight & Steiner to press conference at 450 Golden Gate, Federal Building and offices of U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag
When: Wednesday, August 1st - Funeral procession starts at 4pm; Press conference starts at 5pm
Both dispensaries being forced to shut down today -- HopeNet and Vapor Room -- had been in operation since 2003 and 2004 respectively, and were fully permitted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Tenants in HopeNet's neighborhood are so concerned about the loss of security HopeNet provided that they have begun holding meetings to decide a course of action. With cameras monitoring 100 feet in every direction and security personnel, nearby tenants noted that HopeNet helped their businesses by increasing the safety of the neighborhood. The local Starbucks has said that it is anticipating a 10 percent drop in business with the loss of HopeNet.
U.S. Attorney Haag and Justice Department actions stem from a campaign being waged against medical marijuana in California and other states that have passed such laws. Early last year, U.S. Attorneys in at least 10 medical marijuana states began threatening not only patients and their providers, but also local and state officials attempting to pass their own public health laws. In October, all four U.S. Attorneys in California publicly announced an escalated attack in a unique press conference denouncing medical marijuana businesses. Since then, Haag and her Justice Department partners have sent more than 300 threatening letters to landlords across the state, resulting in the closure of more than 400 dispensaries, most of which were in full compliance with state law.
"U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag must be held accountable for her actions, which are completely inconsistent with Attorney General Holder's recent statements to Congress on medical marijuana," said Steph Sherer, Executive Director of Americans for Safe Access, the country's leading medical marijuana advocacy group and a coalition member of San Francisco United for Safe Access. "The Justice Department's attempts to undermine the implementation of state law and to deny thousands of patients a safe and legal means to obtain their medication must be stopped."
The federal attacks on dispensaries in the Bay Area have not gone without significant official opposition. Several San Francisco supervisors publicly decried the closures and federal actions, including Mayor Ed Lee, who was joined by state legislators and Betty Yee of the Board of Equalization, which collects more than $100 million annually from California dispensaries. Even the Democratic Party Committees of San Francisco and Alameda County have come out against the federal actions of Haag and other U.S. Attorneys.
http://americansforsafeaccess.org/closure-of-more-permitted-sf-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-marked-by-funeral-procession-and-press-conference
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Harborside Health Center Targeted
http://www.harborsidehealthcenter.com/
KTVU-AP-OAKLAND, Calif.
An Oakland medical marijuana dispensary that has been billed as the largest pot shop on the planet has been targeted for closure by federal prosecutors in Northern California, suggesting that a crackdown on the state's medical marijuana industry remains well under way.
U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag has threatened to seize the Oakland property where Harborside Health Center has operated since 2006, as well as its sister shop in San Jose, executive director and co-founder Steve DeAngelo said Wednesday. His employees found court papers announcing asset forfeiture proceedings against Harborside's landlords taped to the doors at the two locations on Tuesday.
Although medical marijuana is legal in California, a federal court complaint that Haag's office filed Sunday says the dispensaries are violating federal law by selling marijuana. It cites a federal law that "makes it unlawful to rent, lease, profit from or make available for use, with or without compensation, a place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing or using a controlled substance, to wit, marijuana," as justification for going after the landlords.
The court action represents an escalation in a months-long, statewide crackdown on medical marijuana by Haag, who said last year that she would try to shut dispensaries that were within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds, which Harborside isn't.
Haag issued a statement Wednesday, saying that while taking action against pot shops operating near children had been her first priority, "marijuana superstores such as Harborside" are now on her radar, as well.
"The larger the operation, the greater the likelihood that there will be abuse of the state's medical marijuana laws, and marijuana in the hands of individuals who do not have a demonstrated medical need," she said.
DeAngelo, who was the subject of a Discovery Channel reality TV show called "Weed Wars" last year, vowed to fight the Department of Justice's attempt to put him out of business. Harborside serves about 100,000 medical marijuana users a year and pays $3 million in federal, state and local taxes annually.
"Harborside has nothing to hide or be ashamed of. We will contest the DOJ action openly and in public, and through all legal means at our disposal. We look forward to our day in court, and are confident that justice is on our side" DeAngelo said.
City officials in Oakland, which has reaped about $1 million a year in tax revenue from Harborside, are planning to join DeAngelo on Wednesday at a news conference decrying Haag's action. Earlier this year, federal prosecutors and the Internal Revenue Service raided Oaksterdam University, a medical marijuana trade school in Oakland, and forced its founder to step aside.
KTVU-AP-OAKLAND, Calif.
An Oakland medical marijuana dispensary that has been billed as the largest pot shop on the planet has been targeted for closure by federal prosecutors in Northern California, suggesting that a crackdown on the state's medical marijuana industry remains well under way.
U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag has threatened to seize the Oakland property where Harborside Health Center has operated since 2006, as well as its sister shop in San Jose, executive director and co-founder Steve DeAngelo said Wednesday. His employees found court papers announcing asset forfeiture proceedings against Harborside's landlords taped to the doors at the two locations on Tuesday.
Although medical marijuana is legal in California, a federal court complaint that Haag's office filed Sunday says the dispensaries are violating federal law by selling marijuana. It cites a federal law that "makes it unlawful to rent, lease, profit from or make available for use, with or without compensation, a place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing or using a controlled substance, to wit, marijuana," as justification for going after the landlords.
The court action represents an escalation in a months-long, statewide crackdown on medical marijuana by Haag, who said last year that she would try to shut dispensaries that were within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds, which Harborside isn't.
Haag issued a statement Wednesday, saying that while taking action against pot shops operating near children had been her first priority, "marijuana superstores such as Harborside" are now on her radar, as well.
"The larger the operation, the greater the likelihood that there will be abuse of the state's medical marijuana laws, and marijuana in the hands of individuals who do not have a demonstrated medical need," she said.
DeAngelo, who was the subject of a Discovery Channel reality TV show called "Weed Wars" last year, vowed to fight the Department of Justice's attempt to put him out of business. Harborside serves about 100,000 medical marijuana users a year and pays $3 million in federal, state and local taxes annually.
"Harborside has nothing to hide or be ashamed of. We will contest the DOJ action openly and in public, and through all legal means at our disposal. We look forward to our day in court, and are confident that justice is on our side" DeAngelo said.
City officials in Oakland, which has reaped about $1 million a year in tax revenue from Harborside, are planning to join DeAngelo on Wednesday at a news conference decrying Haag's action. Earlier this year, federal prosecutors and the Internal Revenue Service raided Oaksterdam University, a medical marijuana trade school in Oakland, and forced its founder to step aside.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Government-sponsored study destroys DEA’s classification of marijuana
Government-sponsored study destroys DEA’s classification of marijuana
A government-sponsored study published recently in The Open Neurology Journal concludes that marijuana provides much-needed relief to some chronic pain sufferers and that more clinical trials are desperately needed, utterly destroying the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) classification of the drug as having no medical uses.
While numerous prior studies have shown marijuana’s usefulness for a host of medical conditions, none have ever gone directly at the DEA’s placement of marijuana atop the schedule of controlled substances. This study, sponsored by the State of California and conducted at the University of California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, does precisely that, driving a stake into the heart of America’s continued war on marijuana users by calling the Schedule I placement simply “not accurate” and “not tenable.”
Reacting to the study, Paul Armentano, director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), told Raw Story that the study clearly proves U.S. drug policy “is neither based upon nor guided by science.”
“In fact, it is hostile to science,” he said. “And despite the Obama Administration’s well publicized 2009 memo stating, ‘Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration,’ there is little to no evidence indicating that the federal government’s ‘See no evil; hear no evil’ approach to cannabis policy is not changing any time soon.”
Schedule I is supposedly reserved for the most inebriating substances that the DEA believes have no medical value, including LSD, ecstasy, peyote and heroin.* As the DEA describes it: “Drugs listed in schedule I have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and, therefore, may not be prescribed, administered, or dispensed for medical use. In contrast, drugs listed in schedules II-V have some accepted medical use and may be prescribed, administered, or dispensed for medical use.”
And that’s the problem, the study’s authors portend.
“The classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug as well as the continuing controversy as to whether or not cannabis is of medical value are obstacles to medical progress in this area,” they wrote. “Based on evidence currently available the Schedule I classification is not tenable; it is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking. It is true cannabis has some abuse potential, but its profile more closely resembles drugs in Schedule III (where codeine and dronabinol are listed). The continuing conflict between scientific evidence and political ideology will hopefully be reconciled in a judicious manner.”
They add that their evidence showed marijuana reliably reduced chronic neuropathic pain and muscle spasticity due to multiple sclerosis versus trials where a placebo was used. They also specifically tested marijuana’s effects when smoked, calling the delivery method “rapid and efficient” but noting that vaporization is a better choice because it produces less carbon monoxide.
The study adds that, like all medicines, there are negative side effects associated with marijuana, such as dizziness, fatigue, lightheadedness, muscle weakness and pain and heart palpitations — all of which can pose a risk in some chronic pain patients with co-occurring conditions like cardiovascular disease or substance abuse disorders. However, they call these side effects “dose-related” and “of mild to moderate severity,” adding that they “appear to decline over time, and are reported less frequently in experienced than in naïve users.” Researchers also noted that “fatal overdose with cannabis alone has not been reported.”
Authors additionally found that marijuana does cause withdrawal symptoms within 12 hours of use, noting the symptoms are mild in experienced users and typically abate within 72 hours. They added that ingesting marijuana “can acutely impair skills required to drive motor vehicles,” but noted that the data on marijuana and traffic accidents is “inconclusive.”
Ultimately, they concluded that more clinical trials are needed to determine which individual components of the marijuana plant are causing the medicinal effects, and whether the plant can be used to treat a host of other ailments.
“Medical marijuana is mostly used for chronic pain, and has enabled countless patients to either reduce or eliminate their pharmaceutical drug regimen,” Kris Hermes, a spokesman for Americans for Safe Access (ASA), one of the nation’s leading medical marijuana advocacy groups, told Raw Story. “However, it can also be used for: arthritis, nausea or as an appetite stimulant for people living with HIV/AIDS or cancer, gastrointestinal disorders, and movement disorders (not just for people with multiple sclerosis). That is only a sampling of health conditions for which cannabis has been found helpful in alleviating symptoms. Other health conditions include: [post-traumatic stress disorder], [attention deficit disorder], [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder] and other mental health conditions, glaucoma, and migraines.”
In hopes of forcing recognition of marijuana’s medical value, ASA sued the federal government last year after a long-running appeal for the reclassification of marijuana was shot down nearly a decade after it was filed. That case should go before the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit later this year.
“The federal government’s strategy has been delay, delay, delay,” ASA chief counsel Joe Elford said in an advisory. “It is far past time for the government to answer our rescheduling petition, but unfortunately we’ve been forced to go to court in order to get resolution.”
“Reform advocates can and should use this study to show their congressional representatives that our country’s leading medical marijuana researchers agree that it should be reclassified,” Hermes added. “…This certainly should also have a bearing on the D.C. Circuit’s deliberations in the appeal of the rescheduling petition denial.”
Medical marijuana is currently legal in just 17 states and Washington, D.C. —— *Clarification: Scientific studies have shown LSD, ecstasy, peyote and heroin also have some limited medical value, which the DEA has refused to recognize.
A government-sponsored study published recently in The Open Neurology Journal concludes that marijuana provides much-needed relief to some chronic pain sufferers and that more clinical trials are desperately needed, utterly destroying the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) classification of the drug as having no medical uses.
While numerous prior studies have shown marijuana’s usefulness for a host of medical conditions, none have ever gone directly at the DEA’s placement of marijuana atop the schedule of controlled substances. This study, sponsored by the State of California and conducted at the University of California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, does precisely that, driving a stake into the heart of America’s continued war on marijuana users by calling the Schedule I placement simply “not accurate” and “not tenable.”
Reacting to the study, Paul Armentano, director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), told Raw Story that the study clearly proves U.S. drug policy “is neither based upon nor guided by science.”
“In fact, it is hostile to science,” he said. “And despite the Obama Administration’s well publicized 2009 memo stating, ‘Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration,’ there is little to no evidence indicating that the federal government’s ‘See no evil; hear no evil’ approach to cannabis policy is not changing any time soon.”
Schedule I is supposedly reserved for the most inebriating substances that the DEA believes have no medical value, including LSD, ecstasy, peyote and heroin.* As the DEA describes it: “Drugs listed in schedule I have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and, therefore, may not be prescribed, administered, or dispensed for medical use. In contrast, drugs listed in schedules II-V have some accepted medical use and may be prescribed, administered, or dispensed for medical use.”
And that’s the problem, the study’s authors portend.
“The classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug as well as the continuing controversy as to whether or not cannabis is of medical value are obstacles to medical progress in this area,” they wrote. “Based on evidence currently available the Schedule I classification is not tenable; it is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking. It is true cannabis has some abuse potential, but its profile more closely resembles drugs in Schedule III (where codeine and dronabinol are listed). The continuing conflict between scientific evidence and political ideology will hopefully be reconciled in a judicious manner.”
They add that their evidence showed marijuana reliably reduced chronic neuropathic pain and muscle spasticity due to multiple sclerosis versus trials where a placebo was used. They also specifically tested marijuana’s effects when smoked, calling the delivery method “rapid and efficient” but noting that vaporization is a better choice because it produces less carbon monoxide.
The study adds that, like all medicines, there are negative side effects associated with marijuana, such as dizziness, fatigue, lightheadedness, muscle weakness and pain and heart palpitations — all of which can pose a risk in some chronic pain patients with co-occurring conditions like cardiovascular disease or substance abuse disorders. However, they call these side effects “dose-related” and “of mild to moderate severity,” adding that they “appear to decline over time, and are reported less frequently in experienced than in naïve users.” Researchers also noted that “fatal overdose with cannabis alone has not been reported.”
Authors additionally found that marijuana does cause withdrawal symptoms within 12 hours of use, noting the symptoms are mild in experienced users and typically abate within 72 hours. They added that ingesting marijuana “can acutely impair skills required to drive motor vehicles,” but noted that the data on marijuana and traffic accidents is “inconclusive.”
Ultimately, they concluded that more clinical trials are needed to determine which individual components of the marijuana plant are causing the medicinal effects, and whether the plant can be used to treat a host of other ailments.
“Medical marijuana is mostly used for chronic pain, and has enabled countless patients to either reduce or eliminate their pharmaceutical drug regimen,” Kris Hermes, a spokesman for Americans for Safe Access (ASA), one of the nation’s leading medical marijuana advocacy groups, told Raw Story. “However, it can also be used for: arthritis, nausea or as an appetite stimulant for people living with HIV/AIDS or cancer, gastrointestinal disorders, and movement disorders (not just for people with multiple sclerosis). That is only a sampling of health conditions for which cannabis has been found helpful in alleviating symptoms. Other health conditions include: [post-traumatic stress disorder], [attention deficit disorder], [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder] and other mental health conditions, glaucoma, and migraines.”
In hopes of forcing recognition of marijuana’s medical value, ASA sued the federal government last year after a long-running appeal for the reclassification of marijuana was shot down nearly a decade after it was filed. That case should go before the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit later this year.
“The federal government’s strategy has been delay, delay, delay,” ASA chief counsel Joe Elford said in an advisory. “It is far past time for the government to answer our rescheduling petition, but unfortunately we’ve been forced to go to court in order to get resolution.”
“Reform advocates can and should use this study to show their congressional representatives that our country’s leading medical marijuana researchers agree that it should be reclassified,” Hermes added. “…This certainly should also have a bearing on the D.C. Circuit’s deliberations in the appeal of the rescheduling petition denial.”
Medical marijuana is currently legal in just 17 states and Washington, D.C. —— *Clarification: Scientific studies have shown LSD, ecstasy, peyote and heroin also have some limited medical value, which the DEA has refused to recognize.
California Court of Appeal Affirms Legality of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Rejects Municipal Bans
City of Los Angeles will soon vote on whether to enact an outright ban similar to the County ban just rejected
Los Angeles, CA -- The Second District Court of Appeal in California issued a landmark decision yesterday in County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective (AMCC), which affirmed the legality of medical marijuana dispensaries under state law, and rejected bans imposed by municipalities. In particular, the AMCC court held that Los Angeles County's "complete ban" on medical marijuana is "preempted" by state law and, therefore, void. The AMCC decision reverses a preliminary junction granted to the County by the Los Angeles Superior Court in May 2011.
On the issue of whether dispensaries are legal under state law, the AMCC court ruled that, "[T]he repeated use of the term 'dispensary' throughout [Health and Safety Code section 11362.768] and the reference in subdivision (e) to a 'storefront or mobile retail outlet' make it abundantly clear that the medical marijuana collectives authorized by section 11362.775 are permitted by state law to perform a dispensary function." The AMCC further held that, "[Los Angeles] County's total, per se nuisance ban against medical marijuana dispensaries directly contradicts the Legislature's intent," and called that contradiction "direct, patent, obvious, and palpable."
This landmark decision comes as a number of other state appellate court rulings impacting dispensaries have been granted review by the California Supreme Court, including Pack v. City of Long Beach, which addresses how localities can regulate distribution, and City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient's Health and Wellness, which deals with whether municipalities can permanently ban distribution. The California Supreme Court could also decide to review the AMCC ruling, which it will decide in the next several weeks.
"The court of appeal could not have been clearer in expressing that medical marijuana dispensaries are legal under state law, and that municipalities have no right to ban them," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access, the country's leading medical marijuana advocacy group. "This landmark decision should have a considerable impact on how the California Supreme Court rules in the various dispensary cases it's currently reviewing."
On July 24th, the City of Los Angeles is scheduled to vote on a dispensary ban similar to the one enacted by the County, but just rejected by the court of appeal. "The AMCC decision puts a giant wrench into the plans of City Attorney Trutanich to persuade the City Council to enact a ban," continued Elford. The proposal introduced by Council member Huizar to ban dispensaries, which appeared to be favored by many of his colleagues, now faces an uncertain fate. Patient advocates have been pushing for a more sensible alternative being proposed by Council members Koretz and Wesson that would create “limited immunity” for a certain number of dispensaries in the city.
Los Angeles, CA -- The Second District Court of Appeal in California issued a landmark decision yesterday in County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective (AMCC), which affirmed the legality of medical marijuana dispensaries under state law, and rejected bans imposed by municipalities. In particular, the AMCC court held that Los Angeles County's "complete ban" on medical marijuana is "preempted" by state law and, therefore, void. The AMCC decision reverses a preliminary junction granted to the County by the Los Angeles Superior Court in May 2011.
On the issue of whether dispensaries are legal under state law, the AMCC court ruled that, "[T]he repeated use of the term 'dispensary' throughout [Health and Safety Code section 11362.768] and the reference in subdivision (e) to a 'storefront or mobile retail outlet' make it abundantly clear that the medical marijuana collectives authorized by section 11362.775 are permitted by state law to perform a dispensary function." The AMCC further held that, "[Los Angeles] County's total, per se nuisance ban against medical marijuana dispensaries directly contradicts the Legislature's intent," and called that contradiction "direct, patent, obvious, and palpable."
This landmark decision comes as a number of other state appellate court rulings impacting dispensaries have been granted review by the California Supreme Court, including Pack v. City of Long Beach, which addresses how localities can regulate distribution, and City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient's Health and Wellness, which deals with whether municipalities can permanently ban distribution. The California Supreme Court could also decide to review the AMCC ruling, which it will decide in the next several weeks.
"The court of appeal could not have been clearer in expressing that medical marijuana dispensaries are legal under state law, and that municipalities have no right to ban them," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access, the country's leading medical marijuana advocacy group. "This landmark decision should have a considerable impact on how the California Supreme Court rules in the various dispensary cases it's currently reviewing."
On July 24th, the City of Los Angeles is scheduled to vote on a dispensary ban similar to the one enacted by the County, but just rejected by the court of appeal. "The AMCC decision puts a giant wrench into the plans of City Attorney Trutanich to persuade the City Council to enact a ban," continued Elford. The proposal introduced by Council member Huizar to ban dispensaries, which appeared to be favored by many of his colleagues, now faces an uncertain fate. Patient advocates have been pushing for a more sensible alternative being proposed by Council members Koretz and Wesson that would create “limited immunity” for a certain number of dispensaries in the city.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Stop the Raids
Drug Enforcement Administration raids on dispensaries have become an unfortunate fact of life in medical cannabis states. So when Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress that the Department of Justice’s policy toward medical marijuana is only to enforce against “individuals or organizations acting out of conformity with state law,” I was skeptical.
But the gap between the administration’s tolerant rhetoric and the harsh reality facing patients was made clear only four days after Holder’s testimony. Sacramento, CA dispensary El Camino Wellness was raided - and like many other DEA targets, it had a long history of compliance with local laws.
Patients deserve better than double-speak from our nation’s top law enforcement official. That is why we have partnered with the progressive advocacy group Courage Campaign to petition Eric Holder to stop raiding dispensaries in medical cannabis states.
Sign our petition asking the Attorney General to be a man of his word at HolderStopTheRaids.com!
We’ve produced a video telling the story of Eric Holder’s testimony and subsequent raid in Sacramento, and how it impacts patients. Our partnership and video will help explain to new allies why it matters to everyone that the administration's rhetoric doesn't match reality. Please share our petition with your friends, and help inform Americans about unjust federal enforcement in medical cannabis states.
Sign our petition, and together we will keep the pressure on Eric Holder - and President Obama - to fulfill their promises to respect state medical marijuana laws.
Sincerely,
Steph Sherer Executive Director
But the gap between the administration’s tolerant rhetoric and the harsh reality facing patients was made clear only four days after Holder’s testimony. Sacramento, CA dispensary El Camino Wellness was raided - and like many other DEA targets, it had a long history of compliance with local laws.
Patients deserve better than double-speak from our nation’s top law enforcement official. That is why we have partnered with the progressive advocacy group Courage Campaign to petition Eric Holder to stop raiding dispensaries in medical cannabis states.
Sign our petition asking the Attorney General to be a man of his word at HolderStopTheRaids.com!
We’ve produced a video telling the story of Eric Holder’s testimony and subsequent raid in Sacramento, and how it impacts patients. Our partnership and video will help explain to new allies why it matters to everyone that the administration's rhetoric doesn't match reality. Please share our petition with your friends, and help inform Americans about unjust federal enforcement in medical cannabis states.
Sign our petition, and together we will keep the pressure on Eric Holder - and President Obama - to fulfill their promises to respect state medical marijuana laws.
Sincerely,
Steph Sherer Executive Director
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
DEA almost kill anouther in drug war ...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/college-student-claims-left-cell-five-days-without-153200359.html
The Drug Enforcement Administration extended an apology to a University of California engineering student who was locked in a holding cell for more than four days and forgotten about. The student drank his own urine in desperation and attempted to kill himself, before agents returned four days later and found him, he said in a news conference covered by NBC and other outlets. "I am deeply troubled by the incident that occurred here last week," DEA San Diego Acting Special Agent in Charge William R. Sherman said in a statement provided to Yahoo News. "I extend my deepest apologies the young man and want to express that this event is not indicative of the high standards that I hold my employees to. I have personally ordered an extensive review of our policies and procedures." An earlier statement from the San Diego DEA office was less contrite, with spokeswoman Amy Roderick saying that the student was caught in a drug raid because "he was at the house, by his own admission, to get high with his friends." Daniel Chong, 24, said that he was taken to the local DEA office after he was caught in a drug raid where he was smoking marijuana on April 20. The agents didn't charge him criminally and even told him they would drive him home, but apparently forgot about him in a tiny holding cell, where he languished for days without food, water, or a bathroom. Chong says he finally gave up on screaming for help, and eventually tried to kill himself with the glass from his spectacles and drank his own urine, sure he would die there. A DEA agent discovered him days later and quickly called an ambulance which drove him to the hospital, where he spent three days in intensive care because of his near-failing kidneys, he said. Chong's lawyer, Gene Iredale, tells Yahoo News his client could hear agents talking and other sounds from his cell, but no one answered his screams. He said Chong was handcuffed. "I believe it was, at best, inconceivably indifferent negligence" Iredale said of the incident. "I have dealt with cases in which police have abused citizens, but I've never seen anything as egregious as this." Iredale plans to file a civil suit as soon as possible. San Diego DEA agent Amy Roderick said earlier on Wednesday in a statement to Yahoo News that Chong was caught in a home raid on a "suspected MDMA distribution organization" that also netted several weapons, 18,000 MDMA ("ecstasy") pills, marijuana, and hallucinogenic mushrooms. "The individual in question was at the house, by his own admission, to get high with his friends," she wrote. She admitted in the statement that Chong was "accidentally" left in one of the holding rooms, while eight other suspects were either released or transfered to the county jail. Chong also told agents he ate a packet of white powder he found in his cell, which turned out to be meth. "DEA plans to thoroughly review both the events and detention procedures on April 21st and after," Roderick wrote.
The Drug Enforcement Administration extended an apology to a University of California engineering student who was locked in a holding cell for more than four days and forgotten about. The student drank his own urine in desperation and attempted to kill himself, before agents returned four days later and found him, he said in a news conference covered by NBC and other outlets. "I am deeply troubled by the incident that occurred here last week," DEA San Diego Acting Special Agent in Charge William R. Sherman said in a statement provided to Yahoo News. "I extend my deepest apologies the young man and want to express that this event is not indicative of the high standards that I hold my employees to. I have personally ordered an extensive review of our policies and procedures." An earlier statement from the San Diego DEA office was less contrite, with spokeswoman Amy Roderick saying that the student was caught in a drug raid because "he was at the house, by his own admission, to get high with his friends." Daniel Chong, 24, said that he was taken to the local DEA office after he was caught in a drug raid where he was smoking marijuana on April 20. The agents didn't charge him criminally and even told him they would drive him home, but apparently forgot about him in a tiny holding cell, where he languished for days without food, water, or a bathroom. Chong says he finally gave up on screaming for help, and eventually tried to kill himself with the glass from his spectacles and drank his own urine, sure he would die there. A DEA agent discovered him days later and quickly called an ambulance which drove him to the hospital, where he spent three days in intensive care because of his near-failing kidneys, he said. Chong's lawyer, Gene Iredale, tells Yahoo News his client could hear agents talking and other sounds from his cell, but no one answered his screams. He said Chong was handcuffed. "I believe it was, at best, inconceivably indifferent negligence" Iredale said of the incident. "I have dealt with cases in which police have abused citizens, but I've never seen anything as egregious as this." Iredale plans to file a civil suit as soon as possible. San Diego DEA agent Amy Roderick said earlier on Wednesday in a statement to Yahoo News that Chong was caught in a home raid on a "suspected MDMA distribution organization" that also netted several weapons, 18,000 MDMA ("ecstasy") pills, marijuana, and hallucinogenic mushrooms. "The individual in question was at the house, by his own admission, to get high with his friends," she wrote. She admitted in the statement that Chong was "accidentally" left in one of the holding rooms, while eight other suspects were either released or transfered to the county jail. Chong also told agents he ate a packet of white powder he found in his cell, which turned out to be meth. "DEA plans to thoroughly review both the events and detention procedures on April 21st and after," Roderick wrote.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Feds Shut-Down Berkeley Patients Group
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2012/04/30/berkeley-patients-group-today-is-our-last-day
Medical marijuana industry leader Berkeley Patients Group of Berkeley will close its doors at the end of its business day today — and not re-open them. A receptionist there just confirmed the contents of an email sent to collective members this morning, stating: "Today is our last day." Last fall, U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag threatened to seize the dispensary's San Pablo Ave. property, and BPG's landlords served the massive club with an eviction notice, effective May 1. BPG has not announced plans to relocate. The total closure of the Berkeley institution would be the among the biggest, most significant blows to the California medical marijuana industry since the crackdown started last October. BPG is widely considered a model dispensary in a town that led the charge to regulate such businesses. It also marks the federal evisceration of another thriving East Bay business that directly employed dozens of people, served tens of thousands of patients, and generated major tax revenue for local, and state coffers. Activists are going to be livid and the average person confused as to how this happened, given that medical marijuana is legal in California and BPG has a business license to operate in Berkeley. Simply put, cannabis is still federally illegal, and the feds are targeting the best, brightest and most responsible actors in California to send a message to all that no one is immune from the drug war. Our sympathies go out to all the BPG employees now looking for work.
Medical marijuana industry leader Berkeley Patients Group of Berkeley will close its doors at the end of its business day today — and not re-open them. A receptionist there just confirmed the contents of an email sent to collective members this morning, stating: "Today is our last day." Last fall, U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag threatened to seize the dispensary's San Pablo Ave. property, and BPG's landlords served the massive club with an eviction notice, effective May 1. BPG has not announced plans to relocate. The total closure of the Berkeley institution would be the among the biggest, most significant blows to the California medical marijuana industry since the crackdown started last October. BPG is widely considered a model dispensary in a town that led the charge to regulate such businesses. It also marks the federal evisceration of another thriving East Bay business that directly employed dozens of people, served tens of thousands of patients, and generated major tax revenue for local, and state coffers. Activists are going to be livid and the average person confused as to how this happened, given that medical marijuana is legal in California and BPG has a business license to operate in Berkeley. Simply put, cannabis is still federally illegal, and the feds are targeting the best, brightest and most responsible actors in California to send a message to all that no one is immune from the drug war. Our sympathies go out to all the BPG employees now looking for work.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Obama doesn't beliave in access for patients; Changes postition yet again!!!
Amid an increased crackdown on medical marijuana producers across the nation, including a recent high-profile raid on a California training school, President Barack Obama faced questions in a new interview with Rolling Stone about the seeming disconnect between his 2008 campaign rhetoric and his administration's actions since he took office.
"I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]," Obama promised in 2008, according to an earlier Rolling Stone report. But Attorney General Eric Holder announced in 2010 that federal authorities would continue to prosecute individuals for marijuana possession, despite its legalized status in some states.
The Huffington Post's Lucia Graves reported recently on subsequent enforcement activity:
Since then, the administration has unleashed an interagency cannabis crackdown that goes beyond anything seen under the Bush administration, with more than 100 raids, primarily on California pot dispensaries, many of them operating in full compliance with state laws. Since October 2009, the Justice Department has conducted more than 170 aggressive SWAT-style raids in 9 medical marijuana states, resulting in at least 61 federal indictments, according to data compiled by Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group.
Speaking with Rolling Stone, the president tried to explain his original comments, claiming that the recent pressure on dispensaries and providers was in line with his intent.
"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana," Obama said. "I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana -- and the reason is, because it's against federal law."
The president continued: "I can't nullify congressional law. I can't ask the Justice Department to say, 'Ignore completely a federal law that's on the books.' What I can say is, 'Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.' As a consequence, there haven't been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes."
Obama then shifted gears away from marijuana, saying that a "broader debate" on drug laws was warranted.
While the president appears to believe that his administration's actions against medical cannabis don't conflict with his earlier statements on the issue, some lawmakers around the country disagree.
Lawmakers in five states that have legalized medical marijuana recently wrote a letter to Obama criticizing him for a supposed "contradiction" on the matter and calling on the federal government "not to interfere with our ability to control and regulate how medical marijuana is grown and distributed."
Click here to read the full article
Monday, April 2, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)