SEATTLE — A Washington state medical marijuana activist who nearly killed an intruder in his home this month has been barred from buying guns, even though he says he has no criminal record.
Steve Sarich says he tried to buy a shotgun and a pistol a few days after the March 15 shootout to replace ones that were seized by investigators, but he failed the background check.
The King County Sheriff's Office sent him an e-mail Tuesday explaining the denial. It says Sarich showed investigators his paperwork as a medical marijuana patient, and those papers create a presumption that Sarich is an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance.
The sheriff's office says that under federal law, using a controlled substance disqualifies someone from passing a background check for gun purchases.
Source: The Associated Press
If you know of an event that you feel should be listed on our calendar, please send details to info@mjdispensaries.com ~Thank You
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
NEWS: San Jose votes on plan for allowing and taxing medical marijuana dispensaries
As San Jose confronts a fiscal crisis forcing massive service cuts such as closure of popular community centers, the City Council moved Tuesday toward allowing medical marijuana collectives as a potential new source of revenue.
The council voted to approve a recommendation by Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio calling for an ordinance to be brought back in June that would allow a limited number of medical marijuana collectives and impose additional taxes on them to help support city services. The city clerk officially recorded the vote as 6-4, with Madison Nguyen, Nora Campos, Kansen Chu and Nancy Pyle opposed, and Councilman Pete Constant absent. Pyle later said she intended to vote with the majority, but the record had not been officially updated.
Mayor Chuck Reed initially urged the city to hold off until voters in November decide on a measure that would legalize recreational use of the drug. But he agreed to support Oliverio's proposal after he modified it to allow flexibility on the locations and taxes for collectives, and more time for city staff to prepare the ordinance. He cautioned that the proposal should not be seen as a welcome mat for marijuana drugstores.
"It doesn't mean anybody can do anything they want to do anywhere they want to do it," Reed said. "We're trying to implement state law in a way that allows us to control what we do in our city."
Nguyen said she favored a firm moratorium and that "there's just a lot of
issues."
If the council approves the proposed ordinance in June, city voters would be asked to consider a tax on medical marijuana collectives in November, just as voters statewide are considering legalizing recreational use of the drug.
Many of the dozens of speakers in a packed chamber encouraged the council to approve an ordinance, echoing Oliverio's concerns that without a clear law, shady operations will proliferate.
"Our desire is to be good citizens, to pay our taxes and play by the rules," said Steve DeAngelo, who runs the Harborside collective, one of several to open in San Jose in the past year. It is part of a group of 16 others that have formed a coalition to advocate for proper oversight of medical marijuana operations.
On the other hand, many others cited concerns about the proliferation of purported medical marijuana dispensaries in neighborhoods, urging the city to declare a moratorium on all of them. Edward Jonathans, of Campbell, who was with the Coalition for a Drug Free California, said marijuana is dangerous and at one point ruined his career.
Oliverio urged the council to act quickly, as medical marijuana providers already are proliferating even though they currently aren't allowed under city law, drawing complaints from neighbors and tying up city code enforcement staff.
Oliverio also argued the city can use the money from taxing medical marijuana dispensaries, which support the idea. He noted that Oakland expects more than $500,000 from just one of the four medical marijuana providers the city allows. He pointed out that new tax dollars could help San Jose as it ponders service reductions such as closing community centers.
Earlier in the day, the council voted 7-4 on a plan by council members Nora Campos and Ash Kalra for community centers the city is struggling to keep open. The Alma Youth/Senior Center and Los Paseos Youth Center are both scheduled to close at the end of June, although the city is scrambling to find organizations to provide some services at the sites.
Under the approved plan, the city would consider maintaining current services at those sites if additional revenues become available, perhaps through employee concessions, during budget finalization. The city would maintain services at the 12 major "hub" community centers and explore reuse options for 21 others, with an emphasis on maintaining city services at those serving high-need populations.
The plan would still demolish the deteriorating St. James Senior Center downtown and transfer programs to the Roosevelt Community Center. The Community Child Care Council of Santa Clara County would provide services at the JTS Northside Community Center. Other city services would be provided at Capitol Park/Goss Neighborhood Center and Hank Lopez Community Center.
Council members Sam Liccardo, Pete Constant, Pierluigi Oliverio and Rose Herrera were opposed. Liccardo favored reconsidering the city's approach of maintaining the 12 "hub" community centers, saying the city should consider outside operators for them and not just for the smaller "satellite" centers.
For many young and elderly residents who use the community centers, the prospect of losing city services at them was deeply disturbing.
"We are a great family there," said Elena Martinez, 94, a longtime patron of the Alma community center. "It seems to me so stupid to want to close up the center."
Source: Mercury News
The council voted to approve a recommendation by Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio calling for an ordinance to be brought back in June that would allow a limited number of medical marijuana collectives and impose additional taxes on them to help support city services. The city clerk officially recorded the vote as 6-4, with Madison Nguyen, Nora Campos, Kansen Chu and Nancy Pyle opposed, and Councilman Pete Constant absent. Pyle later said she intended to vote with the majority, but the record had not been officially updated.
Mayor Chuck Reed initially urged the city to hold off until voters in November decide on a measure that would legalize recreational use of the drug. But he agreed to support Oliverio's proposal after he modified it to allow flexibility on the locations and taxes for collectives, and more time for city staff to prepare the ordinance. He cautioned that the proposal should not be seen as a welcome mat for marijuana drugstores.
"It doesn't mean anybody can do anything they want to do anywhere they want to do it," Reed said. "We're trying to implement state law in a way that allows us to control what we do in our city."
Nguyen said she favored a firm moratorium and that "there's just a lot of
issues."
If the council approves the proposed ordinance in June, city voters would be asked to consider a tax on medical marijuana collectives in November, just as voters statewide are considering legalizing recreational use of the drug.
Many of the dozens of speakers in a packed chamber encouraged the council to approve an ordinance, echoing Oliverio's concerns that without a clear law, shady operations will proliferate.
"Our desire is to be good citizens, to pay our taxes and play by the rules," said Steve DeAngelo, who runs the Harborside collective, one of several to open in San Jose in the past year. It is part of a group of 16 others that have formed a coalition to advocate for proper oversight of medical marijuana operations.
On the other hand, many others cited concerns about the proliferation of purported medical marijuana dispensaries in neighborhoods, urging the city to declare a moratorium on all of them. Edward Jonathans, of Campbell, who was with the Coalition for a Drug Free California, said marijuana is dangerous and at one point ruined his career.
Oliverio urged the council to act quickly, as medical marijuana providers already are proliferating even though they currently aren't allowed under city law, drawing complaints from neighbors and tying up city code enforcement staff.
Oliverio also argued the city can use the money from taxing medical marijuana dispensaries, which support the idea. He noted that Oakland expects more than $500,000 from just one of the four medical marijuana providers the city allows. He pointed out that new tax dollars could help San Jose as it ponders service reductions such as closing community centers.
Earlier in the day, the council voted 7-4 on a plan by council members Nora Campos and Ash Kalra for community centers the city is struggling to keep open. The Alma Youth/Senior Center and Los Paseos Youth Center are both scheduled to close at the end of June, although the city is scrambling to find organizations to provide some services at the sites.
Under the approved plan, the city would consider maintaining current services at those sites if additional revenues become available, perhaps through employee concessions, during budget finalization. The city would maintain services at the 12 major "hub" community centers and explore reuse options for 21 others, with an emphasis on maintaining city services at those serving high-need populations.
The plan would still demolish the deteriorating St. James Senior Center downtown and transfer programs to the Roosevelt Community Center. The Community Child Care Council of Santa Clara County would provide services at the JTS Northside Community Center. Other city services would be provided at Capitol Park/Goss Neighborhood Center and Hank Lopez Community Center.
Council members Sam Liccardo, Pete Constant, Pierluigi Oliverio and Rose Herrera were opposed. Liccardo favored reconsidering the city's approach of maintaining the 12 "hub" community centers, saying the city should consider outside operators for them and not just for the smaller "satellite" centers.
For many young and elderly residents who use the community centers, the prospect of losing city services at them was deeply disturbing.
"We are a great family there," said Elena Martinez, 94, a longtime patron of the Alma community center. "It seems to me so stupid to want to close up the center."
Source: Mercury News
NEWS: Decriminalizing pot would devastate cartels
One step forward: California voters will get a chance in November to decide if the state should legalize marijuana. Two steps backward: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently told authorities in Mexico that the United States was looking at anything that worked to fight the drug cartels killing Mexicans daily -- but responded "no" when asked if anything included legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana.
The California vote, however it turns out, constitutes a recognition that millions of Americans see lighting up a joint as no different than sipping a martini. Clinton's rejection of easing U.S. law on recreational weed use reflects a wide opposing belief that allowing marijuana use would violate moral norms and inflict onerous social costs on our society.
Sponsors of the California referendum attempt to sidestep the moral argument by framing the issue in dollars and cents. They assert taxing legal marijuana could bring $1.4 billion to California's bankrupt state coffers while cutting law enforcement and incarceration costs.
Passage of the Golden State measure would set up a state-federal conflict. Federal law trumps state law, but the Obama administration has wisely stopped federal prosecution of medical marijuana sales in the more than a dozen states that have approved them. But turning a blind eye to a defiant challenge on recreational use would be another matter.
A California yes vote could force the nation into a realistic conversation on drug prohibition. Casualties from the war on drugs keep piling up. Nowhere is this more true than in Mexico, where more than 18,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in the last three years, including several recent victims with ties to the U.S. consulate in Juarez. In this country, FBI crime statistics list narcotics circumstances behind 3,052 murders over five years ending in 2008.
The deaths and millions of arrests, convictions and imprisonments stem from a trade supplying products Americans obviously want -- and No. 1 is marijuana. The National Institute of Drug Abuse found that more than 40 percent of high school seniors used marijuana at least once. Sports Illustrated reports that personnel in the National Football League see joint smoking "almost epidemic" among 2010 draft-eligible players. Weed has been depicted as the norm in books and movies for years, and the medical marijuana revolution in the states now has even timid broadcast television addressing the issue.
Legalizing marijuana wouldn't end the criminal drug trade and its violence. Addicts still would crave heroin, cocaine and other hard narcotics. But decriminalizing marijuana would be a body blow to drug cartels. Half the annual income for Mexico's violent drug smugglers comes from marijuana, one Mexican official told the Wall Street Journal last year. Imagine how many smugglers and street-corner reefer hustlers would be put out of business.
One recent advocate of considering legalization as part of a new approach to crime is John J. DiIulio Jr., who served as President George W. Bush's director of faith-based initiatives. Writing in the journal Democracy, DiIulio said that the impact of more than 800,000 marijuana-related arrests on crime rates last year was "likely close to zero." He argued there is "almost no scientific evidence showing that pot is more harmful to its users' health, more of a 'gateway drug' or more crime-causing in its effects than alcohol or other legal narcotic or mind-altering substances."
Legalization backers go further, pointing to Canadian studies suggesting health-care costs are higher for tobacco or alcohol users and that police disruption of drug-trafficking gangs contributes to street violence by causing gang power struggles.
The prospect of reducing violence, undermining gangs, freeing law enforcement to concentrate on serious crimes and more revenues for hard-pressed governments -- all are reasons to end the "reefer madness" in our laws.
Source: Chicago Sun-Times
The California vote, however it turns out, constitutes a recognition that millions of Americans see lighting up a joint as no different than sipping a martini. Clinton's rejection of easing U.S. law on recreational weed use reflects a wide opposing belief that allowing marijuana use would violate moral norms and inflict onerous social costs on our society.
Sponsors of the California referendum attempt to sidestep the moral argument by framing the issue in dollars and cents. They assert taxing legal marijuana could bring $1.4 billion to California's bankrupt state coffers while cutting law enforcement and incarceration costs.
Passage of the Golden State measure would set up a state-federal conflict. Federal law trumps state law, but the Obama administration has wisely stopped federal prosecution of medical marijuana sales in the more than a dozen states that have approved them. But turning a blind eye to a defiant challenge on recreational use would be another matter.
A California yes vote could force the nation into a realistic conversation on drug prohibition. Casualties from the war on drugs keep piling up. Nowhere is this more true than in Mexico, where more than 18,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in the last three years, including several recent victims with ties to the U.S. consulate in Juarez. In this country, FBI crime statistics list narcotics circumstances behind 3,052 murders over five years ending in 2008.
The deaths and millions of arrests, convictions and imprisonments stem from a trade supplying products Americans obviously want -- and No. 1 is marijuana. The National Institute of Drug Abuse found that more than 40 percent of high school seniors used marijuana at least once. Sports Illustrated reports that personnel in the National Football League see joint smoking "almost epidemic" among 2010 draft-eligible players. Weed has been depicted as the norm in books and movies for years, and the medical marijuana revolution in the states now has even timid broadcast television addressing the issue.
Legalizing marijuana wouldn't end the criminal drug trade and its violence. Addicts still would crave heroin, cocaine and other hard narcotics. But decriminalizing marijuana would be a body blow to drug cartels. Half the annual income for Mexico's violent drug smugglers comes from marijuana, one Mexican official told the Wall Street Journal last year. Imagine how many smugglers and street-corner reefer hustlers would be put out of business.
One recent advocate of considering legalization as part of a new approach to crime is John J. DiIulio Jr., who served as President George W. Bush's director of faith-based initiatives. Writing in the journal Democracy, DiIulio said that the impact of more than 800,000 marijuana-related arrests on crime rates last year was "likely close to zero." He argued there is "almost no scientific evidence showing that pot is more harmful to its users' health, more of a 'gateway drug' or more crime-causing in its effects than alcohol or other legal narcotic or mind-altering substances."
Legalization backers go further, pointing to Canadian studies suggesting health-care costs are higher for tobacco or alcohol users and that police disruption of drug-trafficking gangs contributes to street violence by causing gang power struggles.
The prospect of reducing violence, undermining gangs, freeing law enforcement to concentrate on serious crimes and more revenues for hard-pressed governments -- all are reasons to end the "reefer madness" in our laws.
Source: Chicago Sun-Times
Monday, March 29, 2010
Medical Pot Possession Cases Thrown Out, Dropped Up North
Last week we told you how some Southern California California juries were letting medical marijuana dispensary operators off the hook in recent pot possession and trafficking cases. Now it looks like some juries up north are also letting medical pot sellers and users walk away after they've been charged with possessing too much weed.
Two cases in Northern California ended up being tossed in light of a California Supreme Court ruling in January that invalidated the state's legislative limits on how much pot a medical marijuana patient can possess. The court stated that those who approved Prop. 215 did not specify an amount and that only the voters -- not the legislature -- could say how much was too much: 215 never really spelled it out, leaving an open question.
As a result, according to the Associated Press, not only are some cases against medical marijuana sellers and users being tossed out of court, but some prosecutors are getting cold feet about moving against potential suspects, even if they're caught with a lot of weed.
"Gray is not a good color for the law," Shasta County District Attorney Gerald Benito told the AP. "It makes it very difficult for us to enforce the law -- I think everyone is crying out for a clear line."
Clarification might come in the way of a November ballot initiative in California that seeks to make possession of up to one ounce of pot, medical or not, legal for those 21 and older.
Source: LA Weekly
Two cases in Northern California ended up being tossed in light of a California Supreme Court ruling in January that invalidated the state's legislative limits on how much pot a medical marijuana patient can possess. The court stated that those who approved Prop. 215 did not specify an amount and that only the voters -- not the legislature -- could say how much was too much: 215 never really spelled it out, leaving an open question.
As a result, according to the Associated Press, not only are some cases against medical marijuana sellers and users being tossed out of court, but some prosecutors are getting cold feet about moving against potential suspects, even if they're caught with a lot of weed.
"Gray is not a good color for the law," Shasta County District Attorney Gerald Benito told the AP. "It makes it very difficult for us to enforce the law -- I think everyone is crying out for a clear line."
Clarification might come in the way of a November ballot initiative in California that seeks to make possession of up to one ounce of pot, medical or not, legal for those 21 and older.
Source: LA Weekly
Sunday, March 28, 2010
NEWS: Let the sick decide if marijuana is medicine
Pain can saturate one's entire being. This hit home recently when my mother endured bouts of chemotherapy for stomach cancer. Drugs to relieve her relentless nausea offered little benefit. As with countless other patients, her medicine made matters worse.
For patients in intractable pain, time is not on their side. Therefore, for supporters, New York's pending legalization of the medical provision and use of marijuana is timely. Meanwhile, the debate continues.
Good ethics requires good facts, as in accurate, relevant and evidence-based. Clearly, cannabis' history of illegal use and association with lethal drugs has overshadowed its supposed therapeutic value in alleviating chemotherapy-induced nausea, reducing glaucoma's intraocular pressure, mitigating AIDS symptoms and relieving chronic pain. Furthermore, its psychoactive component spawns fears of dependency and abuse, although authorized stimulants, antidepressants and analgesics also produce highs and lows.
While critics allege medical marijuana to be addictive, a so-called gateway to lethal drugs and without medical benefit, they also reject it as valid medicine. So, is medical marijuana "real medicine" or an oxymoron?
This deep-seated question is unsettling.
Why? Because it unearths an unhealthy tension among politics, power and science.
In his "Social Transformation of American Medicine," sociologist Paul Starr chronicles this tension by describing how U.S. mainstream medicine, through licensing and certification requirements, assumed a purportedly more "scientific" medical paradigm that marginalized alternative, including herbal, therapies.
Wedded politics and science then enabled federal agencies' virtual embargo on serious research into marijuana's therapeutic efficacy. To illustrate, the National Institute on Drug Abuse plantation at the University of Mississippi is the only place where researchers can legally obtain marijuana. Yet, with pressure from the Drug Enforcement Agency, NIDA's ongoing denial of research on the plant's medical benefits has blocked important clinical studies.
As Madelon Lubin Finkel, clinical public health professor at Cornell's Weill Medical College asserts, "reasons for this prohibition are clearly politically ideological."
Politics' power over science is especially apparent since the biggest stakeholder in defining "real medicine" is the pharmaceutical industry, "Big Pharma." Generous government funding for research into a synthetic substitute for tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive chemical in marijuana, led to the 1985 FDA approval of Marinol(r), a prescription drug for chemotherapy-related nausea and AIDS patients' weight loss. Touted as safer and more effective than natural botanical marijuana, Marinol, as "real medicine," may have diverted research from the therapeutic potential of the plant itself.
Since good ethics requires good facts, without sufficient comparative clinical studies, findings become arbitrary. Is a synthetic substitute better than nature's botanical remedy?
In their book "Dying to Get High," sociologist Wendy Chapkis and communications expert Richard Webb argue that "pharmaceutical purity" is a misleading notion given the rubric of side effects for most prescription drugs, ranging from organ damage to heart failure to nausea to depression to suicidal tendencies. At $30 a pill, Marinol is a costly trade-off for the patient, but profitable in one of the most lucrative industries in the United States, Big Pharma.
The moral center of concern in health care should be the patient. When that center shifts to political ideology, we abdicate moral accountability to our patients.
Will legalizing medical marijuana help restore accountability?
Although the jury is still out regarding side effects, the Institute of Medicine's 1999 report "Medicine and Marijuana" finds "no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs." Moreover, the Drug Policy Education Group's 2002 account refutes DEA arguments regarding marijuana's harms.
We can bestow dignity on patients by empowering them to make their own informed choices among reasonable options. As to these options, good science and sound moral principles -- not political ideology or industry profit -- should help determine how we characterize "real medicine."
Source: Times Union
For patients in intractable pain, time is not on their side. Therefore, for supporters, New York's pending legalization of the medical provision and use of marijuana is timely. Meanwhile, the debate continues.
Good ethics requires good facts, as in accurate, relevant and evidence-based. Clearly, cannabis' history of illegal use and association with lethal drugs has overshadowed its supposed therapeutic value in alleviating chemotherapy-induced nausea, reducing glaucoma's intraocular pressure, mitigating AIDS symptoms and relieving chronic pain. Furthermore, its psychoactive component spawns fears of dependency and abuse, although authorized stimulants, antidepressants and analgesics also produce highs and lows.
While critics allege medical marijuana to be addictive, a so-called gateway to lethal drugs and without medical benefit, they also reject it as valid medicine. So, is medical marijuana "real medicine" or an oxymoron?
This deep-seated question is unsettling.
Why? Because it unearths an unhealthy tension among politics, power and science.
In his "Social Transformation of American Medicine," sociologist Paul Starr chronicles this tension by describing how U.S. mainstream medicine, through licensing and certification requirements, assumed a purportedly more "scientific" medical paradigm that marginalized alternative, including herbal, therapies.
Wedded politics and science then enabled federal agencies' virtual embargo on serious research into marijuana's therapeutic efficacy. To illustrate, the National Institute on Drug Abuse plantation at the University of Mississippi is the only place where researchers can legally obtain marijuana. Yet, with pressure from the Drug Enforcement Agency, NIDA's ongoing denial of research on the plant's medical benefits has blocked important clinical studies.
As Madelon Lubin Finkel, clinical public health professor at Cornell's Weill Medical College asserts, "reasons for this prohibition are clearly politically ideological."
Politics' power over science is especially apparent since the biggest stakeholder in defining "real medicine" is the pharmaceutical industry, "Big Pharma." Generous government funding for research into a synthetic substitute for tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive chemical in marijuana, led to the 1985 FDA approval of Marinol(r), a prescription drug for chemotherapy-related nausea and AIDS patients' weight loss. Touted as safer and more effective than natural botanical marijuana, Marinol, as "real medicine," may have diverted research from the therapeutic potential of the plant itself.
Since good ethics requires good facts, without sufficient comparative clinical studies, findings become arbitrary. Is a synthetic substitute better than nature's botanical remedy?
In their book "Dying to Get High," sociologist Wendy Chapkis and communications expert Richard Webb argue that "pharmaceutical purity" is a misleading notion given the rubric of side effects for most prescription drugs, ranging from organ damage to heart failure to nausea to depression to suicidal tendencies. At $30 a pill, Marinol is a costly trade-off for the patient, but profitable in one of the most lucrative industries in the United States, Big Pharma.
The moral center of concern in health care should be the patient. When that center shifts to political ideology, we abdicate moral accountability to our patients.
Will legalizing medical marijuana help restore accountability?
Although the jury is still out regarding side effects, the Institute of Medicine's 1999 report "Medicine and Marijuana" finds "no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs." Moreover, the Drug Policy Education Group's 2002 account refutes DEA arguments regarding marijuana's harms.
We can bestow dignity on patients by empowering them to make their own informed choices among reasonable options. As to these options, good science and sound moral principles -- not political ideology or industry profit -- should help determine how we characterize "real medicine."
Source: Times Union
NEWS: Many felony pot cases getting tossed out of court
SAN FRANCISCO — Police in a northern California town thought they had an open-and-shut case when they seized more than two pounds of marijuana from a couple's home, even though doctors authorized the pair to use pot for medical purposes.
San Francisco police thought the same with a father and son team they suspected of abusing the state's medical marijuana law by allegedly operating an illegal trafficking operation.
But both cases were tossed out along with many other marijuana possession cases in recent weeks because of a California Supreme Court ruling that has police, prosecutors and defense attorneys scrambling to make sense of a gray legal area: What is the maximum amount of cannabis a medical marijuana patient can possess?
No one can say for sure how many dismissals and acquittals have been prompted by the ruling, but the numbers are stacking up since the Supreme Court on Jan. 21 tossed out Patrick Kelly's marijuana possession conviction.
The high court struck down a 7-year-old state law that imposed an 8-ounce limit on the amount of pot medical users of marijuana could possess. The court said patients are entitled to a "reasonable" amount of the drug to treat their ailments.
Law enforcement officials say the ruling has made the murky legal landscape of marijuana policy in California even more challenging to enforce.
Since California voters legalized medical marijuana in 1996, there has been tension between local law enforcement officials and federal authorities, who view marijuana as absolutely illegal.
That tension is expected to become even more pronounced if the state's voters approve a November ballot measure legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana.
"The way the law is now it puts law enforcement between a rock and a hard place," said Martin J. Mayer, a lawyer who represents California State Sheriff's Association, California Police Chief's Association and California Peace Officers' Association. "The measure, if it passes, will make it even more difficult. They just don't like being in the middle."
Prosecutors are backing away from some cases filed before the court ruling.
"Gray is not a good color for the law," said Shasta County District Attorney Gerald Benito, who dismissed a case earlier this month and is considering dropping several more because of the ruling. "It makes it very difficult for us to enforce the law — I think everyone is crying out for a clear line."
Benito cited the Supreme Court ruling in dropping charges on March 5 against James Bradley Hall, who was arrested in October and charged with growing 40 marijuana plants.
The next week, a San Francisco jury acquitted a father and son charged with growing three dozen plants. The lawyers for Thomas Chang, 62, and his son, Errol Chang, 30, based their defense on the Kelly case, arguing that the men needed that much pot to treat their medical conditions.
In Vacaville, located between San Francisco and Sacramento, prosecutors in February dropped their two-year pursuit of Johanna and Joe Azevedo, a husband and wife charged with possessing about two pounds of marijuana. Both sides agreed to put the Azevedo case on hold until the Supreme Court decided the Kelly case.
"Fighting this pretty well drained what little money we had," Johanna Azevedo said of her legal fight with Solano County prosecutors. "But it was a very happy day when the Kelly case was announced."
Still, not all defense attorneys and marijuana advocates are as content with the ruling as the Azevedos and others who had their criminal cases dropped.
Some argue that clear-cut limits actually would shield medical marijuana patients from law enforcement officials who have a strict interpretation of what constitutes a "reasonable" amount.
"I wish there was a bright line," said Bruce Margolin, one of the nation's most renowned marijuana defense attorneys. "It's the only protection against arrest."
A closely-watched Sacramento case was expected to help clarify what a reasonable amount of medical marijuana is. But it further muddied the question.
The jury acquitted Matthew Zugsberger of a felony possession charge but convicted him of a felony charge of marijuana transportation for trying to take three pounds of marijuana from the Sacramento airport to New Orleans in 2008. The jury, which deliberated for more than three days, also convicted Zugsberger of a misdemeanor possession charge. In the end, nothing was solved.
"The jury was absolutely confused," said his attorney Grant Pegg. "What is reasonable is an absolutely gray area."
Despite the confusion, there does not appear to be a political push to develop guidelines, which the Supreme Court said must be done by voters.
Law enforcement lobbying arms, such as the California District Attorney Association, steer clear of most medical marijuana issues because of the wide variety of views of the law.
"It is different than a lot of areas in criminal law where there is a consensus," said W. Scott Thorpe, chief executive of the district attorney's association. "There are varying approaches from county to county in the way law enforcement is dealing with medical marijuana laws."
Source: The Associated Press
San Francisco police thought the same with a father and son team they suspected of abusing the state's medical marijuana law by allegedly operating an illegal trafficking operation.
But both cases were tossed out along with many other marijuana possession cases in recent weeks because of a California Supreme Court ruling that has police, prosecutors and defense attorneys scrambling to make sense of a gray legal area: What is the maximum amount of cannabis a medical marijuana patient can possess?
No one can say for sure how many dismissals and acquittals have been prompted by the ruling, but the numbers are stacking up since the Supreme Court on Jan. 21 tossed out Patrick Kelly's marijuana possession conviction.
The high court struck down a 7-year-old state law that imposed an 8-ounce limit on the amount of pot medical users of marijuana could possess. The court said patients are entitled to a "reasonable" amount of the drug to treat their ailments.
Law enforcement officials say the ruling has made the murky legal landscape of marijuana policy in California even more challenging to enforce.
Since California voters legalized medical marijuana in 1996, there has been tension between local law enforcement officials and federal authorities, who view marijuana as absolutely illegal.
That tension is expected to become even more pronounced if the state's voters approve a November ballot measure legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana.
"The way the law is now it puts law enforcement between a rock and a hard place," said Martin J. Mayer, a lawyer who represents California State Sheriff's Association, California Police Chief's Association and California Peace Officers' Association. "The measure, if it passes, will make it even more difficult. They just don't like being in the middle."
Prosecutors are backing away from some cases filed before the court ruling.
"Gray is not a good color for the law," said Shasta County District Attorney Gerald Benito, who dismissed a case earlier this month and is considering dropping several more because of the ruling. "It makes it very difficult for us to enforce the law — I think everyone is crying out for a clear line."
Benito cited the Supreme Court ruling in dropping charges on March 5 against James Bradley Hall, who was arrested in October and charged with growing 40 marijuana plants.
The next week, a San Francisco jury acquitted a father and son charged with growing three dozen plants. The lawyers for Thomas Chang, 62, and his son, Errol Chang, 30, based their defense on the Kelly case, arguing that the men needed that much pot to treat their medical conditions.
In Vacaville, located between San Francisco and Sacramento, prosecutors in February dropped their two-year pursuit of Johanna and Joe Azevedo, a husband and wife charged with possessing about two pounds of marijuana. Both sides agreed to put the Azevedo case on hold until the Supreme Court decided the Kelly case.
"Fighting this pretty well drained what little money we had," Johanna Azevedo said of her legal fight with Solano County prosecutors. "But it was a very happy day when the Kelly case was announced."
Still, not all defense attorneys and marijuana advocates are as content with the ruling as the Azevedos and others who had their criminal cases dropped.
Some argue that clear-cut limits actually would shield medical marijuana patients from law enforcement officials who have a strict interpretation of what constitutes a "reasonable" amount.
"I wish there was a bright line," said Bruce Margolin, one of the nation's most renowned marijuana defense attorneys. "It's the only protection against arrest."
A closely-watched Sacramento case was expected to help clarify what a reasonable amount of medical marijuana is. But it further muddied the question.
The jury acquitted Matthew Zugsberger of a felony possession charge but convicted him of a felony charge of marijuana transportation for trying to take three pounds of marijuana from the Sacramento airport to New Orleans in 2008. The jury, which deliberated for more than three days, also convicted Zugsberger of a misdemeanor possession charge. In the end, nothing was solved.
"The jury was absolutely confused," said his attorney Grant Pegg. "What is reasonable is an absolutely gray area."
Despite the confusion, there does not appear to be a political push to develop guidelines, which the Supreme Court said must be done by voters.
Law enforcement lobbying arms, such as the California District Attorney Association, steer clear of most medical marijuana issues because of the wide variety of views of the law.
"It is different than a lot of areas in criminal law where there is a consensus," said W. Scott Thorpe, chief executive of the district attorney's association. "There are varying approaches from county to county in the way law enforcement is dealing with medical marijuana laws."
Source: The Associated Press
NEWS: Legalize pot in California? Statewide candidates inhale the question — blow out answers
To legalize pot or not?
That's the question California voters will face in the fall now that the ballot measure has qualified for the November election.
The state's political candidates got to face it Saturday. And their answers — more or less — were no, no, no and no.
When asked whether any of them had ever smoked marijuana, the answers were, again: No — except for the occasional "dunno."
"I am not supporting the initiative," said Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tom Campbell, unable to comment at length because he was driving at the time. Before hanging up, though, he was able to add: "I've never smoked marijuana in my life."
GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman's spokeswoman, Sarah Pompei, reiterated her statement this week that Whitman was "absolutely against legalizing marijuana for any reason. She believes we have enough challenges in our society without heading down the path of drug legalization."
Asked whether Whitman had ever smoked it, Pompei said, "I've never asked her, and I would have no idea."
Jarrod Agen, spokesman for Whitman's GOP opponent, Steve Poizner, replied in an e-mail: "Steve has said that he's never used drugs."
Still, Poizner had one of the more interesting takes on the initiative, which would allow licensed retailers to sell up to an ounce of marijuana, generating as much as $1.4 billion in new taxes, according to proponents. Agen said that "like electing Jerry Brown, the idea of legalizing drugs is one more bad idea from a bygone era. Steve Poizner feels we need an across-the-board tax cut to reignite our state's economy, not an attempt to smoke our way out of the budget deficit."
Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Jerry Brown's spokesman, Sterling Clifford, said that because the candidate, as attorney general, is "the state's top law enforcer, and because he has to write the title and summary of the ballot initiative, he's not going to discuss the merits of the initiative until that's done."
Has Brown used marijuana? "I haven't the slightest idea," said Clifford. "And I'm not sure he can be reached today. He and his wife were going hiking."
A spokeswoman for Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer said she would ask her boss about the initiative, but had not responded by press time. And Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina "opposes the legalization of marijuana," said spokeswoman Amy Thoma.
Chuck DeVore, the conservative California assemblyman trying to unseat Boxer, said he had never used marijuana and that he opposed legalizing it. As he drove from one tea party rally to another Saturday in Nevada, DeVore raised a number of potential problems, including how challenging it would be to come up with roadside tests to weed out people who were intoxicated behind the wheel.
"What can the police officer do?" DeVore wondered. "Pull out a plate of brownies, and see if you take one?"
Source: Mercury News
That's the question California voters will face in the fall now that the ballot measure has qualified for the November election.
The state's political candidates got to face it Saturday. And their answers — more or less — were no, no, no and no.
When asked whether any of them had ever smoked marijuana, the answers were, again: No — except for the occasional "dunno."
"I am not supporting the initiative," said Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tom Campbell, unable to comment at length because he was driving at the time. Before hanging up, though, he was able to add: "I've never smoked marijuana in my life."
GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman's spokeswoman, Sarah Pompei, reiterated her statement this week that Whitman was "absolutely against legalizing marijuana for any reason. She believes we have enough challenges in our society without heading down the path of drug legalization."
Asked whether Whitman had ever smoked it, Pompei said, "I've never asked her, and I would have no idea."
Jarrod Agen, spokesman for Whitman's GOP opponent, Steve Poizner, replied in an e-mail: "Steve has said that he's never used drugs."
Still, Poizner had one of the more interesting takes on the initiative, which would allow licensed retailers to sell up to an ounce of marijuana, generating as much as $1.4 billion in new taxes, according to proponents. Agen said that "like electing Jerry Brown, the idea of legalizing drugs is one more bad idea from a bygone era. Steve Poizner feels we need an across-the-board tax cut to reignite our state's economy, not an attempt to smoke our way out of the budget deficit."
Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Jerry Brown's spokesman, Sterling Clifford, said that because the candidate, as attorney general, is "the state's top law enforcer, and because he has to write the title and summary of the ballot initiative, he's not going to discuss the merits of the initiative until that's done."
Has Brown used marijuana? "I haven't the slightest idea," said Clifford. "And I'm not sure he can be reached today. He and his wife were going hiking."
A spokeswoman for Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer said she would ask her boss about the initiative, but had not responded by press time. And Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina "opposes the legalization of marijuana," said spokeswoman Amy Thoma.
Chuck DeVore, the conservative California assemblyman trying to unseat Boxer, said he had never used marijuana and that he opposed legalizing it. As he drove from one tea party rally to another Saturday in Nevada, DeVore raised a number of potential problems, including how challenging it would be to come up with roadside tests to weed out people who were intoxicated behind the wheel.
"What can the police officer do?" DeVore wondered. "Pull out a plate of brownies, and see if you take one?"
Source: Mercury News
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
NEWS: Police arrest father, son. Warrant for son led officers to find drugs inside home, sergeant says.
WEST BURBANK — A 50-year-old man was charged this week with growing marijuana and possession of methamphetamine after officers arrived at the family home to arrest his son on a domestic violence warrant, authorities said.
Officers arrived at the home in the 1100 block of N. Reese Place about 9:40 p.m. Tuesday to arrest Shane Reynolds, 22, for an outstanding felony warrant for domestic violence. Authorities said that his on-again, off-again girlfriend contacted police this week to report that Reynolds allegedly punched her in the back of the head March 14.
He pleaded not guilty Thursday to felony charges of corporal injury to a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant or parent, and cultivating marijuana. He was transported to the men’s central jail in Los Angeles early Friday in lieu of $110,000 bail and is scheduled to appear in Burbank Superior Court on April 7.
As officers were arresting Shane Reynolds in front of his father, they discovered four marijuana plants, growing lights and other cultivation materials in the bedroom, Burbank Police Sgt. Robert Quesada said.
“They noted the smell of marijuana and then noted the four plants with a complete little cultivation setup,” Quesada said.
Police searched the rest of the room and allegedly found methamphetamine in a closet, authorities said. James Reynolds, 50, was arrested and later charged with felony cultivating marijuana and felony possession of methamphetamine, commonly referred to as meth, crystal or speed. He was released from custody Wednesday after posting $20,000 bond and his arraignment had not been scheduled, court officials said.
Possession can be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony and often depends on the quantity of drugs found and whether the suspect has prior drug convictions, police said.
Officers were not immediately able to answer whether James or Shane Reynolds were card-holding medical marijuana users, Quesada said. State law authorizes medical marijuana users to possess up to six mature plants, 12 immature plants and eight ounces of dried cannabis, with some counties allowing more.
Those found to be cultivating marijuana for personal use may have their jail time suspended in favor of diversion, a combination of education and drug treatment.
Source: Burbank Leader
Officers arrived at the home in the 1100 block of N. Reese Place about 9:40 p.m. Tuesday to arrest Shane Reynolds, 22, for an outstanding felony warrant for domestic violence. Authorities said that his on-again, off-again girlfriend contacted police this week to report that Reynolds allegedly punched her in the back of the head March 14.
He pleaded not guilty Thursday to felony charges of corporal injury to a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant or parent, and cultivating marijuana. He was transported to the men’s central jail in Los Angeles early Friday in lieu of $110,000 bail and is scheduled to appear in Burbank Superior Court on April 7.
As officers were arresting Shane Reynolds in front of his father, they discovered four marijuana plants, growing lights and other cultivation materials in the bedroom, Burbank Police Sgt. Robert Quesada said.
“They noted the smell of marijuana and then noted the four plants with a complete little cultivation setup,” Quesada said.
Police searched the rest of the room and allegedly found methamphetamine in a closet, authorities said. James Reynolds, 50, was arrested and later charged with felony cultivating marijuana and felony possession of methamphetamine, commonly referred to as meth, crystal or speed. He was released from custody Wednesday after posting $20,000 bond and his arraignment had not been scheduled, court officials said.
Possession can be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony and often depends on the quantity of drugs found and whether the suspect has prior drug convictions, police said.
Officers were not immediately able to answer whether James or Shane Reynolds were card-holding medical marijuana users, Quesada said. State law authorizes medical marijuana users to possess up to six mature plants, 12 immature plants and eight ounces of dried cannabis, with some counties allowing more.
Those found to be cultivating marijuana for personal use may have their jail time suspended in favor of diversion, a combination of education and drug treatment.
Source: Burbank Leader
NEWS: Pot TV network backs cannabis car in Roseville NASCAR event
At the NASCAR-sanctioned K & N pro-series at the All-American Speedway in Roseville, one car Saturday night will be featuring a giant marijuana leaf.
The entry by Dynamic Motorsports of Sacramento will feature the logo of Cannabis Planet, a pot-themed television program that airs on cable stations in Los Angeles and San Diego and hopes to launch in Sacramento next month.
"NASCAR has sponsorships from alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceuticals," said Brad Lane, executive producer of Cannabis Planet Productions of Sunset Beach. "We think it is high time that cannabis is represented."
Pictured: The Cannabis Planet stock car, billed as "the first cannabis car in motor sports history."
Source: Sacramento Bee
ALERT! National Day of Protest DEA Raids (San Diego)
What: National Day of Protest DEA Raids
When: Today Friday Mar 26, 2010 from Noon – 2:00pm
Where:
U.S. District Courthouse
940 Front St.
San Diego, CA 92101
View Larger Map
For more information contact sandiegoasa@gmail.com
When: Today Friday Mar 26, 2010 from Noon – 2:00pm
Where:
U.S. District Courthouse
940 Front St.
San Diego, CA 92101
View Larger Map
For more information contact sandiegoasa@gmail.com
Thursday, March 25, 2010
NEWS: Mexico bristles as some U.S. states relax marijuana laws
MEXICO CITY -- As more U.S. states permit medical marijuana, and California considers legalizing cannabis sales to adults, Mexico is voicing irritation at the gap between drug laws north and south of the border and saying it undercuts the battle against Mexico's violent drug cartels.
Mexico Secretary of the Interior Fernando Gomez Mont said last week the U.S. medical marijuana trend was "worrisome" and "complicates in a grave way" efforts to resolve Mexico's soaring drug-related violence.
The issue came to the fore earlier this week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led a high-level U.S. delegation to Mexico to discuss counter-drug strategies.
Clinton said law enforcement authorities are keeping close tabs on medical marijuana dispensaries in the 14 states where such sales are permitted. She added that she doesn't believe that the rising number of states that allow the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes was a major factor in marijuana flows into the U.S. from Mexico.
"We have not changed our laws, and we do not see this as a major contributor to the continuing flow of marijuana, the vast, vast majority of which is used for recreational purposes," Clinton said.
More states are permitting medical marijuana use, and New York may become the 15th to do so. California, which pioneered medical marijuana use in 1996, is moving even faster, setting a November vote on whether to legalize personal marijuana possession and allow regulated sales of marijuana to those over age 21. If approved, the move would be the first of its kind in the U.S.
A Mexican historian and commentator, Lorenzo Meyer Cossio, said the government of President Felipe Calderon "feels offended" by the growing trend of U.S. states to allow medical marijuana, or perhaps go further as California may do. Mexican laws against marijuana and narcotics remain tough, the result of U.S. pressure dating back more than half a century, he said.
Meyer said the California initiative to legalize marijuana sales, if approved, would ripple to Mexico, underscoring the difference in legal treatment and giving impetus to decriminalization efforts.
"It is inevitable that if this occurs in California, a neighboring state that is so important to us, that there will be repercussions here," Meyer said.
Calderon, the head of a center-right party, deployed 50,000 soldiers to the border days after coming to office in late 2006 to combat the cartels, which derive huge profits from marijuana as well as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines.
More Mexicans than ever are dying as drug cartels battle for turf along the busiest border in the world. In Ciudad Juarez, Mexico's most dangerous city, more than 530 people have been slain already this year, including three people connected to the U.S. consulate earlier this month.
Mexican marijuana production is soaring, according to a report issued Thursday by the Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center.
Estimated Mexican marijuana production climbed to 21,500 metric tons in 2008 from 10,100 metric tons in 2005, the report said, adding that as the military has turned its attention from illicit crop eradication to combating violence from the cartels, marijuana eradication efforts have fallen by nearly half.
Even advocates of the decriminalization of marijuana in the U.S. said they empathize with Mexican leaders, who are deploying troops in a fierce battle with well-armed drug cartels at the urging of Washington.
"They are caught in the middle of realities of U.S. consumer demands and American political intransigence," said Stephen Gutwillig, the California director of the Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy group for alternatives to the drug war.
Gutwillig said he thinks the trend toward allowing medical marijuana in U.S. states, and even the outright decriminalization of marijuana, would eventually weaken the Mexican drug cartels.
"Any sort of authorized regulated market for marijuana in the United States cannot be good for the bottom line of criminal cartels," Gutwillig said.
Source: The Miami Herald
Mexico Secretary of the Interior Fernando Gomez Mont said last week the U.S. medical marijuana trend was "worrisome" and "complicates in a grave way" efforts to resolve Mexico's soaring drug-related violence.
The issue came to the fore earlier this week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led a high-level U.S. delegation to Mexico to discuss counter-drug strategies.
Clinton said law enforcement authorities are keeping close tabs on medical marijuana dispensaries in the 14 states where such sales are permitted. She added that she doesn't believe that the rising number of states that allow the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes was a major factor in marijuana flows into the U.S. from Mexico.
"We have not changed our laws, and we do not see this as a major contributor to the continuing flow of marijuana, the vast, vast majority of which is used for recreational purposes," Clinton said.
More states are permitting medical marijuana use, and New York may become the 15th to do so. California, which pioneered medical marijuana use in 1996, is moving even faster, setting a November vote on whether to legalize personal marijuana possession and allow regulated sales of marijuana to those over age 21. If approved, the move would be the first of its kind in the U.S.
A Mexican historian and commentator, Lorenzo Meyer Cossio, said the government of President Felipe Calderon "feels offended" by the growing trend of U.S. states to allow medical marijuana, or perhaps go further as California may do. Mexican laws against marijuana and narcotics remain tough, the result of U.S. pressure dating back more than half a century, he said.
Meyer said the California initiative to legalize marijuana sales, if approved, would ripple to Mexico, underscoring the difference in legal treatment and giving impetus to decriminalization efforts.
"It is inevitable that if this occurs in California, a neighboring state that is so important to us, that there will be repercussions here," Meyer said.
Calderon, the head of a center-right party, deployed 50,000 soldiers to the border days after coming to office in late 2006 to combat the cartels, which derive huge profits from marijuana as well as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines.
More Mexicans than ever are dying as drug cartels battle for turf along the busiest border in the world. In Ciudad Juarez, Mexico's most dangerous city, more than 530 people have been slain already this year, including three people connected to the U.S. consulate earlier this month.
Mexican marijuana production is soaring, according to a report issued Thursday by the Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center.
Estimated Mexican marijuana production climbed to 21,500 metric tons in 2008 from 10,100 metric tons in 2005, the report said, adding that as the military has turned its attention from illicit crop eradication to combating violence from the cartels, marijuana eradication efforts have fallen by nearly half.
Even advocates of the decriminalization of marijuana in the U.S. said they empathize with Mexican leaders, who are deploying troops in a fierce battle with well-armed drug cartels at the urging of Washington.
"They are caught in the middle of realities of U.S. consumer demands and American political intransigence," said Stephen Gutwillig, the California director of the Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy group for alternatives to the drug war.
Gutwillig said he thinks the trend toward allowing medical marijuana in U.S. states, and even the outright decriminalization of marijuana, would eventually weaken the Mexican drug cartels.
"Any sort of authorized regulated market for marijuana in the United States cannot be good for the bottom line of criminal cartels," Gutwillig said.
Source: The Miami Herald
Are Dispensaries Losing their Bank Accounts?
Since June of 2008, ASA has been receiving calls from legally operating dispensing collectives stating that their business accounts have been closed by a variety of banking institutions.
These closures have occurred without explanation, and in many cases, without notice. One collective even received an un-signed form letter dated 6 days AFTER the account had already been closed!
Beginning in April of 2009, ASA has confirmed more attempts to shut down accounts by numerous financial institutions. This is particularly concerning for us because this activity comes after the US Department of Justice disseminated its new policy re: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana.
ASA is currently working with Members of Congress to investigate whether the US Department of Justice is involved. If you or someone you know has been a victim of this process, please share the details with ASA by replying to this message (action@safeaccessnow.org).
Thank You,
- The ASA Team
These closures have occurred without explanation, and in many cases, without notice. One collective even received an un-signed form letter dated 6 days AFTER the account had already been closed!
Beginning in April of 2009, ASA has confirmed more attempts to shut down accounts by numerous financial institutions. This is particularly concerning for us because this activity comes after the US Department of Justice disseminated its new policy re: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana.
ASA is currently working with Members of Congress to investigate whether the US Department of Justice is involved. If you or someone you know has been a victim of this process, please share the details with ASA by replying to this message (action@safeaccessnow.org).
Thank You,
- The ASA Team
BEWARE of Medical Marijuana Recommendation SCAMS!
Recently there have been a number of false recommendations in circulation and patients are finding out they were taken advantage of. In order to protect the patients, we recommend that you avoid the following centers as local collectives may not be accept them for various reasons, the main one being that they are INVALID:
When visiting a new clinic bring your invalid recommendation and your new doctor may give you a discount.
When searching for clinics, DON'T be lured by the price. Do your research on the clinic, the doctor, licenses and so on to minimize your chances of getting ripped off.
The following locations have been reported as reputable:
Valid Clinics with 24 hour verification
Tips on getting a valid recommendation
1. Meet the Doctor!
Some patients are reporting that they never met their doctor! If the doctor's visit is not in person (ie. Webcam, Fax), it is NOT valid.
2. Confirm your Doctor's License is Valid!
Use the following website to confirm your doctor has a license to practice in the state of California and confirm there has not been disciplinary action taken against your doctor or their office.
CA Doctor's License Look-Up
3. Get an Ink Signature!
Even real doctors are doing the wrong thing. If you do not see the doctor sign your recommendation, it may be a photo copy of their signature. This laziness is unacceptable! Without a real signature your recommendation is not real!
I hope that this post prevents people out there from getting ripped off and taken advantage of. Remember, do your research.
- Herb Medical Center
- Natures Medical Center
- Cannabis Card Center
- Absolute Medical Center
When visiting a new clinic bring your invalid recommendation and your new doctor may give you a discount.
When searching for clinics, DON'T be lured by the price. Do your research on the clinic, the doctor, licenses and so on to minimize your chances of getting ripped off.
The following locations have been reported as reputable:
Valid Clinics with 24 hour verification
- Consulting and Care for Wellness
- Medicann
- Alternative Care Clinics
- Alternative Medical Consulting
- Sona Patel
- Holistic Clinic
- Marijuana Medicine Centers
Tips on getting a valid recommendation
1. Meet the Doctor!
Some patients are reporting that they never met their doctor! If the doctor's visit is not in person (ie. Webcam, Fax), it is NOT valid.
2. Confirm your Doctor's License is Valid!
Use the following website to confirm your doctor has a license to practice in the state of California and confirm there has not been disciplinary action taken against your doctor or their office.
CA Doctor's License Look-Up
3. Get an Ink Signature!
Even real doctors are doing the wrong thing. If you do not see the doctor sign your recommendation, it may be a photo copy of their signature. This laziness is unacceptable! Without a real signature your recommendation is not real!
I hope that this post prevents people out there from getting ripped off and taken advantage of. Remember, do your research.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
NEWS: Medical marijuana rules win city panel's approval
OK by full council would help regulate dispensaries
San Diego may soon create a path to legitimacy for the more than 80 medical marijuana dispensaries that currently operate in an unregulated atmosphere that has led to raids, arrests and frustration.
A slew of new land-use regulations that would provide direction to police and code-enforcement officers as they try to regulate the businesses won approval yesterday from a City Council committee.
California voters legalized the use of medical marijuana by seriously ill patients in 1996 with Proposition 215.
The new city rules would prohibit dispensaries from operating within 1,000 feet of schools, playgrounds, libraries, child-care facilities, youth centers, churches and parks. The dispensaries also could not be within 1,000 feet of each other to prevent a cluster of such stores in a particular neighborhood.
The pot shops also would have limited business hours, and a security guard would be mandatory to reduce crime.
Alex Kreit, chairman of the city’s Medical Marijuana Task Force, which recommended many of the changes, said that regardless of one’s opinion on medical marijuana, the city needs to put rules in place.
“More important than any of the specifics of the task force recommendations is the general principle that the city enact some sort of regulatory system that allows patients who have legitimate medical marijuana (needs) to have safe access to their medicine and at the same time ensures that abuses … are protected against,” said Kreit, a Thomas Jefferson School of Law professor.
The city of San Diego has no regulations pertaining to medical marijuana businesses, which has created confusion for owners and public safety officials.
The council committee voted 3-1 to create an ordinance based on the task force’s recommendations, with some slight tweaks. The ordinance is expected to go before the full council within the next two months.
Councilman Tony Young said he couldn’t support the proposal because it didn’t include a cap on the number of dispensaries allowed in the city. Other cities, such as Oakland and Los Angeles, have such caps.
Rudy Reyes, who was seriously burned in the 2003 Cedar fire and uses marijuana to ease his pain, urged the council to move ahead with the regulations.
“There are those of us out there that are sick, dying and hurting. ... We want you to stand up as the hero for us,” Reyes said. “Stop the hysteria ... finalize this.”
The vagueness of state laws allowing the use of medical marijuana and the fact that the drug is still illegal under federal law have prompted cities across the state to take different approaches in regulating use of marijuana. San Diego County and the cities of Escondido and El Cajon have banned dispensaries.
Source: San Diego Union-Tribune
San Diego may soon create a path to legitimacy for the more than 80 medical marijuana dispensaries that currently operate in an unregulated atmosphere that has led to raids, arrests and frustration.
A slew of new land-use regulations that would provide direction to police and code-enforcement officers as they try to regulate the businesses won approval yesterday from a City Council committee.
California voters legalized the use of medical marijuana by seriously ill patients in 1996 with Proposition 215.
The new city rules would prohibit dispensaries from operating within 1,000 feet of schools, playgrounds, libraries, child-care facilities, youth centers, churches and parks. The dispensaries also could not be within 1,000 feet of each other to prevent a cluster of such stores in a particular neighborhood.
The pot shops also would have limited business hours, and a security guard would be mandatory to reduce crime.
Alex Kreit, chairman of the city’s Medical Marijuana Task Force, which recommended many of the changes, said that regardless of one’s opinion on medical marijuana, the city needs to put rules in place.
“More important than any of the specifics of the task force recommendations is the general principle that the city enact some sort of regulatory system that allows patients who have legitimate medical marijuana (needs) to have safe access to their medicine and at the same time ensures that abuses … are protected against,” said Kreit, a Thomas Jefferson School of Law professor.
The city of San Diego has no regulations pertaining to medical marijuana businesses, which has created confusion for owners and public safety officials.
The council committee voted 3-1 to create an ordinance based on the task force’s recommendations, with some slight tweaks. The ordinance is expected to go before the full council within the next two months.
Councilman Tony Young said he couldn’t support the proposal because it didn’t include a cap on the number of dispensaries allowed in the city. Other cities, such as Oakland and Los Angeles, have such caps.
Rudy Reyes, who was seriously burned in the 2003 Cedar fire and uses marijuana to ease his pain, urged the council to move ahead with the regulations.
“There are those of us out there that are sick, dying and hurting. ... We want you to stand up as the hero for us,” Reyes said. “Stop the hysteria ... finalize this.”
The vagueness of state laws allowing the use of medical marijuana and the fact that the drug is still illegal under federal law have prompted cities across the state to take different approaches in regulating use of marijuana. San Diego County and the cities of Escondido and El Cajon have banned dispensaries.
Source: San Diego Union-Tribune
NEWS: Legal Calif. pot? Some growers bummed
REDWAY, Calif. - The smell of pot hung heavy in the air as men with dreadlocks and gray beards contemplated a nightmarish possibility in this legendary region of outlaw marijuana growers: legal weed.
If California legalizes marijuana, they say, it will drive down the price of their crop and damage not just their livelihoods but the entire economy along the state's rugged northern coast.
"The legalization of marijuana will be the single most devastating economic event in the long boom-and-bust history of Northern California," said Anna Hamilton, 62, a Humboldt County radio host and musician who said her involvement with marijuana has mostly been limited to smoking it for the past 40 years.
Local residents are so worried that pot farmers came together with officials in Humboldt County for a standing-room-only meeting Tuesday night where civic leaders, activists and growers brainstormed ideas for dealing with the threat. Among the ideas: turning the vast pot gardens of Humboldt County into a destination for marijuana aficionados, with tours and tastings — a sort of Napa Valley of pot.
Many were also enthusiastic about promoting the Humboldt brand of pot. Some discussed forming a cooperative that would enforce high standards for marijuana and stamp the county's finest weed with an official Humboldt seal of approval.
Pot growers are nervous because a measure that could make California the first state to legalize marijuana for recreational use could appear on the ballot in November. It appears to have enough signatures.
The law, if approved, could have a profound effect on Humboldt County, which has long had a reputation for growing some of the world's best weed.
In recent years, law enforcement agents have seized millions of pot plants worth billions of dollars in Humboldt and neighboring counties. And that is believed to be only a fraction of the crop.
"We've lived with the name association for 30 or 40 years and considered it an embarrassment," said Mark Lovelace, a Humboldt County supervisor.
Time to brand Humboldt?
But if legalization does happen, he said, the Humboldt County name becomes the region's single most important asset.
"It's laughable at this point to try to be hush-hush about it," he said.
Humboldt County's reputation as a marijuana mecca began in the 1970s. As pot users began to notice a decline in the quality of Mexican weed, refugees from San Francisco's Summer of Love who moved to the forested mountains along California's conveniently remote North Coast began figuring out better ways to grow their own. The Humboldt name soon became a selling point for marijuana sold on street corners across the country.
These days, the small towns in this region about five hours north of San Francisco are dotted with head shops and garden supply stores.
California is one of 14 states that allow people to grow and use marijuana for medical purposes, but recreational use remains illegal. (And will remain illegal under federal law, regardless of how California votes.)
For decades, the outlaws, rebels and aging hippies of Humboldt County have been hoping for legalization. But now that it appears at hand, many clandestine growers fear it will flood the market with cheap, corporate-grown weed and destroy their way of life.
About 20 pot growers gathered on a patio outside the meeting Tuesday to discuss the dilemma posed by legalized pot. Many wore baseball caps and jeans, just like farmers anywhere else in America. No one addressed anyone else by name, a local custom driven by fear of arrest, but that didn't stop some in the group from lighting up their crop.
Talk of 'the holy bud'
Many complained that legalization would put them in the same bind as other small farmers struggling to compete against large-scale agribusinesses.
A dreadlocked younger grower who said he had already been to prison for marijuana objected that no one could replicate the quality of the region's weed. When he was a kid, he said, "Humboldt nuggets — that was like the holy grail."
"Anyone can grow marijuana," he said. "But not everyone can grow the super-heavies, the holy bud."
Under the ballot measure, Californians could possess up to one ounce of marijuana for personal use. They could cultivate gardens up to 25 square feet, which is puny by Humboldt County standards. City and county governments would have the power to tax pot sales.
Some growers Tuesday fantasized about mobs of tourists in limos streaming to the county. Others were not thrilled with the idea of paying taxes on their crop.
Many agreed with the sentiment on a sticker plastered on a pizza joint's cash register: "Save Humboldt County — keep pot illegal."
Source: MSNBC
If California legalizes marijuana, they say, it will drive down the price of their crop and damage not just their livelihoods but the entire economy along the state's rugged northern coast.
"The legalization of marijuana will be the single most devastating economic event in the long boom-and-bust history of Northern California," said Anna Hamilton, 62, a Humboldt County radio host and musician who said her involvement with marijuana has mostly been limited to smoking it for the past 40 years.
Local residents are so worried that pot farmers came together with officials in Humboldt County for a standing-room-only meeting Tuesday night where civic leaders, activists and growers brainstormed ideas for dealing with the threat. Among the ideas: turning the vast pot gardens of Humboldt County into a destination for marijuana aficionados, with tours and tastings — a sort of Napa Valley of pot.
Many were also enthusiastic about promoting the Humboldt brand of pot. Some discussed forming a cooperative that would enforce high standards for marijuana and stamp the county's finest weed with an official Humboldt seal of approval.
Pot growers are nervous because a measure that could make California the first state to legalize marijuana for recreational use could appear on the ballot in November. It appears to have enough signatures.
The law, if approved, could have a profound effect on Humboldt County, which has long had a reputation for growing some of the world's best weed.
In recent years, law enforcement agents have seized millions of pot plants worth billions of dollars in Humboldt and neighboring counties. And that is believed to be only a fraction of the crop.
"We've lived with the name association for 30 or 40 years and considered it an embarrassment," said Mark Lovelace, a Humboldt County supervisor.
Time to brand Humboldt?
But if legalization does happen, he said, the Humboldt County name becomes the region's single most important asset.
"It's laughable at this point to try to be hush-hush about it," he said.
Humboldt County's reputation as a marijuana mecca began in the 1970s. As pot users began to notice a decline in the quality of Mexican weed, refugees from San Francisco's Summer of Love who moved to the forested mountains along California's conveniently remote North Coast began figuring out better ways to grow their own. The Humboldt name soon became a selling point for marijuana sold on street corners across the country.
These days, the small towns in this region about five hours north of San Francisco are dotted with head shops and garden supply stores.
California is one of 14 states that allow people to grow and use marijuana for medical purposes, but recreational use remains illegal. (And will remain illegal under federal law, regardless of how California votes.)
For decades, the outlaws, rebels and aging hippies of Humboldt County have been hoping for legalization. But now that it appears at hand, many clandestine growers fear it will flood the market with cheap, corporate-grown weed and destroy their way of life.
About 20 pot growers gathered on a patio outside the meeting Tuesday to discuss the dilemma posed by legalized pot. Many wore baseball caps and jeans, just like farmers anywhere else in America. No one addressed anyone else by name, a local custom driven by fear of arrest, but that didn't stop some in the group from lighting up their crop.
Talk of 'the holy bud'
Many complained that legalization would put them in the same bind as other small farmers struggling to compete against large-scale agribusinesses.
A dreadlocked younger grower who said he had already been to prison for marijuana objected that no one could replicate the quality of the region's weed. When he was a kid, he said, "Humboldt nuggets — that was like the holy grail."
"Anyone can grow marijuana," he said. "But not everyone can grow the super-heavies, the holy bud."
Under the ballot measure, Californians could possess up to one ounce of marijuana for personal use. They could cultivate gardens up to 25 square feet, which is puny by Humboldt County standards. City and county governments would have the power to tax pot sales.
Some growers Tuesday fantasized about mobs of tourists in limos streaming to the county. Others were not thrilled with the idea of paying taxes on their crop.
Many agreed with the sentiment on a sticker plastered on a pizza joint's cash register: "Save Humboldt County — keep pot illegal."
Source: MSNBC
NEWS: Humbold County Worried About Life After Legal Pot
EUREKA, Calif. (AP) ― Marijuana growing has long been a way of life in Humboldt County, especially in recent years as timber and fishing jobs have disappeared along California's North Coast.
Now some residents worry that their way of life is being threatened -- not by law enforcement, but by efforts to legalize marijuana in the state.
Community members are gathering Tuesday night to consider the consequences. They worry about the ripple effect that a drop in marijuana prices could have on the county as a whole if legalization undermines the black market.
"We have to recognize that if we have something that is this big a piece of our economy that is subsidized by being illegal, that this is an unsustainable situation," Humboldt County Supervisor Mark Lovelace said.
In recent years, anti-drug agents have seized hundreds of thousands of marijuana plants in the county, mostly from massive gardens in remote mountain forests that have earned the region the nickname Emerald Triangle. Law enforcement estimates put the street value of the crop in the billions of dollars.
The eradication efforts have not halted marijuana growing in Humboldt, but the number of plants seized does give a sense of the scale of the industry.
Meeting organizer Anna Hamilton of Shelter Cove said she believes legalization could be "devastating" to the region and that Humboldt County should plan ahead by capitalizing on its name recognition as a marijuana destination.
"We have to embrace marijuana tourism, marijuana products and services -- and marijuana has to become a part of the Humboldt County brand," said Hamilton, who describes herself as "intimately involved" with the marijuana industry.
Supporters of a ballot measure to legalize marijuana in limited quantities are still waiting for official word that they've submitted enough signatures to qualify for the November statewide ballot.
Source: The Associated Press
Now some residents worry that their way of life is being threatened -- not by law enforcement, but by efforts to legalize marijuana in the state.
Community members are gathering Tuesday night to consider the consequences. They worry about the ripple effect that a drop in marijuana prices could have on the county as a whole if legalization undermines the black market.
"We have to recognize that if we have something that is this big a piece of our economy that is subsidized by being illegal, that this is an unsustainable situation," Humboldt County Supervisor Mark Lovelace said.
In recent years, anti-drug agents have seized hundreds of thousands of marijuana plants in the county, mostly from massive gardens in remote mountain forests that have earned the region the nickname Emerald Triangle. Law enforcement estimates put the street value of the crop in the billions of dollars.
The eradication efforts have not halted marijuana growing in Humboldt, but the number of plants seized does give a sense of the scale of the industry.
Meeting organizer Anna Hamilton of Shelter Cove said she believes legalization could be "devastating" to the region and that Humboldt County should plan ahead by capitalizing on its name recognition as a marijuana destination.
"We have to embrace marijuana tourism, marijuana products and services -- and marijuana has to become a part of the Humboldt County brand," said Hamilton, who describes herself as "intimately involved" with the marijuana industry.
Supporters of a ballot measure to legalize marijuana in limited quantities are still waiting for official word that they've submitted enough signatures to qualify for the November statewide ballot.
Source: The Associated Press
NEWS: Pot legalization headed to California ballot
California voters will be able to decide this fall whether their state will be the first in the nation to legalize the possession of marijuana for nonmedicinal uses if signatures seeking a ballot initiative are approved, advocates claimed Wednesday, saying they have the needed signatures for a ballot initiative.
The proposed ballot initiative legalizing adults' possession of up to one ounce of marijuana has collected almost 700,000 signatures, according to a statement from the Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington-based organization.
Roughly 434,000 signatures are required to place an initiative on statewide ballot in California this year, the statement said. State election officials are expected to validate the signatures Wednesday, it said.
City and county governments would be allowed to imposed a sales tax under the proposed statute. They also would be allowed to establish local ordinances relating to distribution.
California first enacted a law allowing for the medicinal use of marijuana in 1996, according Marijuana Policy Project spokesman Steve Fox. Fourteen states now allow medical marijuana, he said.
–CNN's Alan Silverleib contributed to this report.
Source: CNN
The proposed ballot initiative legalizing adults' possession of up to one ounce of marijuana has collected almost 700,000 signatures, according to a statement from the Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington-based organization.
Roughly 434,000 signatures are required to place an initiative on statewide ballot in California this year, the statement said. State election officials are expected to validate the signatures Wednesday, it said.
City and county governments would be allowed to imposed a sales tax under the proposed statute. They also would be allowed to establish local ordinances relating to distribution.
California first enacted a law allowing for the medicinal use of marijuana in 1996, according Marijuana Policy Project spokesman Steve Fox. Fourteen states now allow medical marijuana, he said.
–CNN's Alan Silverleib contributed to this report.
Source: CNN
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Valley Village Dispensaries, Collectives and Co-ops
H.T.C. - Holistic Therapeutic Center
12410 Burbank Blvd. #103
Valley Village, CA 91607
Hours: Sun-Thu 10am to 8pm, Fri 10am to 4pm or 6pm (this is due to Shabbat time changing according to the sunset's time, which changes throughout the year), Sat CLOSED for Shabbat
Phone: (818)980-5999
Email: info@holistictc.com
Web: http://holistictc.com/
TLMD Collective
12458 Magnolia Blvd., Valley Village, CA 91607 [map]
Hours: Mon-Sat 9am to 9pm, Sun 1pm to 9pm
Phone: (818) 761-8973
Comments: Must be 21 for membership. Free doctor referrals. Free gift for first time patients. Over 21 OGs in stock. Highest Quality Cannabis. Affordable Prices. Visa, MasterCard, Discover. Wheelchair access.
12410 Burbank Blvd. #103
Valley Village, CA 91607
Hours: Sun-Thu 10am to 8pm, Fri 10am to 4pm or 6pm (this is due to Shabbat time changing according to the sunset's time, which changes throughout the year), Sat CLOSED for Shabbat
Phone: (818)980-5999
Email: info@holistictc.com
Web: http://holistictc.com/
TLMD Collective
12458 Magnolia Blvd., Valley Village, CA 91607 [map]
Hours: Mon-Sat 9am to 9pm, Sun 1pm to 9pm
Phone: (818) 761-8973
Comments: Must be 21 for membership. Free doctor referrals. Free gift for first time patients. Over 21 OGs in stock. Highest Quality Cannabis. Affordable Prices. Visa, MasterCard, Discover. Wheelchair access.
NEWS: Carson man who formerly owned dispensaries gets 6 years for dealing pot
A Carson man who formerly owned and operated six Los Angeles-area medical marijuana dispensaries was sentenced Monday to six years behind bars and three years of supervised release for conspiring to peddle pot for profit.
Virgil Edward Grant III, 42, pleaded guilty last June in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to conspiracy to possess and distribute marijuana.
Grant claimed his dispensaries were community-enhancing "co-ops" that operated in accordance with California's medical marijuana law. However, he was charged under federal law, which prohibits the cultivation and sale of marijuana for profit.
U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson said at sentencing that Grant was "not credible" in his argument that he was running his dispensaries as non- profit clinics.
Source: Daily Breeze
Virgil Edward Grant III, 42, pleaded guilty last June in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to conspiracy to possess and distribute marijuana.
Grant claimed his dispensaries were community-enhancing "co-ops" that operated in accordance with California's medical marijuana law. However, he was charged under federal law, which prohibits the cultivation and sale of marijuana for profit.
U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson said at sentencing that Grant was "not credible" in his argument that he was running his dispensaries as non- profit clinics.
Source: Daily Breeze
Comment: Can we halt the flow of new designer drugs?
Could the dangers of 'legal high' mephedrone have been predicted? Of course they could, says John Mann
The recent deaths of two young men, apparently from the effects of the 'legal high' mephedrone, have re-emphasised the difficulties faced by the UK government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). Already disrupted by the furore over the sacking of chair David Nutt last October, the reconstituted council has promised to advise the Home Secretary about mephedrone by 29 March, despite key scientific positions on the council remaining vacant following a mass walk-out in the wake of Nutt's dismissal.
But could the dangers of this drug have been predicted? Of course they could.
Mephedrone is a structural analogue of (S)-(-)-cathinone, the major psychoactive constituent of the euphoriant khat. This extract of the plant Catha edulis has been widely used in the Middle East since at least the 14th century. The reported central nervous system (CNS) activities of mephedrone, which include euphoria, enhanced confidence and an urge to socialise, are usually compared to those of ecstasy (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or MDMA), and both compounds are clearly structurally related to the class A drug methamphetamine or speed - one of the most potent amphetamines. Originally categorised as a class B substance under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, methamphetamine was upgraded to class A in 2006 and penalties for its supply can be severe.
In the US the Federal Analog Act covers all compounds that are 'substantially similar' to the most highly controlled substances and they can then be treated in the same way as that controlled substance. Although this section of the all-encompassing US Controlled Substances Act has had a number of legal interpretations, it is now routinely used to include any structural analogue that has stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic actions in the CNS. Unsurprisingly, mephedrone has not yet been much used in the US.
Under present legislation the UK's ACMD considers one designer drug at a time and reports to the Home Secretary. Yet the designer drugs market is being supplied with dozens of new substances each year, many of them, like mephedrone, being produced by chemists in China.
Chemists trained as part of China's huge contribution to the generic (pharmaceutical) drug market would be well qualified to both design and produce the relatively simple structures of a whole range of novel substances if they so desired. None of this is new and the amphetamines have been the target of illicit chemical activities since the 1960s. What has changed is the scale of the chemistry, the competence of the operatives and access to the internet for dissemination of information and even sales. Against this background it is difficult to see how the ACMD can respond on a drug by drug basis.
The solution is to follow the US model. A good patent lawyer could easily compile an all-encompassing list of potential analogues, all of which could then be designated class A or B according to the classification of the parent drug. This should avoid the sale of the new substances via the internet under the pretence that they are plant foods (as with mephedrone) or health foods, and make life more difficult for the designers and dealers. The occasional appearance of completely new drugs like Spice Gold, based on the structure N-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole, first prepared by John Huffman of Clemson University in 1995 and shown by him to have cannabinoid-like activity, will have to be dealt with on a compound by compound basis. However, a list of all likely analogues can quickly be assembled and then covered by a blanket ban.
One criticism of such a prophylactic blanket ban would be that it could interfere with the activities of the pharmaceutical industry or chemical supply companies. However, the former is used to supplying its products via well regulated pharmacies, and the latter have had to come to terms with greater scrutiny due to the threat of terrorism. A further fear that a blanket ban would unnecessarily criminalise substances that might ultimately prove to be harmless, is worth the risk. After all, one young life saved is worth the odd mistakes in classification.
John Mann is emeritus professor of chemistry at Queen's University Belfast and author of Turn on and tune in: Psychedelics, narcotics and euphoriants.
Source: Royal Society of Chemistry
The recent deaths of two young men, apparently from the effects of the 'legal high' mephedrone, have re-emphasised the difficulties faced by the UK government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). Already disrupted by the furore over the sacking of chair David Nutt last October, the reconstituted council has promised to advise the Home Secretary about mephedrone by 29 March, despite key scientific positions on the council remaining vacant following a mass walk-out in the wake of Nutt's dismissal.
But could the dangers of this drug have been predicted? Of course they could.
Mephedrone is a structural analogue of (S)-(-)-cathinone, the major psychoactive constituent of the euphoriant khat. This extract of the plant Catha edulis has been widely used in the Middle East since at least the 14th century. The reported central nervous system (CNS) activities of mephedrone, which include euphoria, enhanced confidence and an urge to socialise, are usually compared to those of ecstasy (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or MDMA), and both compounds are clearly structurally related to the class A drug methamphetamine or speed - one of the most potent amphetamines. Originally categorised as a class B substance under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, methamphetamine was upgraded to class A in 2006 and penalties for its supply can be severe.
In the US the Federal Analog Act covers all compounds that are 'substantially similar' to the most highly controlled substances and they can then be treated in the same way as that controlled substance. Although this section of the all-encompassing US Controlled Substances Act has had a number of legal interpretations, it is now routinely used to include any structural analogue that has stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic actions in the CNS. Unsurprisingly, mephedrone has not yet been much used in the US.
Under present legislation the UK's ACMD considers one designer drug at a time and reports to the Home Secretary. Yet the designer drugs market is being supplied with dozens of new substances each year, many of them, like mephedrone, being produced by chemists in China.
Chemists trained as part of China's huge contribution to the generic (pharmaceutical) drug market would be well qualified to both design and produce the relatively simple structures of a whole range of novel substances if they so desired. None of this is new and the amphetamines have been the target of illicit chemical activities since the 1960s. What has changed is the scale of the chemistry, the competence of the operatives and access to the internet for dissemination of information and even sales. Against this background it is difficult to see how the ACMD can respond on a drug by drug basis.
The solution is to follow the US model. A good patent lawyer could easily compile an all-encompassing list of potential analogues, all of which could then be designated class A or B according to the classification of the parent drug. This should avoid the sale of the new substances via the internet under the pretence that they are plant foods (as with mephedrone) or health foods, and make life more difficult for the designers and dealers. The occasional appearance of completely new drugs like Spice Gold, based on the structure N-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole, first prepared by John Huffman of Clemson University in 1995 and shown by him to have cannabinoid-like activity, will have to be dealt with on a compound by compound basis. However, a list of all likely analogues can quickly be assembled and then covered by a blanket ban.
One criticism of such a prophylactic blanket ban would be that it could interfere with the activities of the pharmaceutical industry or chemical supply companies. However, the former is used to supplying its products via well regulated pharmacies, and the latter have had to come to terms with greater scrutiny due to the threat of terrorism. A further fear that a blanket ban would unnecessarily criminalise substances that might ultimately prove to be harmless, is worth the risk. After all, one young life saved is worth the odd mistakes in classification.
John Mann is emeritus professor of chemistry at Queen's University Belfast and author of Turn on and tune in: Psychedelics, narcotics and euphoriants.
Source: Royal Society of Chemistry
Monday, March 22, 2010
NEWS: Richmond scrambles to rein in jump in pot clubs
RICHMOND, CA—The city of Richmond is scrambling to rein in the spread of medical marijuana dispensaries drawn by a lack of rules on where or how many clubs can operate.
The city has identified eight dispensaries operating within its limits, nearly all of which have opened in the past year.
City leaders have passed an emergency moratorium on new clubs, and the City Council is scheduled to meet next month to discuss ways to regulate dispensaries.
In the meantime, the city attorney's office has issued cease-and-desist orders to existing dispensaries, arguing that distributing medical marijuana is not a permitted use in the city code.
In nearby Oakland, which has about four times the population of Richmond, only four dispensaries are allowed by law. Berkeley, about the same size as Richmond, allows three clubs.
Source: The Associated Press
The city has identified eight dispensaries operating within its limits, nearly all of which have opened in the past year.
City leaders have passed an emergency moratorium on new clubs, and the City Council is scheduled to meet next month to discuss ways to regulate dispensaries.
In the meantime, the city attorney's office has issued cease-and-desist orders to existing dispensaries, arguing that distributing medical marijuana is not a permitted use in the city code.
In nearby Oakland, which has about four times the population of Richmond, only four dispensaries are allowed by law. Berkeley, about the same size as Richmond, allows three clubs.
Source: The Associated Press
Saturday, March 20, 2010
EVENT ALERT! The Unconventional Foundation for Autism "Awareness Mixer"
The Unconventional Foundation for Autism (uf4a.org) will be hosting an "awareness mixer" tonight at the Aqua Lounge in Beverly Hills.
This event is to promote awareness to this unique foundation Mieko Hester-Perez & Ted Cromwell have started in late 2009.
Mieko Hester-Perez’s drive and determination to “speak out” for mothers across this nation is getting louder and her following is getting larger.
Mrs. Perez’s interview “wrap sheet” reads like a celebrity in the making but, she still insist, she’s just a mom & Ted is the attorney who has stood by her for years in support of her “unconventional” approach to dealing with her son diagnosed with severe Autism.
This event will be a part of a 20/20 ABC Special airing in June.
EVENT DETAILS:
Who: The Unconventional Foundation for Autism
What: “Awareness Mixer”
When: Saturday, March 20, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. sharp.
Where: Aqua Lounge
424 N Beverly Drive [map]
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
(310) 535-9479
Attire: No jeans or tennis shoes. Men no ties needed.
Email: rosie@uf4a.org
Website: uf4a.org
This event is to promote awareness to this unique foundation Mieko Hester-Perez & Ted Cromwell have started in late 2009.
Mieko Hester-Perez’s drive and determination to “speak out” for mothers across this nation is getting louder and her following is getting larger.
Mrs. Perez’s interview “wrap sheet” reads like a celebrity in the making but, she still insist, she’s just a mom & Ted is the attorney who has stood by her for years in support of her “unconventional” approach to dealing with her son diagnosed with severe Autism.
This event will be a part of a 20/20 ABC Special airing in June.
EVENT DETAILS:
Who: The Unconventional Foundation for Autism
What: “Awareness Mixer”
When: Saturday, March 20, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. sharp.
Where: Aqua Lounge
424 N Beverly Drive [map]
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
(310) 535-9479
Attire: No jeans or tennis shoes. Men no ties needed.
Email: rosie@uf4a.org
Website: uf4a.org
Thursday, March 18, 2010
NEWS: Five charged in home invasion; medical marijuana-grower Sarich to sue county
Five Bellevue men have been charged in connection with the March 15 home invasion robbery attempt at medical-marijuana activist Steve Sarich's Finn Hill home.
But that is not the only legal fallout from the incident, as Sarich, 59, plans to sue the King County Sheriff's Office for what he calls vaguely worded laws that led to the crime scene turning into a "marijuana raid."
Sarich, who is executive director of an advocacy group for medical marijuana patients called CannaCare, uses medical marijuana he grows in his home to treat his degenerative disc disease and osteoarthritis.
Four of the men, Jonathon Buell, Tyson Corcoran, Andrew J.J. Carrigan, and Hristo Tzenkov, are between ages 18 and 19 and the fifth, Dakota Laughren, 17, will be charged as an adult.
All of the suspects were charged with first degree robbery and will be arraigned March 30 at the Regional Justice Center in Kent. Tzenkov also faces an additional charge of first degree burglary.
Sarich, who was armed with a .22-caliber pistol, shot Tzenkov three times, including one bullet in the heart that entered through his back. Tzenkov remains at Harborview Medical Center in critical condition.
Tzenkov, who was armed with a shot gun, also injured Sarich, who was released from Evergreen Hospital hours after the incident.
According to court documents, Carrigan is being held on $250,000 bail while Laughren, a convicted felon, and Buell are each being held on $300,000 bail.
Tzenkov, who claims that he lives with Buell in Bellevue, will also be held on $300,000 bail and will be booked once he is released from the hospital. Corcoran posted a $10,000 bail and was released Wednesday afternoon. Prosecutors had asked that he be held on $250,000 bail.
Corcoran and Carrigan were employed by Sarich in the past. Corcoran, along with Buell, both obtained their medical marijuana cards from another physician after attending a clinic on Sarich's property. Carrigan and Laughren also robbed Sarich recently.
Sarich's home contained 385 marijuana plants, along with foods that had been laced with the drug, according to the King County Sherrif's office. Sarich disputes the number of plants according to the definition of the law, which is one of the reasons for his lawsuit.
According to charging documents in the case, the Washington State Department of Health defines the amount allowed as a 60-day supply, with no more than 24 ounces of usable marijuana. It also states that there can be no more than 15 plants at any state of growth.
After officers searched Sarich's home, the sheriff's office left him with the legal amount of plants and he has not been charged with having more than the legal limit. He declined to talk with the Reporter about the lawsuit before consulting his lawyer on Monday.
Sarich told the Seattle Times that his home has been broken into eight times but that he has been hesitant to report the incidents for fear of having his plants taken, as they were on Monday.
Sarich told the Reporter just after then incident: "We do nothing whatsoever illegal here, but (the police) will probably come rob my house, cut down my (marijuana) plants and make me a victim twice in one day."
Sarich's concern for the safety of medical-marijuana patients and doctors stems, in part, from a recent incident where a CannaCare patient, Mike Howard, 38, was beaten to death during an alleged robbery attempt in Orting, Wash. on March 12. Sarich, who worked to publicize the alleged murder over the weekend, said Howard died after he was clubbed in the head with a crowbar by robbers who were after his pot crop. Police later raided Howard's home and cut down his marijuana plants, Sarich said.
Prior to the incident on Monday, Sarich wrote to state legislators, criticizing state laws and the conduct of the Pierce County Sheriff's Department.
"What happened to Mike Howard could happen to me, or any other patient in Washington as long as we can't trust the police to do their jobs."
Source: Kirkland Reporter
But that is not the only legal fallout from the incident, as Sarich, 59, plans to sue the King County Sheriff's Office for what he calls vaguely worded laws that led to the crime scene turning into a "marijuana raid."
Sarich, who is executive director of an advocacy group for medical marijuana patients called CannaCare, uses medical marijuana he grows in his home to treat his degenerative disc disease and osteoarthritis.
Four of the men, Jonathon Buell, Tyson Corcoran, Andrew J.J. Carrigan, and Hristo Tzenkov, are between ages 18 and 19 and the fifth, Dakota Laughren, 17, will be charged as an adult.
All of the suspects were charged with first degree robbery and will be arraigned March 30 at the Regional Justice Center in Kent. Tzenkov also faces an additional charge of first degree burglary.
Sarich, who was armed with a .22-caliber pistol, shot Tzenkov three times, including one bullet in the heart that entered through his back. Tzenkov remains at Harborview Medical Center in critical condition.
Tzenkov, who was armed with a shot gun, also injured Sarich, who was released from Evergreen Hospital hours after the incident.
According to court documents, Carrigan is being held on $250,000 bail while Laughren, a convicted felon, and Buell are each being held on $300,000 bail.
Tzenkov, who claims that he lives with Buell in Bellevue, will also be held on $300,000 bail and will be booked once he is released from the hospital. Corcoran posted a $10,000 bail and was released Wednesday afternoon. Prosecutors had asked that he be held on $250,000 bail.
Corcoran and Carrigan were employed by Sarich in the past. Corcoran, along with Buell, both obtained their medical marijuana cards from another physician after attending a clinic on Sarich's property. Carrigan and Laughren also robbed Sarich recently.
Sarich's home contained 385 marijuana plants, along with foods that had been laced with the drug, according to the King County Sherrif's office. Sarich disputes the number of plants according to the definition of the law, which is one of the reasons for his lawsuit.
According to charging documents in the case, the Washington State Department of Health defines the amount allowed as a 60-day supply, with no more than 24 ounces of usable marijuana. It also states that there can be no more than 15 plants at any state of growth.
After officers searched Sarich's home, the sheriff's office left him with the legal amount of plants and he has not been charged with having more than the legal limit. He declined to talk with the Reporter about the lawsuit before consulting his lawyer on Monday.
Sarich told the Seattle Times that his home has been broken into eight times but that he has been hesitant to report the incidents for fear of having his plants taken, as they were on Monday.
Sarich told the Reporter just after then incident: "We do nothing whatsoever illegal here, but (the police) will probably come rob my house, cut down my (marijuana) plants and make me a victim twice in one day."
Sarich's concern for the safety of medical-marijuana patients and doctors stems, in part, from a recent incident where a CannaCare patient, Mike Howard, 38, was beaten to death during an alleged robbery attempt in Orting, Wash. on March 12. Sarich, who worked to publicize the alleged murder over the weekend, said Howard died after he was clubbed in the head with a crowbar by robbers who were after his pot crop. Police later raided Howard's home and cut down his marijuana plants, Sarich said.
Prior to the incident on Monday, Sarich wrote to state legislators, criticizing state laws and the conduct of the Pierce County Sheriff's Department.
"What happened to Mike Howard could happen to me, or any other patient in Washington as long as we can't trust the police to do their jobs."
Source: Kirkland Reporter
NEWS: Judge won't dismiss medical marijuana case under Obama made me do it defense
James Stacy, the Vista medical marijuana dispensary owner facing federal drug charges, has lost an intriguing bid to have the charges against him thrown out.
Stacy had argued that President Obama, when he was Candidate Obama, had basically said he wouldn't prosecute medical marijuana providers who were complying with state law, and that Stacy had relied on that -- and later statements by Attorney General Eric Holder -- to launch his business.
He also said the prosecution violated the Tenth Amendment because it "commandeered" local law enforcement to enforce federal policy. The intriguing arguments received some attention after first being reported by San Diego CityBeat in December.
In an 11-page ruling Moskowitz said, essentially, nice try.
Comments made by Obama and one of his campaign flaks cited by Stacy "cannot be deemed representations of the federal government regarding drug-prosecution policy." There's no evidence Stacy even heard those statements or that any government official told him selling medical marijuana was OK under federal policy. Holder's statements were "vague," "loose" and did not rule out that the feds could still prosecute medical marijuana cases.
As for the Tenth Amendment argument, the judge said there was no evidence that the San Diego Sheriff's Office was forced to participate in the investigation and raids of dispensaries in the county. "Voluntary cooperation by the Sheriff's Department or other state agencies does not give rise to a Tenth Amendment claim," he wrote.
So now it looks like it is on to trial for Stacy. The judge did leave the door open a bit. He said he would decide later whether Stacy and his lawyer, Kasha Kastillo, could use the Obama-told-me-I-could argument, known as entrapment by estoppel, as a defense at trial.
Federal prosecutors are moving to head that off, filing a motion last Friday asking Moskowitz to ban that defense, as well as several others. Trial is set for April 26.
Stacy was one of two people charged federally in a sweep of dispensaries launched in the fall. He opened the Movement in Action dispensary four months or so before the raids occurred. One of the reasons he may have ended up in federal court is that investigators found a gun in the dispensary and, even under Obama guidelines relaxing prosecutions of dispensaries that comply with state law, that can lead to a federal charges being filed.
Source: SignOn San Diego
Stacy had argued that President Obama, when he was Candidate Obama, had basically said he wouldn't prosecute medical marijuana providers who were complying with state law, and that Stacy had relied on that -- and later statements by Attorney General Eric Holder -- to launch his business.
He also said the prosecution violated the Tenth Amendment because it "commandeered" local law enforcement to enforce federal policy. The intriguing arguments received some attention after first being reported by San Diego CityBeat in December.
In an 11-page ruling Moskowitz said, essentially, nice try.
Comments made by Obama and one of his campaign flaks cited by Stacy "cannot be deemed representations of the federal government regarding drug-prosecution policy." There's no evidence Stacy even heard those statements or that any government official told him selling medical marijuana was OK under federal policy. Holder's statements were "vague," "loose" and did not rule out that the feds could still prosecute medical marijuana cases.
As for the Tenth Amendment argument, the judge said there was no evidence that the San Diego Sheriff's Office was forced to participate in the investigation and raids of dispensaries in the county. "Voluntary cooperation by the Sheriff's Department or other state agencies does not give rise to a Tenth Amendment claim," he wrote.
So now it looks like it is on to trial for Stacy. The judge did leave the door open a bit. He said he would decide later whether Stacy and his lawyer, Kasha Kastillo, could use the Obama-told-me-I-could argument, known as entrapment by estoppel, as a defense at trial.
Federal prosecutors are moving to head that off, filing a motion last Friday asking Moskowitz to ban that defense, as well as several others. Trial is set for April 26.
Stacy was one of two people charged federally in a sweep of dispensaries launched in the fall. He opened the Movement in Action dispensary four months or so before the raids occurred. One of the reasons he may have ended up in federal court is that investigators found a gun in the dispensary and, even under Obama guidelines relaxing prosecutions of dispensaries that comply with state law, that can lead to a federal charges being filed.
Source: SignOn San Diego
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
NEWS: Divided council's medical marijuana law draws patients' ire
LONG BEACH - Just when Long Beach's medical marijuana ordinance seemed a done deal, the City Council took another crack at it Tuesday night.
After months of lengthy meetings to try to come up with a way to regulate medical marijuana collectives, the council still had to do some serious negotiating and needed seven separate votes to finally approve the law 5-4.
The ordinance wasn't to the liking of medical marijuana advocates and collective operators, who after the vote called the law a virtual "ban" on marijuana.
Chief among their objections was that a requirement that all medical marijuana provided by local collectives be grown within the city limits would be too onerous and would make it difficult for patients to receive the marijuana they need.
Another controversial issue was the council's decision last week to expand school buffer zones for elementary and middle schools from 500 feet to 1,000 feet, as well as keep the 1,500-foot buffer zone around high schools.
Marijuana advocates said that adding on top of those rules a restriction limiting patients to being members of only one dispensary will leave patients with few marijuana options in Long Beach.
"If one collective doesn't have the medicine you need, you need to be able to go to another one," Madeleine Johnson of Americans for Safe Access said after the meeting.
The law also requires marijuana collectives to register with the city, provide the names and contact information of its managing members, and to take on-site security measures, among other rules.
The council began working on a way to control the proliferation of collectives in a September committee meeting, and has had meeting after meeting since then to work out the complex legalities of the issue.
On Feb. 9, the council approved the creation of a less restrictive version of the law that didn't limit where marijuana may be grown and restricted collectives from operating only within 500 feet of elementary and middle schools.
Then, after law enforcement officials and a representative of the District Attorney's Office gave a presentation to the council later that month, telling them that Long Beach should restrict cultivation to within the city limits in order to comply with state law and have an enforceable ordinance, the council delayed having another vote.
Last week, the council voted 5-4 to pass the law with the additional in-town cultivation rule.
The ordinance was agendized for a final reading Tuesday, but Mayor Bob Foster announced that the vote would be a first reading only, likely because there were enough substantial changes made to the law last week. That means the ordinance must still go back to the council for a final vote.
On Tuesday, council members weren't satisfied with this outcome, and they took a long and convoluted road to reach an agreement. Try to follow along.
Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal made a motion to approve the ordinance.
Councilwoman Rae Gabelich then made a motion to approve the law but to add a 2,000-square-foot size limit on marijuana cultivation and collective sites in commercial pedestrian corridors and to allow patients to join up to three collectives.
Councilman Gary DeLong made another substitute motion to approve the original ordinance but give collectives an extra six months (in addition to the 120-day grace period they were already to have once the law is signed by the mayor) in which to comply so that they would have time to grow enough marijuana for their patients' needs.
Each motion failed on either a 4-5 or 3-6 vote, but the votes didn't all fall along the same divisions on the council. Almost every council member cast a "no" vote on at least one motion.
Councilman Patrick O'Donnell next tried to find some common ground, making a new motion that integrated the original ordinance with the 2,000-square-foot building rule and giving collectives an extra four months to comply. Gabelich asked O'Donnell to add an allowance of two collective memberships for patients, but O'Donnell drew the line there.
It didn't matter, however, because the vote failed as well with a 4-5 split.
Lowenthal then tried her hand at bridging a compromise after she had voted against the previous motion. She moved to reconsider the vote, which the council decided voted 5-4 to allow.
Lowenthal made the previous motion again, but asked to remove the 2,000-square-foot restriction, leaving only the original ordinance and the extra four months for collectives to comply.
It wasn't done yet, though, because Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga made a substitute motion to continue the matter to the next meeting. Her proposal failed 4-5, and Lowenthal's motion was finally approved 5-4.
Voting against the ordinance were Uranga, Gabelich and council members Val Lerch and Robert Garcia.
Source: Contra Costa Times
After months of lengthy meetings to try to come up with a way to regulate medical marijuana collectives, the council still had to do some serious negotiating and needed seven separate votes to finally approve the law 5-4.
The ordinance wasn't to the liking of medical marijuana advocates and collective operators, who after the vote called the law a virtual "ban" on marijuana.
Chief among their objections was that a requirement that all medical marijuana provided by local collectives be grown within the city limits would be too onerous and would make it difficult for patients to receive the marijuana they need.
Another controversial issue was the council's decision last week to expand school buffer zones for elementary and middle schools from 500 feet to 1,000 feet, as well as keep the 1,500-foot buffer zone around high schools.
Marijuana advocates said that adding on top of those rules a restriction limiting patients to being members of only one dispensary will leave patients with few marijuana options in Long Beach.
"If one collective doesn't have the medicine you need, you need to be able to go to another one," Madeleine Johnson of Americans for Safe Access said after the meeting.
The law also requires marijuana collectives to register with the city, provide the names and contact information of its managing members, and to take on-site security measures, among other rules.
The council began working on a way to control the proliferation of collectives in a September committee meeting, and has had meeting after meeting since then to work out the complex legalities of the issue.
On Feb. 9, the council approved the creation of a less restrictive version of the law that didn't limit where marijuana may be grown and restricted collectives from operating only within 500 feet of elementary and middle schools.
Then, after law enforcement officials and a representative of the District Attorney's Office gave a presentation to the council later that month, telling them that Long Beach should restrict cultivation to within the city limits in order to comply with state law and have an enforceable ordinance, the council delayed having another vote.
Last week, the council voted 5-4 to pass the law with the additional in-town cultivation rule.
The ordinance was agendized for a final reading Tuesday, but Mayor Bob Foster announced that the vote would be a first reading only, likely because there were enough substantial changes made to the law last week. That means the ordinance must still go back to the council for a final vote.
On Tuesday, council members weren't satisfied with this outcome, and they took a long and convoluted road to reach an agreement. Try to follow along.
Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal made a motion to approve the ordinance.
Councilwoman Rae Gabelich then made a motion to approve the law but to add a 2,000-square-foot size limit on marijuana cultivation and collective sites in commercial pedestrian corridors and to allow patients to join up to three collectives.
Councilman Gary DeLong made another substitute motion to approve the original ordinance but give collectives an extra six months (in addition to the 120-day grace period they were already to have once the law is signed by the mayor) in which to comply so that they would have time to grow enough marijuana for their patients' needs.
Each motion failed on either a 4-5 or 3-6 vote, but the votes didn't all fall along the same divisions on the council. Almost every council member cast a "no" vote on at least one motion.
Councilman Patrick O'Donnell next tried to find some common ground, making a new motion that integrated the original ordinance with the 2,000-square-foot building rule and giving collectives an extra four months to comply. Gabelich asked O'Donnell to add an allowance of two collective memberships for patients, but O'Donnell drew the line there.
It didn't matter, however, because the vote failed as well with a 4-5 split.
Lowenthal then tried her hand at bridging a compromise after she had voted against the previous motion. She moved to reconsider the vote, which the council decided voted 5-4 to allow.
Lowenthal made the previous motion again, but asked to remove the 2,000-square-foot restriction, leaving only the original ordinance and the extra four months for collectives to comply.
It wasn't done yet, though, because Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga made a substitute motion to continue the matter to the next meeting. Her proposal failed 4-5, and Lowenthal's motion was finally approved 5-4.
Voting against the ordinance were Uranga, Gabelich and council members Val Lerch and Robert Garcia.
Source: Contra Costa Times
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
NEWS: Marijuana Policy Project Calls for National Boycott of Wal-Mart
Corporation Fired a Michigan Patient For Using Medical Marijuana Under State Law With a Doctor’s Recommendation
CONTACT: Mike Meno, MPP assistant director of communications …… 202-905-2030 or mmeno@mpp.org
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the nation’s largest marijuana policy reform organization called upon shoppers across the country to boycott Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in order to protest the unjust and potentially unlawful firing of Joseph Casias, a 29-year-old medical marijuana patient and sinus cancer survivor who suffers from an inoperable brain tumor.
Casias’s cancer is in remission, and marijuana alleviates his pain that resulted from it. The Marijuana Policy Project is asking shoppers to demand that Wal-Mart abandon its discriminatory policy of firing employees who are legal medical marijuana patients under state law.
After dutifully working at a Wal-Mart in Battle Creek, Michigan for five years, Casias was suddenly terminated because he tested positive for marijuana during a drug screening administered after he sprained his knee on the job.
Casias, who was named store Associate of the Year in 2008, is a registered medical marijuana patient in Michigan, where it is legal to use medical marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation.
“It’s despicable that Wal-Mart would fire such a hardworking and seriously ill employee simply for treating his symptoms with a medicine that he is authorized to use under state law,” said Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies for the Marijuana Policy Project and lead drafter of Michigan’s medical marijuana law.
“Would Wal-Mart also fire someone for taking doctor-prescribed Percocet, or any of the other legal medications sold in many of Wal-Mart’s own stores?”
Casias’s firing violates the “Michigan Medical Marihuana Act,” which reads in part that a qualifying patient shall not be “denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to … disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana.”
Under the law, the definition of “medical use” contains “internal possession”— having marijuana in one’s system. The law does not require employers to allow the “ingestion of marihuana in any workplace” or employees to work while under the influence, but there is no allegation that Casias used marijuana at work or worked while impaired. To add further insult to injury, Wal-Mart is contesting Casias’s eligibility for unemployment.
With more than 124,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. For more information, please visit www.mpp.org.
Source: PR CannaZine
CONTACT: Mike Meno, MPP assistant director of communications …… 202-905-2030 or mmeno@mpp.org
Casias’s cancer is in remission, and marijuana alleviates his pain that resulted from it. The Marijuana Policy Project is asking shoppers to demand that Wal-Mart abandon its discriminatory policy of firing employees who are legal medical marijuana patients under state law.
After dutifully working at a Wal-Mart in Battle Creek, Michigan for five years, Casias was suddenly terminated because he tested positive for marijuana during a drug screening administered after he sprained his knee on the job.
Casias, who was named store Associate of the Year in 2008, is a registered medical marijuana patient in Michigan, where it is legal to use medical marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation.
“It’s despicable that Wal-Mart would fire such a hardworking and seriously ill employee simply for treating his symptoms with a medicine that he is authorized to use under state law,” said Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies for the Marijuana Policy Project and lead drafter of Michigan’s medical marijuana law.
“Would Wal-Mart also fire someone for taking doctor-prescribed Percocet, or any of the other legal medications sold in many of Wal-Mart’s own stores?”
Casias’s firing violates the “Michigan Medical Marihuana Act,” which reads in part that a qualifying patient shall not be “denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to … disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana.”
Under the law, the definition of “medical use” contains “internal possession”— having marijuana in one’s system. The law does not require employers to allow the “ingestion of marihuana in any workplace” or employees to work while under the influence, but there is no allegation that Casias used marijuana at work or worked while impaired. To add further insult to injury, Wal-Mart is contesting Casias’s eligibility for unemployment.
With more than 124,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. For more information, please visit www.mpp.org.
Source: PR CannaZine
Monday, March 15, 2010
NEWS: Woman with medical marijuana pleads guilty in Idaho
REXBURG, Idaho—A Humboldt County woman with a prescription for medical marijuana will serve time after pleading guilty in Idaho to one count of drug possession and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia.
Thirty-five-year-old Aurora Hathor-Rainmenti of Garberville pleaded guilty last week in 7th District Court and was sentenced to five days in jail with 115 additional days at the discretion of the court, and fined $800.
Idaho authorities say a civil forfeiture is in progress on the borrowed vehicle Hathor-Rainmenti was driving when she was pulled over in eastern Idaho for what police say was speeding.
Police also confiscated $514 in cash she was carrying when she was arrested last week in eastern Idaho.
Fremont County Prosecutor Joette Lookabaugh says Idaho doesn't honor medical marijuana certificates from California and other states.
Source: Mercury News
Thirty-five-year-old Aurora Hathor-Rainmenti of Garberville pleaded guilty last week in 7th District Court and was sentenced to five days in jail with 115 additional days at the discretion of the court, and fined $800.
Idaho authorities say a civil forfeiture is in progress on the borrowed vehicle Hathor-Rainmenti was driving when she was pulled over in eastern Idaho for what police say was speeding.
Police also confiscated $514 in cash she was carrying when she was arrested last week in eastern Idaho.
Fremont County Prosecutor Joette Lookabaugh says Idaho doesn't honor medical marijuana certificates from California and other states.
Source: Mercury News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
