Tuesday, August 25, 2009
"TIME TO IGNITE" WITH THE PURPLE DANK ENERGY HEMP INFUSION THE HEALTHIEST ENERGY DRINK WITH OMEGA 3 AND 6(EFA'S)GUARANA AND YERBA MATE GREEN TEA
"TIME TO IGNITE" WITH THE PURPLE DANK ENERGY HEMP INFUSION THE HEALTHIEST ENERGY DRINK WITH OMEGA 3 AND 6(EFA'S)GUARANA AND YERBA MATE GREEN TEA ANYTIME,ANYWHERE ...ITS ALWAYS 420 SOMEWHERE
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Landmark Ruling Issued on Collective Cultivation of Medical Marijuana
For Immediate Release: July 1st, 2009
Landmark Ruling Issued on Collective Cultivation of Medical Marijuana
Appellate court protects collective cultivation and affirms civil actions by patients
Sacramento, CA -- The California Third District Court of Appeal issued a landmark ruling today on the right under state law of patients to collectively cultivate. The 2-1 appellate court decision stems from the case County of Butte v. Superior Court involving a private medical marijuana collective of 7 patients in Paradise, California. The nationwide advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a lawsuit in May 2006 on behalf of 56-year-old David Williams and six other collective members after a 2005 warrantless search of his home. Williams was forced by the Butte County Sheriff to uproot more than two-dozen plants or face arrest and prosecution. Contrary to state law, which allows for collective cultivation, Williams was told by the Sheriff that it was not lawful to grow collectively for multiple patients.
"This ruling by the California Courts sends yet another strong message to state law enforcement that they must abide by the medical marijuana laws of the state and not the competing federal laws," said Joe Elford, ASA Chief Counsel and the attorney that litigated the case on behalf of Williams. Today's appellate court ruling affirmed this position by concluding that, "the deputy was acting under color of California law, not federal law. Accordingly, the propriety of his conduct is measured by California law."
The appellate court also stated that to deny patients protection from warrantless intrusions and seizures by law enforcement "would surely shock the sensibilities of the voters who approved [Proposition 215]." Especially worthy of note is the appellate court's assertion that the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 is not simply an affirmative defense to criminal sanctions, but "...we see an opportunity for an individual to request the same constitutional guarantee of due process available to all individuals, no matter what their status, under the state Constitution. The fact that this case involves medical marijuana and a qualified medical marijuana patient does not change these fundamental constitutional rights or an individual's right to assert them."
Today's appellate court decision upholds Butte County Superior Court Judge Barbara Roberts' ruling from September 2007, in which she states that seriously ill patients cultivating collectively "should not be required to risk criminal penalties and the stress and expense of a criminal trial in order to assert their rights." Judge Roberts' ruling also rejected Butte County's policy of requiring all members to physically participate in the cultivation, thereby allowing collective members to "contribute financially."
Even in his dissenting opinion, Court of Appeal Judge James Morrison stated that, "the United States Congress should reconsider its refusal to amend the federal drug laws to make reasonable accommodation for the 13 states that have enacted some form of compassionate use exception to their penal codes."
ASA was compelled to file the Williams lawsuit after receiving repeated reports of unlawful behavior by Butte County law enforcement, as well as by other police agencies throughout the state. After uncovering Butte County's de facto ban on medical marijuana patient collectives, ASA decided to pursue the case to show that collectives and cooperatives are protected under state law. "In addition to protecting patients' right to collectively cultivate, the Court has reaffirmed that medical marijuana patients enjoy the same constitutional rights as everyone else, including the ability to file civil rights actions when those rights are violated," continued Elford.
Further information:
Today's ruling by the California Third District Court of Appeal: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Butte_Appellate_Decision.pdf
Information on Butte Case: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/Butte
Landmark Ruling Issued on Collective Cultivation of Medical Marijuana
Appellate court protects collective cultivation and affirms civil actions by patients
Sacramento, CA -- The California Third District Court of Appeal issued a landmark ruling today on the right under state law of patients to collectively cultivate. The 2-1 appellate court decision stems from the case County of Butte v. Superior Court involving a private medical marijuana collective of 7 patients in Paradise, California. The nationwide advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a lawsuit in May 2006 on behalf of 56-year-old David Williams and six other collective members after a 2005 warrantless search of his home. Williams was forced by the Butte County Sheriff to uproot more than two-dozen plants or face arrest and prosecution. Contrary to state law, which allows for collective cultivation, Williams was told by the Sheriff that it was not lawful to grow collectively for multiple patients.
"This ruling by the California Courts sends yet another strong message to state law enforcement that they must abide by the medical marijuana laws of the state and not the competing federal laws," said Joe Elford, ASA Chief Counsel and the attorney that litigated the case on behalf of Williams. Today's appellate court ruling affirmed this position by concluding that, "the deputy was acting under color of California law, not federal law. Accordingly, the propriety of his conduct is measured by California law."
The appellate court also stated that to deny patients protection from warrantless intrusions and seizures by law enforcement "would surely shock the sensibilities of the voters who approved [Proposition 215]." Especially worthy of note is the appellate court's assertion that the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 is not simply an affirmative defense to criminal sanctions, but "...we see an opportunity for an individual to request the same constitutional guarantee of due process available to all individuals, no matter what their status, under the state Constitution. The fact that this case involves medical marijuana and a qualified medical marijuana patient does not change these fundamental constitutional rights or an individual's right to assert them."
Today's appellate court decision upholds Butte County Superior Court Judge Barbara Roberts' ruling from September 2007, in which she states that seriously ill patients cultivating collectively "should not be required to risk criminal penalties and the stress and expense of a criminal trial in order to assert their rights." Judge Roberts' ruling also rejected Butte County's policy of requiring all members to physically participate in the cultivation, thereby allowing collective members to "contribute financially."
Even in his dissenting opinion, Court of Appeal Judge James Morrison stated that, "the United States Congress should reconsider its refusal to amend the federal drug laws to make reasonable accommodation for the 13 states that have enacted some form of compassionate use exception to their penal codes."
ASA was compelled to file the Williams lawsuit after receiving repeated reports of unlawful behavior by Butte County law enforcement, as well as by other police agencies throughout the state. After uncovering Butte County's de facto ban on medical marijuana patient collectives, ASA decided to pursue the case to show that collectives and cooperatives are protected under state law. "In addition to protecting patients' right to collectively cultivate, the Court has reaffirmed that medical marijuana patients enjoy the same constitutional rights as everyone else, including the ability to file civil rights actions when those rights are violated," continued Elford.
Further information:
Today's ruling by the California Third District Court of Appeal: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Butte_Appellate_Decision.pdf
Information on Butte Case: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/Butte
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Court Strikes Down SB420 Limits
Court Strikes Down SB420 Limits
Los Angeles, May 22, 2008: The Second District of California Court of Appeals ruled that the state limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation established under state law SB 420 are unconstitutional.
In the case People v. Patrick Kelly, the court overturned defendant's conviction for possessing 12 ounces of dried marijuana plants on the grounds that the prosecutor had improperly argued that the defendant was guilty because he possessed more than the 8-ounce limit established in Health & Safety Code Sec. 11362.77 and did not have a doctor's recommendation authorizing more. (Text of Kelly decision).
The Court validated the long-standing view of California NORML and other Prop 215 advocates that the SB 420 limits are unconstitutional. Cal NORML attorneys have successfully argued the point in several lower court cases, but this is the first time it has been addressed by an appellate court.
In a 3-0 decision, the court ruled: "The prosecutor's argument was improper. It was improper because the CUA [Compassionate Use Act] can only be amended with voters' approval. Voters, however, did not approve the eight-ounce limit and other caps in section 11362.77 [of SB420]; hence, section 11362.77 unconstitutionally amends the CUA." The decision is certified for partial publication, pending possible appeal to the Supreme Court.
The full implications of the Kelly decision remain unclear. In particular, it is not clear whether it rules out the use of SB 420 numbers as guidelines to protect patients with state ID cards from arrest. The court's reasoning would seem to apply only when the SB 420 numbers are used to limit patients' rights, not when they are used to protect them. However, the court's sweeping pronouncement that this section of SB 420 is "unconstitutional" might be interpreted otherwise by police who would prefer to ignore it. Further litigation therefore seems likely.
Ironically, the court noted that the constitutional problems in SB 420 could have been avoided by enactment of Sen. Vasconcellos' proposed "SB 420 Clean-Up" bill SB 1494 in 2004. That bill made it clear that qualified patients could legally possess whatever amount of marijuana was consistent with their needs. However, SB 1494 was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger on the grounds it removed "reasonable and established quantity guidelines."
One incidental casualty of the Kelly decision was Mendocino's Measure B anti-pot initiative, aimed at rolling back the county's limits for medical marijuana cultivation from 25 to 6 plants. Measure B specifically cites the clause in SB 420 that was struck down in the Kelly decision, H&SC 11362.77. Measure B therefore appears to rest on invalid law, making it vulnerable to legal and political challenge.
The Attorney General's office announced that it would appeal the Kelly ruling.
Text of the Kelly decision
UPDATE 8/14/08 - State top court to review medical pot limit
Los Angeles, May 22, 2008: The Second District of California Court of Appeals ruled that the state limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation established under state law SB 420 are unconstitutional.
In the case People v. Patrick Kelly, the court overturned defendant's conviction for possessing 12 ounces of dried marijuana plants on the grounds that the prosecutor had improperly argued that the defendant was guilty because he possessed more than the 8-ounce limit established in Health & Safety Code Sec. 11362.77 and did not have a doctor's recommendation authorizing more. (Text of Kelly decision).
The Court validated the long-standing view of California NORML and other Prop 215 advocates that the SB 420 limits are unconstitutional. Cal NORML attorneys have successfully argued the point in several lower court cases, but this is the first time it has been addressed by an appellate court.
In a 3-0 decision, the court ruled: "The prosecutor's argument was improper. It was improper because the CUA [Compassionate Use Act] can only be amended with voters' approval. Voters, however, did not approve the eight-ounce limit and other caps in section 11362.77 [of SB420]; hence, section 11362.77 unconstitutionally amends the CUA." The decision is certified for partial publication, pending possible appeal to the Supreme Court.
The full implications of the Kelly decision remain unclear. In particular, it is not clear whether it rules out the use of SB 420 numbers as guidelines to protect patients with state ID cards from arrest. The court's reasoning would seem to apply only when the SB 420 numbers are used to limit patients' rights, not when they are used to protect them. However, the court's sweeping pronouncement that this section of SB 420 is "unconstitutional" might be interpreted otherwise by police who would prefer to ignore it. Further litigation therefore seems likely.
Ironically, the court noted that the constitutional problems in SB 420 could have been avoided by enactment of Sen. Vasconcellos' proposed "SB 420 Clean-Up" bill SB 1494 in 2004. That bill made it clear that qualified patients could legally possess whatever amount of marijuana was consistent with their needs. However, SB 1494 was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger on the grounds it removed "reasonable and established quantity guidelines."
One incidental casualty of the Kelly decision was Mendocino's Measure B anti-pot initiative, aimed at rolling back the county's limits for medical marijuana cultivation from 25 to 6 plants. Measure B specifically cites the clause in SB 420 that was struck down in the Kelly decision, H&SC 11362.77. Measure B therefore appears to rest on invalid law, making it vulnerable to legal and political challenge.
The Attorney General's office announced that it would appeal the Kelly ruling.
Text of the Kelly decision
UPDATE 8/14/08 - State top court to review medical pot limit
Monday, August 17, 2009
Oakland's marijuana legalization initiative is still a Trojan Horse August 16, 3:54 PM · J. Craig Canada -
Oakland's marijuana legalization initiative is still a Trojan Horse
August 16, 3:54 PM · J. Craig Canada - Santa Cruz County Drug Policy Examiner
While Oakland's Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010) has been amended to exclude California's current medical marijuana laws from two items, it could still be a Trojan Horse.
For one thing, the two items that exempt California's current medical marijuana laws apply only to sales, tax, and possession; and this only in cities.
Nowhere in the proposition are medical marijuana patients, providers, and caregivers exempted from its cultivation, distribution, transportation, licensing, and administration requirements. And nowhere does the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" apply to "local government" or "county".
Proposition 215, The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, became California Health and Safety Code §11362.5. The California Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) was passed by the legislature as SB 420 and signed by Governor Gray Davis in 2003, just before he was recalled and replaced with Arnold Schwarzenegger. It became California Health & Safety Codes §11362.7 through §11362.83.
Initiatives in California are of higher legal authority than legislation and therefore Prop 215 (§11362.5) trumps the MMP (§11362.7 through §11362.83).
What's wrong with the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010)
The first thing to note is the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9". There is no California Health & Safety Code §11362.9. There are no California Health & Safety Codes between §11362.83 and §11363.
The next thing to note is the use of the words "city", "county", and "local government". In §11304(d)(vi) ROT 2010 defines "local government" as "city", "county", or "city and county". (Coincidentally, there is only one city/county in California and that is San Francisco.)
ROT 2010 consists of 5 sections: 1 - Name; 2 - Findings, Intents, and Purposes; 3 - Lawful Activities; 4 - Prohibition on Furnishing Cannabis to Minors; and 5 - Amendment.
The first two sections are essentially window dressing and have no direct effect on law except, perhaps, to act as guidance when questions of interpretation arise. It is in Sections 3, 4, and 5 that the actual legal language appears.
The amendments to ROT 2010 made 4 Aug 09 consist of appending the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" to items 7 and 8 of Section 2 under Purposes. Neither the word "county" nor the phrase "local government" appear in these items, but only the word "city". Further, those items are specific to buying, selling, taxing, possession, and consumption. The words, "cultivation", "processing", and "transportation" do not appear.
Items 7 and 8 have to do with prohibiting sales in "cities" that do not tax marijuana while allowing the possession and consumption of small amounts for personal use in private.
While it appears the intent of the amendments is to prevent ROT 2010 from impacting current California medical marijuana law, patients, and providers; a strict reading reveals this is not what it says.
Ironically, it appears that while it would be illegal to sell recreational marijuana in a city that doesn't tax it, selling recreational marijuana in an unincorporated area where the county is the "local government" would be legal unless and until the county enacts a marijuana tax or prohibits sales. Could it be argued that if ROT 2010 had meant "county" or "local government" it would have said it?
Previously, I stated this initiative was a treacherous Byzantine Maze and a Trojan Horse. Then, upon learning it had been amended I published an article announcing that it no longer appeared any of the initiatives filed in California would threaten California's current medical marijuana laws. It now appears this may not be the case.
Section 3, Lawful Activities, is the meat of ROT 2010. It is comprised of four sections of law to be added to the California Health and Safety Code as sections 11300 through 11304.
§11300 legalizes possession, processing, and transportation of up to an ounce for personal consumption and cultivation of up to 25 square-feet for personal use. It also prohibits consumption in public and smoking marijuana anywhere children are present as well as sales except by licensed vendors. Neither the words "city", "county", or "local government" appear in this section. Since the impact of this initiative on California's current medical marijuana laws is exempted only for "cities" and only with regard to "sales", "tax", "possession" and "consumption" of marijuana, it could be interpreted to set limits for patients on possession and consumption in unincorporated areas where the local jurisdiction is the county.
Since "cultivation" is nowhere in the document related to the exemption for current California medical marijuana law, ROT 2010 could be used to set marijuana cultivation limits statewide, for medical patients as well as recreational users.
This is all the more likely because recently the California Court of Appeals struck California Health & Safety Code §11362.77 enacted by the legislature which limits the number of plants and weight of dried bud medical marijuana patients can have because it conflicts with Proposition 215 (§11362.5) which has no limits. This matter is currently on appeal to the California Supreme Court.
Since ROT 2010 as an initiative has the same authority as Proposition 215 and is 14 years afterwards, it could well be argued that it was the intent of the voters to set limits where there were none, or to allow each city or county to set limits on how much patients may cultivate and possess. This possibility is further supported by the conspicuous absence of Health & Safety Codes 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83 in the list of California laws ROT 2010 is not intended to affect in Section 2, C - Intent.
The limits in Santa Cruz County for medical marijuana patients are 3 pounds and 100 square feet of canopy. Three pounds is what your average medical marijuana patient will use in one year. Twenty-five square feet is about enough room to bloom a couple of plants. If you're lucky, an indoor plant will yield 2.5 ounces. If you're not, you'll get an ounce or less per plant. The bloom cycle is 8 weeks and it takes at least as long to grow a clone to the point it will produce enough bud to be worth harvesting.
A perpetual garden requires at least two different areas with different lighting; one for cloning and growing the clones in a vegetative state, and another for blooming the clones. Many patients would not be able to supply themselves if limited to 25 square feet total for their grow area, particularly those who are not master gardeners, and especially if they grow outdoors and can only bring in one crop a year.
And then there are crop failures.
Take a look at its proposed §11300(a):
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual's personal consumption, and not for sale.
How does someone "share" something that is "solely for that individual's personal consumption"?
Does this section apply "notwithstanding" current California medical marijuana laws?
Similarly, §11301 states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of state and local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit, or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
...(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years of age or older, for personal consumption and not for resale
Does "Notwithstanding any other provision of state and local law..." include California Health & Safety Codes 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83?
Could this be used to argue that sales to medical marijuana patients under 21 years of age is prohibited in unincorporated areas where the local jurisdiction is the county?
Keep in mind, California's current medical marijuana laws are only exempted from the provisions of ROT 2010 in "cities" and with regard to "sales", "tax", "possession", and "consumption" as stated in the Purpose.
Item (k) of this section authorizes "appropriate fees or taxes pursuant to §11302". Could it be argued this was meant to authorize counties to tax medical marijuana even though it is medicine? And even though cities are not required to tax it in order to sell it to medical marijuana patients as stated in the Purpose? Why do items 7 & 8 in the Purpose say "city" instead of "local government"?
If I find this initiative treacherous and confusing, what about the voters? The legislature? The courts?
The potential points of conflict raised here are only a sample of the problems found in The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010) by Oaksterdam U.
What's wrong with the Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010)
Unfortunately, upon reflection, the Tax, Regulate, And Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010) doesn't appear to offer any more protection to medical marijuana patients than ROT 2010. While this proposition from Tax and Regulate Cannabis California 2010 states first among its intentions to "prohibit furnishing cannabis to minors under the age of 21, except for medical use", the only other place the word "medical" is found in the initiative is in item (h) under Intent which states, "Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes".
Further, while cultivation for personal consumption is permitted and there is no limit defined for personal consumption, nowhere is medical sales exempted from the $50 per ounce tax. §11302(e) states "Only Cannabis commercially cultivated, distributed and/or sold shall be taxed". Does this mean all cannabis that is not grown for personal consumption will be taxed? Are medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives commercial cultivation?
Should these initiatives make the ballot and pass, will the courts determine that the intent of the voters was to replace or supersede Proposition 215 which has withstood every challenge for more than a decade? Why-oh-why couldn't an institution that makes money teaching people the law regarding medical marijuana come up with something as clear, unambiguous, and straightforward as Tom Ammiano's Marijuana Control, Education, and Regulation Act (AB 390)? How did they get through 14 drafts without exempting current California medical marijuana law and, particularly, The Compassionate Use Act of 1996?
What's right with The Marijuana Control, Education, and Regulation Act (AB 390)
AB 390, in Section 1 (h) under intent states:
To exclude from the fees and regulations imposed by this Act marijuana that is for other uses than smoking and ingestion, and to exclude medicinal marijuana from fees under these provisions.
While it does not exclude medicinal marijuana from the "regulations" imposed by the Act, it does exclude it from the taxes and fees. Unlike either proposed initiative, this intent is written into the actual legal code under §34004(a) which states:
However, no fee shall be imposed under this part on marijuana used medicinally with a doctor's recommendation as specified in Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
Further, by listing the codes it repeals, and not including California's current medical marijuana laws among them, and as an act of the legislature and not an initiative by the people, AB 390 ensures that Proposition 215 will remain intact.
It should be noted that while AB 390 and THC 2010 have a "statutes repealed" section and do not list existing California medical marijuana laws among these statutes, ROT 2010 has no such section. Instead, it lists the statutes it is not intended to affect and does not include existing California medical marijuana laws among them.
As for the licensing, AB 390 sets limits for a commercial cultivation or wholesale license at $5,000 for the initial application and $2,500 for annual renewal.
How to fix ROT 2010
If the proponents have 15 business days from the time they filed with the attorney general to amend ROT 2010, they still have until the 18th to make amendments.
If I could, I would amend Section 2, B, 7 and 8 by replacing "city" with "local government".
I would also add Health & Safety Codes 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83 to the statutes ROT 2010 is "not intended to affect the application and enforcement of" under Section 2 C 2.
Under Section 3, change "Notwithstanding any other state or local law" and "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" to "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83".
Under Section 5, Amendment, add something like "Nothing in this section shall authorize the legislature to amend H&S 11362.5 without approval of the voters."
In addition to THC 2010 and ROT 2010, there is also The Common Sense Act of 2010. The proponents of these three California marijuana legalization initiatives will have until the time they turn in their signatures to withdraw the initiatives from the 2 Nov 2010 ballot. If more than one initiative wins, the one with the highest number of votes will trump the others.
If AB 390 should pass before the 2010 election and these initiatives have not been withdrawn, and if they win, will they be used to supersede AB 390 and dismantle Proposition 215?
For more info:
Office of The Attorney General, State of California - Initiative Measures
The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act (AB 390) - CA State Assembly | 23 Feb 09
The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010) - CA Attorney General | 15 Jul 09
The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010) - CA Attorney General | 28 Jul 09
The Common Sense Act of 2010 - California Attorney General | 4 Aug 09
Legalize Marijuana in California - The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act (AB 390)
California Cannabis Initiative - The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010)
Tax and Regulate Cannabis - The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010)
Common Sense for California - The Common Sense Act of 2010
California has three initiatives filed to legalize marijuana - Examiner.com | 10 Aug 09
Marijuana legalization and California initiatives - Examiner.com | 8 Aug 09
Comparing California cannabis/marijuana legalization initiatives - Examiner.com | 31 Jul 09
Oaksterdamn U wants to tax marijuana without limit - Examiner.com | 29 Jul 09
Selling out the medical marijuana movement? - Examiner.com | 24 Jul 09
Tax Prozac not medical marijuana - Examiner.com | 20 Jul 09
Medical marijuana and pizza - Examiner.com | 19 Jul 09
Copyright 2009 Examiner.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Author
J. Craig Canada is an Examiner from San Francisco. You can see J. Craig's articles at: "http://www.Examiner.com/x-14883-Santa-Cruz-County-Drug-Policy-Examiner"
August 16, 3:54 PM · J. Craig Canada - Santa Cruz County Drug Policy Examiner
While Oakland's Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010) has been amended to exclude California's current medical marijuana laws from two items, it could still be a Trojan Horse.
For one thing, the two items that exempt California's current medical marijuana laws apply only to sales, tax, and possession; and this only in cities.
Nowhere in the proposition are medical marijuana patients, providers, and caregivers exempted from its cultivation, distribution, transportation, licensing, and administration requirements. And nowhere does the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" apply to "local government" or "county".
Proposition 215, The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, became California Health and Safety Code §11362.5. The California Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) was passed by the legislature as SB 420 and signed by Governor Gray Davis in 2003, just before he was recalled and replaced with Arnold Schwarzenegger. It became California Health & Safety Codes §11362.7 through §11362.83.
Initiatives in California are of higher legal authority than legislation and therefore Prop 215 (§11362.5) trumps the MMP (§11362.7 through §11362.83).
What's wrong with the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010)
The first thing to note is the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9". There is no California Health & Safety Code §11362.9. There are no California Health & Safety Codes between §11362.83 and §11363.
The next thing to note is the use of the words "city", "county", and "local government". In §11304(d)(vi) ROT 2010 defines "local government" as "city", "county", or "city and county". (Coincidentally, there is only one city/county in California and that is San Francisco.)
ROT 2010 consists of 5 sections: 1 - Name; 2 - Findings, Intents, and Purposes; 3 - Lawful Activities; 4 - Prohibition on Furnishing Cannabis to Minors; and 5 - Amendment.
The first two sections are essentially window dressing and have no direct effect on law except, perhaps, to act as guidance when questions of interpretation arise. It is in Sections 3, 4, and 5 that the actual legal language appears.
The amendments to ROT 2010 made 4 Aug 09 consist of appending the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" to items 7 and 8 of Section 2 under Purposes. Neither the word "county" nor the phrase "local government" appear in these items, but only the word "city". Further, those items are specific to buying, selling, taxing, possession, and consumption. The words, "cultivation", "processing", and "transportation" do not appear.
Items 7 and 8 have to do with prohibiting sales in "cities" that do not tax marijuana while allowing the possession and consumption of small amounts for personal use in private.
While it appears the intent of the amendments is to prevent ROT 2010 from impacting current California medical marijuana law, patients, and providers; a strict reading reveals this is not what it says.
Ironically, it appears that while it would be illegal to sell recreational marijuana in a city that doesn't tax it, selling recreational marijuana in an unincorporated area where the county is the "local government" would be legal unless and until the county enacts a marijuana tax or prohibits sales. Could it be argued that if ROT 2010 had meant "county" or "local government" it would have said it?
Previously, I stated this initiative was a treacherous Byzantine Maze and a Trojan Horse. Then, upon learning it had been amended I published an article announcing that it no longer appeared any of the initiatives filed in California would threaten California's current medical marijuana laws. It now appears this may not be the case.
Section 3, Lawful Activities, is the meat of ROT 2010. It is comprised of four sections of law to be added to the California Health and Safety Code as sections 11300 through 11304.
§11300 legalizes possession, processing, and transportation of up to an ounce for personal consumption and cultivation of up to 25 square-feet for personal use. It also prohibits consumption in public and smoking marijuana anywhere children are present as well as sales except by licensed vendors. Neither the words "city", "county", or "local government" appear in this section. Since the impact of this initiative on California's current medical marijuana laws is exempted only for "cities" and only with regard to "sales", "tax", "possession" and "consumption" of marijuana, it could be interpreted to set limits for patients on possession and consumption in unincorporated areas where the local jurisdiction is the county.
Since "cultivation" is nowhere in the document related to the exemption for current California medical marijuana law, ROT 2010 could be used to set marijuana cultivation limits statewide, for medical patients as well as recreational users.
This is all the more likely because recently the California Court of Appeals struck California Health & Safety Code §11362.77 enacted by the legislature which limits the number of plants and weight of dried bud medical marijuana patients can have because it conflicts with Proposition 215 (§11362.5) which has no limits. This matter is currently on appeal to the California Supreme Court.
Since ROT 2010 as an initiative has the same authority as Proposition 215 and is 14 years afterwards, it could well be argued that it was the intent of the voters to set limits where there were none, or to allow each city or county to set limits on how much patients may cultivate and possess. This possibility is further supported by the conspicuous absence of Health & Safety Codes 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83 in the list of California laws ROT 2010 is not intended to affect in Section 2, C - Intent.
The limits in Santa Cruz County for medical marijuana patients are 3 pounds and 100 square feet of canopy. Three pounds is what your average medical marijuana patient will use in one year. Twenty-five square feet is about enough room to bloom a couple of plants. If you're lucky, an indoor plant will yield 2.5 ounces. If you're not, you'll get an ounce or less per plant. The bloom cycle is 8 weeks and it takes at least as long to grow a clone to the point it will produce enough bud to be worth harvesting.
A perpetual garden requires at least two different areas with different lighting; one for cloning and growing the clones in a vegetative state, and another for blooming the clones. Many patients would not be able to supply themselves if limited to 25 square feet total for their grow area, particularly those who are not master gardeners, and especially if they grow outdoors and can only bring in one crop a year.
And then there are crop failures.
Take a look at its proposed §11300(a):
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual's personal consumption, and not for sale.
How does someone "share" something that is "solely for that individual's personal consumption"?
Does this section apply "notwithstanding" current California medical marijuana laws?
Similarly, §11301 states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of state and local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit, or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
...(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years of age or older, for personal consumption and not for resale
Does "Notwithstanding any other provision of state and local law..." include California Health & Safety Codes 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83?
Could this be used to argue that sales to medical marijuana patients under 21 years of age is prohibited in unincorporated areas where the local jurisdiction is the county?
Keep in mind, California's current medical marijuana laws are only exempted from the provisions of ROT 2010 in "cities" and with regard to "sales", "tax", "possession", and "consumption" as stated in the Purpose.
Item (k) of this section authorizes "appropriate fees or taxes pursuant to §11302". Could it be argued this was meant to authorize counties to tax medical marijuana even though it is medicine? And even though cities are not required to tax it in order to sell it to medical marijuana patients as stated in the Purpose? Why do items 7 & 8 in the Purpose say "city" instead of "local government"?
If I find this initiative treacherous and confusing, what about the voters? The legislature? The courts?
The potential points of conflict raised here are only a sample of the problems found in The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010) by Oaksterdam U.
What's wrong with the Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010)
Unfortunately, upon reflection, the Tax, Regulate, And Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010) doesn't appear to offer any more protection to medical marijuana patients than ROT 2010. While this proposition from Tax and Regulate Cannabis California 2010 states first among its intentions to "prohibit furnishing cannabis to minors under the age of 21, except for medical use", the only other place the word "medical" is found in the initiative is in item (h) under Intent which states, "Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes".
Further, while cultivation for personal consumption is permitted and there is no limit defined for personal consumption, nowhere is medical sales exempted from the $50 per ounce tax. §11302(e) states "Only Cannabis commercially cultivated, distributed and/or sold shall be taxed". Does this mean all cannabis that is not grown for personal consumption will be taxed? Are medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives commercial cultivation?
Should these initiatives make the ballot and pass, will the courts determine that the intent of the voters was to replace or supersede Proposition 215 which has withstood every challenge for more than a decade? Why-oh-why couldn't an institution that makes money teaching people the law regarding medical marijuana come up with something as clear, unambiguous, and straightforward as Tom Ammiano's Marijuana Control, Education, and Regulation Act (AB 390)? How did they get through 14 drafts without exempting current California medical marijuana law and, particularly, The Compassionate Use Act of 1996?
What's right with The Marijuana Control, Education, and Regulation Act (AB 390)
AB 390, in Section 1 (h) under intent states:
To exclude from the fees and regulations imposed by this Act marijuana that is for other uses than smoking and ingestion, and to exclude medicinal marijuana from fees under these provisions.
While it does not exclude medicinal marijuana from the "regulations" imposed by the Act, it does exclude it from the taxes and fees. Unlike either proposed initiative, this intent is written into the actual legal code under §34004(a) which states:
However, no fee shall be imposed under this part on marijuana used medicinally with a doctor's recommendation as specified in Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
Further, by listing the codes it repeals, and not including California's current medical marijuana laws among them, and as an act of the legislature and not an initiative by the people, AB 390 ensures that Proposition 215 will remain intact.
It should be noted that while AB 390 and THC 2010 have a "statutes repealed" section and do not list existing California medical marijuana laws among these statutes, ROT 2010 has no such section. Instead, it lists the statutes it is not intended to affect and does not include existing California medical marijuana laws among them.
As for the licensing, AB 390 sets limits for a commercial cultivation or wholesale license at $5,000 for the initial application and $2,500 for annual renewal.
How to fix ROT 2010
If the proponents have 15 business days from the time they filed with the attorney general to amend ROT 2010, they still have until the 18th to make amendments.
If I could, I would amend Section 2, B, 7 and 8 by replacing "city" with "local government".
I would also add Health & Safety Codes 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83 to the statutes ROT 2010 is "not intended to affect the application and enforcement of" under Section 2 C 2.
Under Section 3, change "Notwithstanding any other state or local law" and "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" to "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83".
Under Section 5, Amendment, add something like "Nothing in this section shall authorize the legislature to amend H&S 11362.5 without approval of the voters."
In addition to THC 2010 and ROT 2010, there is also The Common Sense Act of 2010. The proponents of these three California marijuana legalization initiatives will have until the time they turn in their signatures to withdraw the initiatives from the 2 Nov 2010 ballot. If more than one initiative wins, the one with the highest number of votes will trump the others.
If AB 390 should pass before the 2010 election and these initiatives have not been withdrawn, and if they win, will they be used to supersede AB 390 and dismantle Proposition 215?
For more info:
Office of The Attorney General, State of California - Initiative Measures
The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act (AB 390) - CA State Assembly | 23 Feb 09
The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010) - CA Attorney General | 15 Jul 09
The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010) - CA Attorney General | 28 Jul 09
The Common Sense Act of 2010 - California Attorney General | 4 Aug 09
Legalize Marijuana in California - The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act (AB 390)
California Cannabis Initiative - The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010)
Tax and Regulate Cannabis - The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010)
Common Sense for California - The Common Sense Act of 2010
California has three initiatives filed to legalize marijuana - Examiner.com | 10 Aug 09
Marijuana legalization and California initiatives - Examiner.com | 8 Aug 09
Comparing California cannabis/marijuana legalization initiatives - Examiner.com | 31 Jul 09
Oaksterdamn U wants to tax marijuana without limit - Examiner.com | 29 Jul 09
Selling out the medical marijuana movement? - Examiner.com | 24 Jul 09
Tax Prozac not medical marijuana - Examiner.com | 20 Jul 09
Medical marijuana and pizza - Examiner.com | 19 Jul 09
Copyright 2009 Examiner.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Author
J. Craig Canada is an Examiner from San Francisco. You can see J. Craig's articles at: "http://www.Examiner.com/x-14883-Santa-Cruz-County-Drug-Policy-Examiner"
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Pot Collective Sprouts In Retirement Community
If you want to see my ideal group that will be successful!??
Pot Collective Sprouts In Retirement Community
by Debra Baer
If you would like to discuss patients working collectively, pot, the cannabiz or even the political pot world..Let's talk. Everything but legal advice. I cannot and will not give legal advice.
Pot Collective Sprouts In Retirement Community
by Debra Baer
If you would like to discuss patients working collectively, pot, the cannabiz or even the political pot world..Let's talk. Everything but legal advice. I cannot and will not give legal advice.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
100 million Americans say yes to marijuana
100 million Americans say yes to marijuana
19 May, 2009, 02:28
Marijuana is America’s largest cost crop, said pro-pot advocate in Washington, Aaron Houston, the Director of Government Relations for the Marijuana Policy Project.
It is bigger than corn and wheat combined with a value of about $36 billion per year; and if marijuana wholesale is legalized, not just for medical purposes, the US would make between $14 and $40 billion from the drug.
“There are 13 US states that have legalized medical marijuana but there are about 100 million Americans using marijuana and those people want to admit to government’s survey takers that they have used it,” Houston said.
“Clearly, when we have 100 million people saying they used it to government survey takers it probably would stand to reason. But that number is actually higher because certain people just do not want to tell someone from the government that they have used marijuana, a kind of illegal substance,” he said.
Supporters of legalization say the drug helps to relieve pain and may have huge financial benefit for the country.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
California: How to get a medical marijuana permit August 9, 10:13 PM · Angela Macdonald - NORML Examiner The golden state offers medical marijuana...
California: How to get a medical marijuana permit
August 9, 10:13 PM · Angela Macdonald - NORML Examiner
The golden state offers medical marijuana protection
and safe access to medicine for thousands of citizens
(Google Images)
If you live in California and you are interested in a medical marijuana permit, you are one of the lucky in the United States. Your state offers plenty of dispensaries and medical marijuana clinics with compassionate doctors. You also live in the one state that allows medical marijuana use for certain mental illnesses.
The state of California medical marijuana program is administered by individual counties. Recently San Diego and San Bernardino counties were ordered to begin issuing medical marijuana I.D. cards. Not all counties have I.D. programs in place yet.
To obtain a medical marijuana permit you can visit one of many clinics in the state. Once you obtain your I.D. card you can visit various dispensaries, co-ops, caregivers, or you can grow your own medicine. Often times, the dispensary will give you an I.D. card specific to their dispensary. The state offers a verification program, where dispensaries can verify a patient’s I.D. card online.
For a list of qualifying conditions in California click here.
August 9, 10:13 PM · Angela Macdonald - NORML Examiner
The golden state offers medical marijuana protection
and safe access to medicine for thousands of citizens
(Google Images)
If you live in California and you are interested in a medical marijuana permit, you are one of the lucky in the United States. Your state offers plenty of dispensaries and medical marijuana clinics with compassionate doctors. You also live in the one state that allows medical marijuana use for certain mental illnesses.
The state of California medical marijuana program is administered by individual counties. Recently San Diego and San Bernardino counties were ordered to begin issuing medical marijuana I.D. cards. Not all counties have I.D. programs in place yet.
To obtain a medical marijuana permit you can visit one of many clinics in the state. Once you obtain your I.D. card you can visit various dispensaries, co-ops, caregivers, or you can grow your own medicine. Often times, the dispensary will give you an I.D. card specific to their dispensary. The state offers a verification program, where dispensaries can verify a patient’s I.D. card online.
For a list of qualifying conditions in California click here.
Collectives and Cooperatives in SD, California Deputy district attorney of the narcotics division, Chris Lindberg
IV. GUIDELINES REGARDING COLLECTIVES AND COOPERATIVES
Under California law, medical marijuana patients and primary caregivers may “associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.” (§ 11362.775.) The following guidelines are meant to apply to qualified patients and primary caregivers who come together to collectively or cooperatively cultivate physician-recommended marijuana.
A. Business Forms: Any group that is collectively or cooperatively cultivating and distributing marijuana for medical purposes should be organized and operated in a manner that ensures the security of the crop and safeguards against diversion for non-medical purposes. The following are guidelines to help cooperatives and collectives operate within the law, and to help law enforcement determine whether they are doing so.
1.Statutory Cooperatives: A cooperative must file articles of incorporation with the state and conduct its business for the mutual benefit of its members. (Corp. Code, § 12201, 12300.) No business may call itself a “cooperative” (or “co-op”) unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the Corporations or Food and Agricultural Code. (Id. at § 12311(b).) Cooperative corporations are “democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their members as patrons.” (Id. at § 12201.) The earnings and savings of the business must be used for the general welfare of its members or equitably distributed to members in the form of cash, property, credits, or services. (Ibid.) Cooperatives must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each year. (See id. at § 12200,et seq.) Agricultural cooperatives are likewise nonprofit corporate entities “since they are not organized to make profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but only for their members as producers.” (Food & Agric. Code, § 54033.) Agricultural cooperatives share many characteristics with consumer cooperatives. (See, e.g., id. at § 54002, et seq.) Cooperatives should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.
2. Collectives: California law does not define collectives, but the dictionary defines them as “a business, farm, etc., jointly owned and operated by the members of a group.” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary; Random House, Inc.© 2006.) Applying this definition, a collective should be an organization that merely facilitates the collaborative efforts of patient and caregiver members – including the allocation of costs and revenues. As such, a collective is not a statutory entity, but as a practical matter it might have to organize as some form of business to carry out its activities. The collective should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, it should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.
From the 2008 Attorney General’s Guidelines for the Security and Non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use.
Read more: http://www.sdnn.com/attorney-generals-guidelines-for-the-security-and-non-diversion-of-marijuana-grown-for-medical-use#ixzz0NrINqe76
http://www.sdnn.com/sandieg...SD Deputy district attorney of the narcotics division, Chris Lindberg
Under California law, medical marijuana patients and primary caregivers may “associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.” (§ 11362.775.) The following guidelines are meant to apply to qualified patients and primary caregivers who come together to collectively or cooperatively cultivate physician-recommended marijuana.
A. Business Forms: Any group that is collectively or cooperatively cultivating and distributing marijuana for medical purposes should be organized and operated in a manner that ensures the security of the crop and safeguards against diversion for non-medical purposes. The following are guidelines to help cooperatives and collectives operate within the law, and to help law enforcement determine whether they are doing so.
1.Statutory Cooperatives: A cooperative must file articles of incorporation with the state and conduct its business for the mutual benefit of its members. (Corp. Code, § 12201, 12300.) No business may call itself a “cooperative” (or “co-op”) unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the Corporations or Food and Agricultural Code. (Id. at § 12311(b).) Cooperative corporations are “democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their members as patrons.” (Id. at § 12201.) The earnings and savings of the business must be used for the general welfare of its members or equitably distributed to members in the form of cash, property, credits, or services. (Ibid.) Cooperatives must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each year. (See id. at § 12200,et seq.) Agricultural cooperatives are likewise nonprofit corporate entities “since they are not organized to make profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but only for their members as producers.” (Food & Agric. Code, § 54033.) Agricultural cooperatives share many characteristics with consumer cooperatives. (See, e.g., id. at § 54002, et seq.) Cooperatives should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.
2. Collectives: California law does not define collectives, but the dictionary defines them as “a business, farm, etc., jointly owned and operated by the members of a group.” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary; Random House, Inc.© 2006.) Applying this definition, a collective should be an organization that merely facilitates the collaborative efforts of patient and caregiver members – including the allocation of costs and revenues. As such, a collective is not a statutory entity, but as a practical matter it might have to organize as some form of business to carry out its activities. The collective should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, it should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.
From the 2008 Attorney General’s Guidelines for the Security and Non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use.
Read more: http://www.sdnn.com/attorney-generals-guidelines-for-the-security-and-non-diversion-of-marijuana-grown-for-medical-use#ixzz0NrINqe76
http://www.sdnn.com/sandieg...SD Deputy district attorney of the narcotics division, Chris Lindberg
Drug-Legalizing Cop Wins Back His Free Speech Rights Press Release Sergeant Fired After Criticizing "War on Drugs," Now Reinstated
Drug-Legalizing Cop Wins Back His Free Speech Rights
Press Release Sergeant Fired After Criticizing "War on Drugs," Now Reinstated
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 13, 2009
SEATTLE, WA -- A Mountlake Terrace police sergeant who was fired after publicly criticizing the "war on drugs" has reached an $812,500 settlement in a lawsuit he filed against the city and police department, among others. Under the settlement, Sergeant Jonathan Wender has been reinstated on the force and is eligible to receive back pay and full retirement benefits.
“In an open society, people on the front lines of the criminal justice system have an ethical duty to speak out on controversial social and legal issues that affect the public we serve," said Sgt. Wender, a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a 10,000-strong organization representing police, prosecutors, judges and others who fought on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and who now want to legalize and regulate drugs. "The public has a fundamental right to know which laws and policies are effective, and which ones aren’t; and they should expect that their police officers will speak the truth even when it isn’t popular or comfortable to do so. I hope that the outcome of this case will help reassure police and other public officials that they can speak freely on controversial topics such as the urgent need to seek better ways to deal with the crisis of drugs that plagues American society.”
Sgt. Wender joined the police force in 1990 after graduating from college and was terminated in 2005. He holds a Pd.D. from Simon Fraser University and is currently a full-time sociology professor at the University of Washington. As part of the settlement, Sgt. Wender is back on the payroll at the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, where he will serve on administrative leave until he retires from the force on November 10, 2010 and can then qualify for his full pension.
"Jonathan Wender's victory is ours, as well. As was his fight," said Norm Stamper, the retired Seattle police chief and LEAP member. "Because of this fine man's courage and perseverance, and his willingness to tell the truth about the 'drug war,' we've all moved closer to putting an end to that war. I believe police officers across the country will be moved by Jonathan's example, and will raise their voices in support of LEAP's goal of ending drug prohibition."
The lawsuit was filed against the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office, the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, the City of Mountlake Terrace, the City of Lynnwood, and a handful of individual defendants.
For more information about LEAP, please contact Tom Angell at (202) 557-4979 or media@leap.cc www.leap.cc
Press Release Sergeant Fired After Criticizing "War on Drugs," Now Reinstated
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 13, 2009
SEATTLE, WA -- A Mountlake Terrace police sergeant who was fired after publicly criticizing the "war on drugs" has reached an $812,500 settlement in a lawsuit he filed against the city and police department, among others. Under the settlement, Sergeant Jonathan Wender has been reinstated on the force and is eligible to receive back pay and full retirement benefits.
“In an open society, people on the front lines of the criminal justice system have an ethical duty to speak out on controversial social and legal issues that affect the public we serve," said Sgt. Wender, a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a 10,000-strong organization representing police, prosecutors, judges and others who fought on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and who now want to legalize and regulate drugs. "The public has a fundamental right to know which laws and policies are effective, and which ones aren’t; and they should expect that their police officers will speak the truth even when it isn’t popular or comfortable to do so. I hope that the outcome of this case will help reassure police and other public officials that they can speak freely on controversial topics such as the urgent need to seek better ways to deal with the crisis of drugs that plagues American society.”
Sgt. Wender joined the police force in 1990 after graduating from college and was terminated in 2005. He holds a Pd.D. from Simon Fraser University and is currently a full-time sociology professor at the University of Washington. As part of the settlement, Sgt. Wender is back on the payroll at the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, where he will serve on administrative leave until he retires from the force on November 10, 2010 and can then qualify for his full pension.
"Jonathan Wender's victory is ours, as well. As was his fight," said Norm Stamper, the retired Seattle police chief and LEAP member. "Because of this fine man's courage and perseverance, and his willingness to tell the truth about the 'drug war,' we've all moved closer to putting an end to that war. I believe police officers across the country will be moved by Jonathan's example, and will raise their voices in support of LEAP's goal of ending drug prohibition."
The lawsuit was filed against the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office, the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, the City of Mountlake Terrace, the City of Lynnwood, and a handful of individual defendants.
For more information about LEAP, please contact Tom Angell at (202) 557-4979 or media@leap.cc www.leap.cc
Monday, August 10, 2009
We can Do it Again: Help our economy, Keep streets safer - LEAP Central Valley
As your constituent, I'm writing to you with an important question: Would you like to know how we can boost America’s ailing economy by tens of billions of dollars every year and make our communities safer?
All we have to do is learn a lesson from 75 years ago in America's history, back in December 1933, when our leaders had the good sense to stop spending so much money on the ineffective prohibition of alcohol in the midst of the Great Depression.
Today, we spend tens of billions of dollars a year arresting, prosecuting and locking up far too many Americans under this generation's failed prohibition policy, the "war on drugs." But drugs are generally cheaper, more potent and more available than at any point in history.
But that's not the worst of it. During alcohol prohibition, gangsters like Al Capone were using illegal booze profits to run rampant in our cities. Today, in addition to dealing with violent domestic gangs, we are also under attack from international cartels and terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, who make money off of drugs only because of today’s prohibition.
Ultimately, judging the merits of our drug policy - which seems to hurt countless citizens and help only violent criminals and traffickers - requires that we first have a true accounting of all its costs.
But while we know that direct government expenditures on drug prohibition cost tens of billions of dollars every year, there are also numerous corollary costs that aren't easily tallied. For example, what about tax revenue not collected from wages of drug market employees and on properties where drugs are produced? And let's not not forget the diminished wages (and tax payments) of people who find it hard to secure gainful employment because of criminal records.
That's why I'm writing to urge you to support the creation of blue ribbon commission that can take a serious look at the real cost of continuing our ineffective approach during a time of economic crisis. The results of a comprehensive review, I believe, will make it crystal clear that under our limited budgets, prohibition is a failed drug control policy that we just can't afford any longer.
Why not take a good look at the facts before our fiscal reality forces us to cut essential services that are actually necessary for protecting public health and safety for our children and families?
This is a serious issue with real consequences that we cannot afford to ignore. I look forward to reading your thoughts on what actions you think policymakers should take to solve the problems caused by our failed drug prohibition policy. Thanks in advance for your attention to this important matter.
All we have to do is learn a lesson from 75 years ago in America's history, back in December 1933, when our leaders had the good sense to stop spending so much money on the ineffective prohibition of alcohol in the midst of the Great Depression.
Today, we spend tens of billions of dollars a year arresting, prosecuting and locking up far too many Americans under this generation's failed prohibition policy, the "war on drugs." But drugs are generally cheaper, more potent and more available than at any point in history.
But that's not the worst of it. During alcohol prohibition, gangsters like Al Capone were using illegal booze profits to run rampant in our cities. Today, in addition to dealing with violent domestic gangs, we are also under attack from international cartels and terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, who make money off of drugs only because of today’s prohibition.
Ultimately, judging the merits of our drug policy - which seems to hurt countless citizens and help only violent criminals and traffickers - requires that we first have a true accounting of all its costs.
But while we know that direct government expenditures on drug prohibition cost tens of billions of dollars every year, there are also numerous corollary costs that aren't easily tallied. For example, what about tax revenue not collected from wages of drug market employees and on properties where drugs are produced? And let's not not forget the diminished wages (and tax payments) of people who find it hard to secure gainful employment because of criminal records.
That's why I'm writing to urge you to support the creation of blue ribbon commission that can take a serious look at the real cost of continuing our ineffective approach during a time of economic crisis. The results of a comprehensive review, I believe, will make it crystal clear that under our limited budgets, prohibition is a failed drug control policy that we just can't afford any longer.
Why not take a good look at the facts before our fiscal reality forces us to cut essential services that are actually necessary for protecting public health and safety for our children and families?
This is a serious issue with real consequences that we cannot afford to ignore. I look forward to reading your thoughts on what actions you think policymakers should take to solve the problems caused by our failed drug prohibition policy. Thanks in advance for your attention to this important matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
