Bloc Pot | Légalisation du cannabis

Dawson Bell

A petition drive aimed at giving voters in the City of Detroit voters the option of decriminalizing the possession of marijuana was improperly barred from the ballot in 2010, the state Court of Appeals said in a decision released this morning.

The appeals court reversed the ruling of a Wayne County judge, who let stand a decision by the Detroit Elections Commission to keep the issue off the ballot because they believed the proposal conflicts with state drug law.

A 2-1 majority of the appeals panel said city officials did not have the authority to make that determination.

“It was outside the authority of (city officials) to consider the substance and effect of the initiative and defendants have a clear legal duty to place the matter on the ballot,” the court wrote.

In the majority were judges Henry Saad and Elizabeth Gleicher. Dissenting was Judge Jane Markey.

Tim Beck, leader of the Coalition for a Safer Detroit, which mounted the petition drive, called the appeals court decision “a great day for voters' rights in the City of Detroit.”

The election commission’s decision to deny ballot access was “total hocus-pocus,” Beck said. “We did everything right. Every I was dotted, every T crossed.”

Timothy Knowlton, an attorney who represented the coalition in the appeal, said the ruling should mean the issue will appear on the Detroit ballot in August. That could change, however, if the city seeks further court review, he said.

If approved by voters, the ordinance would amend the city code to decriminalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana by an adult. Possession of marijuana by someone other than a medical marijuana patient would remain illegal under state law. 

• Original Publisher

Alan Bean

Since Ronald Reagan rode to power on a wave of white racial resentment, programs designed to benefit America’s marginalized citizens have been treated as a political pinãta by conservatives and avoided as a liability by . . . well, non-conservatives.  No one dared identify as a liberal.  The L-word had become toxic. 

There is another L-word: “legalization”.

Unless you are a big fan of Ron Paul, you have probably never been exposed to a compelling argument for legalizing drugs.  Libertarians support the legalization of drugs because (a) they don’t think the government should regulate hardly anything, (b)drug prohibition, like the prohibition of alcohol, is a futile attempt to repeal the law of supply and demand, and (c) our counter-productive war on drugs eats up billions of tax dollars.

Today, at the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, three of America’s leading authorities on the drug war wrestled with the other l-word.

Michelle Alexander told us she was inching toward support for drug legalization but remained on the fence.  The author of the most successful criminal justice reform book in the history of publishing is committed to ending the war on drugs and the policy of mass incarceration.  Should legalizing drugs be part of the program?  She’s still thinking about it.

Neill Franklin, a 23-year veteran with the Maryland State Police who has worked as an undercover narc and as the head trainer for drug enforcement, became a proponent of legalization after seeing too many police officers and innocent citizens die defending a failed policy. Franklin  now leads Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) as the organization’s executive director.

Ethan Nadelmann, the founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, was one of the first educated and articulate Americans to endorse drug legalization.  The son of a Jewish Rabbi, and the grandson of an Auschwitz victim, Nadelmann started thinking about drug policy because, during college, he smoked marijuana, “and I liked it.”  He liked alcohol too, “but they were locking people up for using pot.”

The more he studied the matter, Nadelmann told us, the more he realized that “a thoughtful, scientific, economically informed analysis” took you one place, while “politics and culture” take you somewhere else.  Nadelmann praised former Baltimore mayor, Kurt Schmoke, as the one public official in America who had the guts to call for legalization when legalization wasn’t cool.

gradually, Nadelmann came to see the drug war as racial justice issue.  “If you were to randomly stop black, white and Latino young people on the street and search them for drugs, he said, you would find just as many white kids with a joint as anybody else.  But we’re arresting five, six, seven times as many black kids.  After a while you have to ask what’s going on.”

“Anytime a majority needs to impose its particular morality on a minority,” Nadelmann said, ”you’ve got trouble . . . Ultimately, this is not just about drugs; it’s about how we treat the ‘other’.” 

This being a conference of organized for and by people of faith, the three presenters talked about the relationship between faith and public policy.  At its heart, Alexander said, Christianity is about care, concern and compassion for broken people.  “I feel a compulsion to shatter the myth that some of us are not worthy of care, compassion and concern,” she said.  “Once you dispel that myth, the whole [drug war] system begins to crumble.”

Franklin was driven to his present work by violence.  A family of seven was murdered because a drug dealer learned the mother was cooperating with the police.  “So he torched her home.”  His first impulse, of course, was to bring down the dealer.  But the more he thought about it, these seven innocent people, and a long list of brave police officers, had become unwitting martyrs to a failed policy.

“This is my ministry,” Franklin says; “to explain how law enforcement has become (either wittingly or unwittingly) an accomplice in this problem.”  Backing away from the war on drugs is insufficient, he insists; only legalization will stop the street violence.

But legalizing drugs, by itself, wouldn’t be enough for Franklin.  “Before you can have solid communities you need solid families,” he explains, “and the war on drugs has been ripping black families apart.”  So, when drugs are legalized, “we need to make sure that the money saved is invested in our communities.”  (Here, Franklin and Ron Paul part company).

Finally, Michelle Alexander, the moderator of this discussion, asked Ethan Nedalmann what he meant by “legalization”.  Are we talking about selling crack down at the 7-11, or what?

Nadelmann gave the best “elevator talk” on the subject I have ever heard.

“Three things,” he said.  “Marijuana is the first issue.”  This simple statement elicited raucous laughter from a room filled with preachers.  We all knew where he was going.  Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol and should be just as legal and just as regulated.

“Number two, with regard to any drug, possession of small amounts  for personal use should never be punished.  Harm done while high is another issue.  If you get behind the wheel when you’re under the influence you can’t use the fact that you were high as an excuse.”

“Number three, there are those who will use whether the stuff is legal or illegal–offer them treatment; try to get them past their addiction.  But if they persist, if their drug of choice is their lady-love and they can’t imagine life without it, give them a safe place to use their drug.  You can’t take it home; but you can get what you want at the clinic.”

In other words, kids will NOT be buying crack at the corner store; only serious addicts will be interested.  And Nedelmann believes that, for many addicts, clinics could be the first step to getting free.  The drug isn’t really the addiction, he says.  A lifestyle revolving around getting drugs and staying high is the addiction.  When you make it too easy, some users will, for the first time, step back and take a long, hard look at what they’re doing to themselves.  “When addicts are treated like human beings,” he said, “their eyes open.”

• Original Publisher

Richard Bronson

Worrying news from Russia where Federal Drug Control Service (FSKN), the government’s anti-drugs agency has blocked the website of the public health organization, the Andrey Rylkov Foundation, for discussing the use of addiction medicine methadone. The Government agency claims the Foundation is “promoting the use of drugs”, as using methadone is illegal in Russia.

Russia must change this outdated policy as it attempts to get on top of its own growing drug and HIV problem. It has one of the largest populations of injecting drug users in the world, as well as one of the fastest growing HIV epidemics. Almost one million people are living with HIV in Russia. In some places, as many as 80 per cent of those with HIV contracted the virus through contaminated needles.

Instead of treating drug use as a medical issue, Russia favours a hard-line attack on production in Afghanistan. The Government believes the US approach to Latin America – with widespread aerial fumigation of crops and support for military attacks on organised drugs cartels has worked, when in fact it has worsened the situation considerably.

It thinks by replicating this tough approach they can cut off the supply from Afghanistan. I fear this approach is wrong and will only strengthen the illegal drugs trade; leaving  Russian's three million opiate users with no access to information and no hope of authorised substitution treatment.

Richard Bronson is the founder of Virgin Group

• Original Publisher

Paul Vallely

The cheap supply of antiretroviral drugs to people with Aids across the world could be choked by an "intellectual property" deal, which the European Union will today demand at a high-level international summit, Aids campaigners say.

More than 80 per cent of those on HIV treatment in developing countries are on generic medicines made in India. But those drugs are under threat from an agreement being negotiated at the 12th EU-India summit in New Delhi between the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, and the Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh. The EU has long been seizing supplies of the drugs as they transit through Europe on their way from India to Africa. Now, under a new EU-India Free Trade Agreement, it wants the country nicknamed "the pharmacy of the developing world" to impose lengthy delays in the production of affordable generic versions of vital medicines.

It also wants to hamper the export of these medicines to the developing world, according to the Stop Aids Campaign, a coalition of more than 60 lobby groups including Oxfam, Médecins Sans Frontières and the Elton John Aids Foundation.

The EU trade commissioner, Karel De Gucht, has denied this, saying "any agreement will have no impact on the right or the capacity of India to produce generic medicines". But while a number of damaging demands have been taken off the negotiating table, other measures relating to enforcement and investment remain. Enforcement provisions are required, said Mr De Gucht, to control fake medicines – though there have been no significant reports of fake medicines at large in anti-Aids treatment. One European lobby group, Act Up-Paris, says leaked text from the negotiations reveal that one EU demand would give European multinational companies the right to challenge the Indian government for any health policies it undertakes, such as price controls or tobacco warnings on cigarette packets, if they are deemed negatively to affect foreign investments. Anna Marriot, head of development finance at Oxfam, said: "Similar terms to those Europe is trying to impose on India have already been imposed on other developing countries. The results have been more expensive medicines, less availability and worse health outcomes. If Europe succeeds, the health of millions of Indians and millions more across the developing world will be put at risk."

Other matters in the Free Trade Agreement concern tariffs on cars, wines and spirits imported to India. India also wants better access to the EU's services market for its high-skilled IT experts.

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations insists India's drugs are not under threat. But UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and Aids, disagrees. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Anand Grover, says it is "colossal mistake to introduce data exclusivity in India". The Indian government has pledged to resist Europe's demands.

Lifeline for Africa: Indian generic drugs

India is a leading manufacturer of generics or cheap copies of branded – and sometimes prohibitively priced – drugs. The size of the country's generics industry is estimated at more than $20bn (£12bn), including exports, according to figures quoted in The Lancet last year.

But the headline numbers only tell part of the story. In some areas, such as HIV/Aids, Indian generics are a lifeline for sufferers in poorer countries. In 2001, for example, the industry attracted headlines when the one of country's largest drug firms, Cipla, offered an Aids drug to African countries for $300. The same preparation cost $12,000 in US, according to Deutsche Bank.

India is also a key supplier of cheap drugs to treat cancer and heart disease.

• Original Publisher

Chris Roberts

The federal Drug Enforcement Administration has asked San Francisco's Department of Public Health to turn over records for 12 of the city's remaining 21 medical cannabis dispensaries, according to emails obtained by The San Francisco Examiner.

On Jan. 18 and again Jan. 27, Special Agent David White of the DEA's financial investigative team sent emails to the health department asking for business licenses, health permits, ownership information and yearly inspection forms for the 12 dispensaries.

Last year, White requested information on five other San Francisco dispensaries, issuing a subpoena to obtain private information not normally released via a records request. The landlords of those dispensaries then received letters from U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag, who warned of property forfeiture and 40-year prison terms unless the dispensaries shut down.

All five dispensaries closed, though two have since become delivery-only services.

Health department Deputy Director Colleen Chawla said her agency complied with the DEA’s most recent request.

White did not respond to a request for comment. Agent Casey McEnry, a DEA spokeswoman, said the agency only comments on cases actively in the courts.

On Oct. 7, the four U.S. attorneys for California announced a coordinated, statewide crackdown on what they called the "medical marijuana industry." Since then, hundreds of dispensaries have closed, mostly in Sacramento and San Diego counties. Five have closed in San Francisco, and one in Marin.

Stephanie Tucker, a spokeswoman for The City's Medical Cannabis Task Force, is concerned by the prospect of 12 more dispensaries closing.

"It's a clear indication that Melinda Haag is not using the discretion of her office to go after bad players as stated at her October 2011 press conference,” Tucker told The SF Examiner on Thursday. “Instead, they are targeting the regulated community who operate with a permit, in compliance with state and local laws, transparently and in good standing with The City and their community."

Medical marijuana advocates also are rankled by what they call inaction taken by city leaders.

In 2008, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom sent a letter to members of Congress asking them to intervene in the DEA’s “undermin[ing] of California’s state medical marijuana laws." Newsom's successor, Mayor Edwin Lee, has yet to comment on the crackdown publicly, and on Thursday he did not respond to requests for comment on the health department emails.

The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in support of dispensaries in the fall, but has not taken action since.

“There’s a definite void in leadership here,” Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, told The SF Examiner on Thursday, adding that federal law enforcement is “undermining the will of the voters” encapsulated in Proposition 215, which legalized marijuana for medicinal use when it passed in 1996.

“I understand this is a radioactive issue for some people, but too bad -- it’s the law of the land,” Ammiano said.

There were 26 dispensaries in San Francisco in October. After The City briefly suspended its permitting process, the Planning Commission is scheduled to hear applications for two new dispensaries at its meeting next week.

San Francisco was the first city in California to license and regulate medical marijuana dispensaries under its Medical Cannabis Act, which became law in 2005. Much of The City’s regulations are stricter than what is allowed under state law.

Dispensaries pay local and state sales taxes. The health department inspects them once a year to ensure that they comply with city and state laws. All of San Francisco’s dispensaries were found to be in compliance during the most recent inspections. 

• Original Publisher

Ellen Komp

Last October, when the Obama Administration moved so fiercely against medical marijuana collectives in California, everyone wanted to know why.

It's mostly been attributed to the usual election-cycle politics, where candidates try to appear strongly against drugs, mainly to pick up lucrative endorsements from police groups.

But the curious news hit Monday in a New York Times article that the Obama campaign had accepted $200,000 from two brothers of a Mexican casino owner connected with a drug cartel and an assassination.

Juan Jose Rojas "Pepe" Cardona, who fled the US after he was charged with fraud and marijuana smuggling, owns a large casino in Mexico with close ties to the Beltran-Leyva drug cartel, according to a 2009 diplomatic cable released on Wikileaks.

Cardona's brothers, Carlos Cardona and Alberto Rojas, both of Chicago, began donating money to the Obama campaign last fall, which is when Obama's henchmen came out swinging against medical marijuana in California. One wonders, were Obama-friendly Mexican suppliers threatened by competition from California home-grown suppliers? The Obama campaign has said it had no knowledge of the connection to Pepe Cardona, and it will return the money.

Meanwhile, Chris Roberts of San Francisco Weekly's The Snitch column reports that Paul Chabot, a former Navy man, campus cop, and National Drug Control Policy staffer who fronts the Coalition for a Drug Free California, has encouraged his fellow citizens to become "IRS Pot Store Whistle-blowers," in an e-mail sent out on Monday.

The IRS is suing collectives in California for millions in back taxes under the absurd 280E provision of the tax code, which disallows deductions such as rent and payroll for so-called illicit drug operations (as though true cartels pay any tax). Chabot's email pointed out that whistleblowers are entitled to 30% of the booty, and he enjoined his readers to take early retirement by narcing out their neighbors. (Experts point out that records such as ledgers and receipt books would be required to earn such a windfall.)

Chabot's group is part of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA), a federally funded organization with disturbing ties to military intelligence that's had some interesting corporate partners, including Purdue Pharma, distributors of OxyContin.

CADCA was part of the law enforcement/government group that attempted to bury California's medical marijuana law weeks after it passed in 1996, starting with a meeting uncovered by journalist Pat McCartney. Present at that meeting were then-drug "czar" General Barry McCaffrey and DEA chief Thomas Constantine, along with some 40 federal and state officials, plus CADCA founder Alvah Chapman.

One $50,000 private donor to CADCA is corporate partner Phamatech Inc., a San Diego-based company that manufactures the first FDA-approved home-screening drug test on the market, as well as providing laboratory testing for students and workers in California and beyond.

The At HomeTM drug test is "CLIA Wavered," meaning it can skirt federal laboratory standards. On September 11, 2001 George W. Bush announced that the At Home test would be distributed by the Partnership for a Drug Free America under its Adolescence Substance Abuse Program (ASAP).

According to their website, in 2010 Phamatech signed contracts to drug test for the San Diego County Child Protective Services Department, the County of Santa Clara Department of Corrections, and the County of Fresno Health and Human Services, Probation and Parole Departments, as well as winning a multi-year contract with the California Department of Consumer Affairs to provide drug testing services to California State Health and Human Services, and Probation and Parole Departments. The California Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) logo is on Phamatech's homepage, and listed on the DCA Restricted Items List at the Phamatech site is Medicinal Marijuana.

Once more this year a bill that would have granted employment rights to medical marijuana users failed to win enough support to pass in the California legislature. Business-friendly Democrats caved in to pressure from the Chamber of Commerce and its affiliated groups, who love to know what's in their employees' urine so that they can fire them, and deny them health benefits and workers' compensation, whenever they see fit.

CalNORML just took down all of the now-closed San Diego medical marijuana collectives from its website, meaning patients who need access won't be able to find it there. Other parts of the state are looking similarly bleak.

Obama is coming to San Francisco on September 16, and a protest is being planned. Perhaps the signs should say "Obama: Support California Farmers" or "Taxpayers and Workers, Not the Cardona Cartel".

• Original Publisher

Derek Abma

Canada needs to give up the war on drugs and start treating drug use as a health and social issue rather than something for the criminal justice system to deal with, according to a policy group that was formally launched Thursday.

The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition is, among other things, calling for the government to decriminalize drug use and not stand in the way of harm-reduction programs, such as safe-injection sites.

"In western legal systems, the criminal law has long been seen as the instrument of last resort to be used when other means of social control has failed," Eugene Oscapella, a University of Ottawa criminology professor and member of the group's policy committee, said at a news conference on Parliament Hill. "Unfortunately, in the case of certain drugs — cannabis, ecstasy, cocaine, heroin and hundreds of other substances for that matter — it has been used as the principal vehicle of social control."

The coalition argued this approach does not reduce drug use, but creates more problems such as making criminals out of drug users, creating a lucrative black market for real criminals and preventing measures that could help those struggling with addictions.

Oscapella said Bill C-10 — crime legislation already approved by Parliament and under review in the Senate — would make things even worse. He estimated that 10 to 20 per cent of his students would be affected by new provisions relating to the sharing of drugs in areas frequented by youth.

"If, under the legislation, one of my students was to pass a tab of ecstasy to a friend on campus — this is for no money, just sharing with a friend — that is the offence of trafficking and it's occurring in an area normally frequented by youth. Mandatory minimum penalty (is) two years (in a) federal penitentiary," he said, noting that students as young as 17 are common at university.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, in response to this group's assertions, said the government's drug policies are focused on penalizing drug dealers, not users.

"We are not looking to go after substance-abuse victims or experimenting teenagers," he said in a statement emailed by his staff. "We are making no changes to the laws with regards to simple possession. The Safe Streets and Communities Act goes after the source of the illicit drug trade — the drug traffickers."

Other countries' failed experiences should be proof that a law-enforcement-focused approach to drug policy does not work, coalition members said.

Oscapella said the United States has spent about $1 trillion on its "war on drugs" since it was launched in 1971. Donald MacPherson, director of the coalition, added that 50,000 people in Mexico have been killed by drug cartels since the government there tried to crack down on them in 2006.

"Mexico is an example that strips naked any attempt at justifying our current approach that emphasizes drug prohibition over a health, social and human rights approach," MacPherson said.

The group argues that drug injection sites such as Insite in Vancouver save lives. Efforts of the federal government to shut Insite down last year were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

"Leadership at all levels within the community is needed to implement a broad range of harm-reduction approaches that will indeed save lives and help people stay as healthy as possible while they struggle with an addiction," MacPherson said.

• Original Publisher

Jonathan Kaminsky

Washington state lawmakers said Thursday that an initiative to legalize and regulate the recreational use of marijuana will be decided by voters.

If passed, Initiative 502 would make Washington the first state to legalize the recreational use of marijuana and would place it at odds with federal law, which bans marijuana use of all kinds.

Rep. Sam Hunt, D-Olympia, who chairs the House State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee that was considering the initiative, said the Legislature would not act on it, meaning it will instead automatically appear on the November ballot.

"We will have more opportunities on the campaign trail this year to discuss this issue," said Hunt.

Because the measure proposes new taxes on marijuana production and consumption, the Legislature would need a two-thirds majority to pass it.

The initiative was certified by the Secretary of State's office last month after pro-legalization campaigners turned in more than the 241,153 necessary valid signatures.

Speaking at a joint House and Senate work session Thursday, backers of the measure said it would allow the state to regulate marijuana use, raise money through taxes on marijuana and would squeeze the powerful drug cartels controlling the black market.

"Locking people up and putting handcuffs on them is not the way to resolve our society's issues with regard to marijuana," said John McKay, a former U.S. Attorney for Seattle who has become an outspoken advocate for marijuana legalization.

Charles Mandigo, the former head of the Seattle FBI office, also spoke in favor of the measure.

"It is the money, not the drugs, that drive these criminal organizations and street gangs," said Mandigo. "Take away the money and you take away the criminal element."

McKay and Mandigo conceded that getting criminals out of the marijuana business would take time.

Opponents said legalization would likely increase marijuana use by teenagers. They argued that a better alternative would be pressuring the federal government to change marijuana's designation from a Schedule One to a Schedule Two drug, meaning it would still be classified as having a high potential for abuse but would also be recognized as having legitimate medical uses.

"If we start with the pharmaceutical end and move forward from there, I think what a great start we've already done," said Thurston County Sheriff John Snaza, who spoke against the initiative.

• Original Publisher

Paul Armentano

Broken promises are nothing new in Washington, DC. Yet even by the Beltway’s jaded standards, President Obama’s role reversal from one time medicinal cannabis sympathizer to White House weed-whacker is remarkable.

Indeed, the man who once pledged on the campaign trail that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue,” has – since taking the Presidential oaths of office – done virtually everything in his administration’s power to do precisely that. Yet he's taken these steps at the very time that a record number of Americans, including 57 percent of democrats and a whopping 69 percent of self-described liberals, endorse doing just the opposite. Nonetheless, in recent months, the Obama administration – via a virtual alphabet soup of federal agencies – has launched an unprecedented series of attacks against medical cannabis patients, providers, and in some cases even their advocates.

To review:

• Deputy Attorney General James Cole, along with the four US Attorneys from California, has ramped up federal efforts to close or displace several hundreds of medical cannabis providers in California. Their tactics have included: raiding specific dispensaries and prosecuting their owners; filing civil forfeiture proceedings against landlords who rent their property to medical marijuana providers; threatening to federally prosecute newspapers and radio stations who accept ad revenue from medical cannabis operations; and, most recently, intimidating local lawmakers who have either enacted or are publicly supportive of cannabis oversight regulations. Speaking with radio station KQED San Francisco last month, Tommy LaNier – Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy's National Marijuana Initiative – boasted about the administration’s efforts to strong-arm local officials, stating "[We] have ... advised those places where they're trying to regulate marijuana -- which is illegal under the Control Substances Act -- (that) they cannot do that.”

• In Colorado, United States Attorney John Walsh has sent letters to owners of dozens of the Centennial State’s medical cannabis facilities stating, "Action will be taken to seize and forfeit their property" if they do not cease their operations. Unlike similarly targeted dispensaries in California, the operations on Walsh’s hit list are explicitly licensed by the state and thus fully compliant with state law – a fact that Walsh’s letters readily acknowledge but appear content to ignore. "This ... constitutes formal notice that action will be taken to seize and forfeit (your) property if you do not cause the sale and/or distribution of marijuana and marijuana-infused substances at (this) location to be discontinued,” they state. “[T]he Department of Justice has the authority to enforce federal law even when such activities may be permitted under state law.” Ironically, the Justice Department’s letters arrived just weeks after US Attorney General Eric Holder publicly told (read: lied to) Colorado Congressman Jared Polis, an ardent supporter of the medicinal cannabis industry, that that the federal government would only target medical cannabis operators that "use marijuana in a way that's not consistent with the state statute."

• But the Obama Justice Department isn’t only sending letters to cannabis dispensaries owners and their landlords. Last year, the DOJ also mailed letters to numerous state lawmakers, including the Governors of Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as they were debating legislation to allow for the licensed distribution of medical cannabis. The letters threatened federal prosecution for those involved with said efforts – including, in some cases, state civil servants – if the measures went forward. As a result, most didn’t.

The Justice Department isn’t the only agency directly involved in the administration’s medical pot crackdown. Also over the past six months:

• The IRS has assessed crippling penalties on tax-paying medical cannabis facilities in California by denying these operations from filing standard expense deductions;

• The Department of Treasury has strong-armed local banks and other financial institutions into closing their accounts with medicinal marijuana operators. In Colorado, where the state’s estimated 700 licensed cannabis dispensaries are routinely subjected to state audits, there no longer remains even a single bank willing to openly do business with med-pot operators.

• The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms has sternly warned firearms dealers not to sell guns to medical cannabis consumers, and stated that patients who otherwise legally possess firearms are in violation of federal law and may face criminal prosecution;

• In July, the Drug Enforcement Administration rejected a nine-year-old administrative petition that called for hearings regarding the federal rescheduling of marijuana for medical use, ignoring extensive scientific evidence of its medical efficacy. “[T]here are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving (marijuana's) efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts,” the agency alleged. “At this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy.”

• This fall, the National Institute on Drug Abuse rejected an FDA-approved protocol to allow for clinical research assessing the use of cannabis to treat post-traumatic stress disorder; a spokesperson for the agency conceded, “We generally do not fund research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana.”

• The DEA has reduced the total number of federally qualified investigators licensed to study plant marijuana in humans to 14 nationwide.

Most recently, and perhaps most egregiously, the DEA acknowledged that it was investigating a Montana state lawmaker for potentially conspiring to violate federal anti-marijuana laws. The lawmaker, Rep. Diane Sands – a Democrat from Billings, Montana – served as the chairwoman of a 2011 interim legislative committee that sought to enact statewide regulations governing the production and distribution of medical pot, which has been legal in the state since 2004. "Can you say McCarthy?” she told The Missoulian newspaper.  “This sounds like stuff from the House Un-American Activities Committee and Joe McCarthy. So once you talk about medical marijuana in reasonable terms, you're on some sort of list of possible conspirators. … It's ridiculous, of course, but it's also threatening to think that the federal government is willing to use its influence and try to chill discussion about this subject."

* * *

So has the Obama administration collectively lost its mind when it comes to the subject of medical cannabis? That certainly seems to be the case. But the bigger question still remains: Why now?

Speculation among reformers and the general public is widespread. Many activists contend that the administration's about face is due to pressure
from the pharmaceutical industry, which they surmise may be hoping to eliminate competition in the marketplace for their own forthcoming, soon-to-be FDA-approved cannabis-based drug. Others believe that Obama’s crackdown is a Machiavellian attempt on the part of the President and his advisors to appeal to independent, conservative-leaning swing voters during an election year. Still others argue that the recent attacks have little to do with President Obama at all. Instead, they believe the efforts of the DEA, DOJ, and other federal agencies are being coordinated primarily by drug war hawks within the administration, many of which are holdovers from the George W. Bush regime, such as DEA administrator Michele Leonhart. Adding weight to this claim are recent statements from US Attorney Andre Birotte, who acknowledged that the DOJ’s recent activities were led by the federal prosecutors themselves and were not instigated by either President Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder – both of which are engaged in their own personal battles for political survival and, as a result, are unlikely to expend even a shred of political capital to halt the efforts of the administration’s more ardent drug warriors.

There may be a grain of truth in all of the above theories. But perhaps the greatest underlying motivator for the administration’s sudden and severe crackdown on medical marijuana providers and patients is its desire to preserve America’s longstanding criminalization of cannabis for everyone else. There is little doubt that the rapid rise of the medical marijuana industry and the legal commerce inherent to it is arguably the single biggest threat to federal cannabis prohibition. Just look at the poll numbers. According to Gallup, in 1996 – when California became the first state to allow for the legally sanctioned use of cannabis therapy – only 25 percent of Americans backed legalizing marijuana for all adults. (Seventy-three percent of respondents at that time said they opposed the idea.) Fast forward to 2011. Today, a record high 50 percent of Americans support legalizing the plant outright and only 46 percent of respondents oppose doing so. It’s this rapid rise in the public’s support for overall legalization that no doubt has the Obama administration, and the majority of America’s elected officials, running scared.

While the passage and enactment of statewide medical marijuana laws – 16 states and the District of Columbia now have laws recognizing marijuana’s therapeutic use on the books – is not solely driving the public’s shift in support for broader legalization, it is arguably a major factor. Why? The answer is simple. Tens of millions of Americans residing in these states are learning, first hand, that they can coexist with marijuana being legal! And that is the lesson the federal government fears most.

In states like California and Colorado, voters have largely become accustomed to the reality that there can be safe, secure, well-run businesses that deliver consistent, reliable, tested cannabis products. They have come to understand that well-regulated cannabis dispensaries can revitalize sagging economies, provide jobs, and contribute taxes to budget-starved localities. Most importantly, the public in these states and others are finally realizing that all the years of scaremongering by the government about what would happen if marijuana were legal, even for sick people, was nothing but hysterical propaganda. As a result, a majority of American voters are now for the first time asking their federal officials: ‘Why we don’t just legalize marijuana for everyone in a similarly responsible manner?’

That is a question the President remains unable and unwilling to answer. And the administration appears willing to go to any lengths to avoid it.

• Original Publisher

Gretchen Burns Bergman and Neill Franklin

There was a time in our history when parents depended on their neighborhood policeman, as well as clergy and teachers, to help in guiding their children to good decision-making. For the last several decades, many mothers whose children have experimented with drugs, or who have problems with addiction, have begun to distrust cops and the entire criminal justice system... with good reason.

Addiction, one of our greatest public health problems, is a chronic relapsing disease. One in four families is dealing directly with addictive illness. Unfortunately, due to stigma and discrimination, it has been altogether too easy for our society to arrest and banish these individuals behind bars, rather than to manage the disease by health care professionals using science-based, health-oriented strategies.

One of us is a mom who has painfully watched as her children have struggled with addiction. One of us is a retired police officer who has seen up close how our drug laws not only do nothing to solve addiction problems but in many cases make them worse.

Gretchen's two sons have addictive illness. Her older son was arrested for marijuana possession in 1990, and spent over a decade of his life cycling through the criminal justice system for non-violent drug offenses and relapse. This was a tragic waste of human potential, a painful saga for the family and a tremendous misuse of taxpayer dollars. But this family's story is not unique. Countless families now must deal with both the devastation of the disease and the harmful effects of punitive incarceration. These numbers are disproportionately high in communities of color or poverty. This is a human rights issue. Together we can and must end this injustice.

Moms United to End the War on Drugs is a national campaign of A New PATH (Parents for Addiction Treatment & Healing) in partnership with a growing number of organizations and individuals in a massive collaborative effort to stop the violence, mass incarceration and overdose deaths that are a result of current punitive and discriminatory drug policies. Knowing that mothers were instrumental in ending alcohol prohibition in the US in the 1930's, mothers are again leading the charge to end the 40-year failed war on drugs and the devastation that has been caused by it. They are advocating for therapeutic drug policies that reduce the harms of drugs and current drug laws.

Moms are major stakeholders in this war that has been waged against our own families, so we must voice the concerns for the futures of our children. Cops are also stakeholders, as they are charged with being accountable for public safety and putting themselves in the line of fire to enforce current drug policies. It is the overarching policy of prohibition, rather than the individual cops, that is to blame.

Many law enforcement professionals are now speaking out for repeal of prohibition, and advocating for replacing it with a tight system of legalized regulation, which will cripple the violent cartels and street dealers who control the illegal drug market. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) is an international organization of criminal justice professionals who bear personal witness to the wasteful futility and harms of our current drug policies. Their mission is to reduce the multitude of unintended harmful consequences resulting from fighting the war on drugs, and to lessen the incidence of death, disease, crime and addiction by ending drug prohibition.

Neill Franklin's 34-year law enforcement career has given him up-close and personal insight to the deadly impact of prohibition. From friends being killed in the line of duty to the recruitment of children into the deadly game of drug dealing, he knows the trauma inflicted upon families and the pain experienced by mothers when their children are forever lost to addiction, drug gangs, prison and death. Neill has always had a great respect for the moral authority of mothers and he recalls how his mom always seemed to know when something was wrong. Moms generally know when their children are in grave danger and many refer to this as a mother's intuition. Because of a compelling desire to protect their children, it was mothers who played one of the most significant roles in bringing alcohol prohibition to its knees and ultimately an end. Neill believes that it must be and will be moms who once again come to rescue their children from the deadly grip of prohibition, and the cops of LEAP are eagerly ready to support them in this quest.

We are proud to announce the partnership of moms & cops and our commitment in working to change current drug policies from arrest and mass incarceration to therapeutic and restorative policies that will reduce the damage to our communities while improving public safety.

Gretchen Burns Bergman is Executive Director & Co-Founder of A New PATH & Lead Organizer of Moms United to End the War on Drugs; Neill Franklin is Executive Director of LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

• Original Publisher

Joel Connelly

Enforcement of U.S. laws against marijuana possession serves to encourage and enrich Mexican drug cartels and the Asian and biker gangs that control the “B.C. Bud” market in Canada, according to two former top federal law enforcement officials.

“It is the money, not the drug, that drives these cartels and gangs,” Charles Mandigo, who served 27 years with the FBI and headed its Seattle office, told a legislative hearing in Olympia.

He was testifying in favor of Initiative 502, which would legalize the growth and possession of cannabis, tax it, sell-it at state-sanctioned stores, and give the State Liquor Control Board authority over it.

John McKay, who served as U.S. Attorney for Western Washington from 2001 to 2007, said I-502 is an antidote to a “tremendously failed national policy and a tremendously failed state policy on marijuana.

“Criminal enforcement of marijuana doesn’t work,” McKay argued.  It “creates an enormous flow of money to international drug cartels, criminals and thugs,” he added.

“Lower B.C. (British Columbia) is an enormous grow operation,” said McKay.

Washington, as well, has a thriving marijuana industry, ranking fourth or fifth among the 50 states.  It is difficult to police.  A marijuana grow operation, with possible cartel links, was found three years ago near the East Bank trail in the Ross Lake National Recreation Area.

I-502 has garnered enough valid voter signatures to win a place on the November ballot.  The initiative campaign has drawn support from prominent law enforcement retirees as well as the medical and legal communities.

It was been referred to the Legislature.  Lawmakers can approve it, simply send it to the ballot, or offer their own alternative to the voters along with the initiative.

Sheriff John Snaza of Thurston County, while acknowledging that 17.4 million Americans regularly smoke marijuana, raised several red flags about the initiative.  “What are the impacts to our environment of the pesticides used to grow marijuana?” he asked.

Jim Cooper, executive director of Together, a non-profit that focuses on youth, testified that marijuana use by teenagers has been on the upswing since medical marijuana discussions began in the state a decade ago.  He voiced concern that use will continue to climb if the drug is legalized.  I-502 would legalize sales to those over 21.

“I will admit there is marijuana culture prevalent among our youth, but it is not a majority,” said Cooper, formerly president of the Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention.

Mandigo, the FBI veteran, emphasized that he does not condone the sale or use of marijuana.  But he cited the spiral of drug-related violence, in which cartel-related murders have taken 50,000 lives in Mexico and drug killings have reached into British Columbia.

“Initiative 502 provides the means to remove the money from criminal groups that traffic in marijuana,” he said.  “I-502 provides the means to remove the proceeds.  Remove the money and you remove the proceeds.”

The arguments by Mandigo and McKay echo a recent public appeal from north of the border.

Four former Vancouver, B.C., mayors called for repeal of Canada’s anti-marijuana laws, arguing that they have produced a climate of crime and violence, enriching gangs and spawning Canada’s worst violent crime.  Incumbent Mayor Gregor Robertson endorsed the statement.

If I-502 passes, income from taxing growth and sale of cannabis would go to a variety of uses including drug education and the state’s Basic Health Plan.

Mandigo offered a financial argument for the initiative:  Under I-502, proceeds from growing and sale of marijuana would stay in Washington.

• Original Publisher

Tony Newman

An 18-year-old teenager, Ramarley Graham, was killed in his home in the Bronx last week by plainclothes cops. A member of the narcotics unit shot the unarmed teenager in his bathroom.

While details of the tragedy are still unfolding, it appears that the teen had a small amount of marijuana on him, so walked home to get away from the cops because he didn't want to be arrested. The cops followed him, broke into his home and killed him in his bathroom while he was trying to flush a small amount of marijuana down the toilet. The police officer who shot Graham said he believed the young man had a gun. He did not -- no weapons were found.

The bottom line is that an 18-year-old is dead because of the insane marijuana arrest crusade by the NYPD.

Graham's family and the community are righteously demanding justice. There was a passionate gathering of hundreds of people outside the 47th Precinct station in the Bronx last night, where they condemned police violence and the almost-routine killings of unarmed men like Mr. Graham. Graham's sister is quoted in the New York Times, saying, "This is not just about Ramarley. This is about all young black men."

Incidentally, just the day before the tragic killing, the New York City media was buzzing about the 2011 marijuana arrest numbers. There were more than 50,000 marijuana arrests in 2011, the second-most in NYC history and the most in more than a decade. The NYPD bust more people for small amounts of marijuana than any other crime in the city. And these 50,000 arrests are overwhelmingly young black and Latino men -- even though, according to the government's own data, they are no more likely to use or sell marijuana than young whites.

The amazing thing is that 7/8 of an ounce of marijuana is decriminalized -- if police find marijuana in your belongings, they're supposed to just give you a ticket, instead of arresting you, unless the marijuana is being smoked or in "public view." So if under an ounce is supposed to not lead to arrest, why are 50,000 arrests happening a year? Because the NYPD stops and frisks more than 600,000 people -- mostly young black and brown men -- and then tricks them into emptying their pockets. And when marijuana is then pulled out, the police arrest them for marijuana in "public view."

There has been a big campaign by the Drug Policy Alliance, Institute for Juvenile Justice Reform and Alternatives (IJJRA), and VOCAL-NY slamming the NYPD for these illegal arrests. In September it seemed like the campaign had reached a breakthrough when Police Commissioner Kelly ordered his police to stop making improper marijuana arrests. Last week's news about the 2011 statistics, however, shows that the commissioner's order has not stopped these arrests -- and New York City remains the marijuana arrest capital of the world.

Getting arrested for marijuana is no small matter -- not least because it creates a permanent criminal record that can easily be found on the Internet by employers, landlords, schools, credit agencies, licensing boards and banks.

And if these 50,000 arrests a year are not destructive enough, we have an 18-year-old teenager who is dead, killed by the NYPD looking to make another small bust for marijuana. No one has ever died from smoking marijuana. But the war on marijuana has taken way too many lives.

Tony Newman is the director of media relations at the Drug Policy Alliance.

• Original Publisher

• Drug Policy Alliance

Phillip Smith

State legislatures have convened or are convening all around the United States, and once again this year, marijuana decriminalization or legalization are hot topics at the statehouse. Legalization bills are pending in three states (as well as on the ballot as initiatives in Washington and almost certainly Colorado), decriminalization bills are alive in nine states, and bills that would improve existing decriminalization laws have been filed in two states.

And this is still early in the legislative season. Bills can still be introduced in many states, and bills that have already been introduced can advance or be killed. By around the beginning of May, a clearer picture should emerge, but 2012 is already looking to be even more active than last year when it comes to decriminalization and legalization bills.

There's a reason for that, said leading reformers.

"We're seeing more bills introduced, and they're having stronger and more sponsors," said Karen O'Keefe, state policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). "We're also seeing more and more public support for decriminalization and legalization. We're approaching critical mass as more and more people see marijuana prohibition as a failed public policy, and in legislatures because of fiscal constraints and changing public sentiment."

"Each year, these bills are easier to introduce, there is less controversy, and the media reaction is generally neutral to positive," said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML. "Baby boomers, medical marijuana, the Internet, and the state of the economy have all had an impact, even, finally, on legislators and their staffs," he explained.

"Before 1996, nobody invited NORML; now our staff is regularly going to meetings requested by legislators around the country," St. Pierre recalled. "First, we couldn't get them to return our phone calls; now they're calling us. Everything is in play because of activists around the country doing years of work."

That contact with legislators has led to results, St. Pierre said. "We've been involved in almost all of this legislation. Either we helped write it or legislators contacted us for deep background and we're testifying at public hearings on these bills."

MPP has been busy, too, O'Keefe said. "We have paid lobbyists in Rhode Island and Vermont, and one of our legislative analysts, Matt Simon, is from New Hampshire and has been working on bills up there," she said.

Perhaps not surprisingly, O'Keefe thought the prospects of passage were best in Rhode Island and Vermont. "In Rhode Island, more than half of both chambers are cosponsors of the decriminalization bill, while in Vermont, Gov. Shumlin has been very supportive, and for the first time we have a Republican sponsor in the Senate -- we already had one in the House," she said.

Getting a marijuana bill through a state legislature is a frustrating, time-consuming process, and there is a chance that none of these bills will pass this year. But there is also a chance some will, and some will pass eventually, if not this year, next year, or the year after.

Here is what is currently going on around marijuana law reform at the state house (compiled from our Legislative Center, with additional information from MPP's list of bills and from cantaxreg.com):

Legalization Bills

Massachusetts

Thirteen months ago, Rep. Ellen Story introduced House Bill 1371, which would allow the legal and regulated sale of marijuana to adults. It was referred to the Joint Committee on Judiciary then, and it is still pending. A hearing is scheduled on March 6.

New Hampshire

Last month, Rep. Calvin Pratt (R) introduced HB 1705, which would allow people 21 and over to possess up to an ounce and allow for regulated retail and wholesale sales. Marijuana would be taxed at a rate of $45 an ounce at wholesale and at 19% of the wholesale price at retail. The bill is now before the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

Washington

Last year, Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson (D) and 13 cosponsors introduced House Bill 1550, which would replace prohibition with regulation. It and a companion bill, Senate Bill 5598, are still both alive. Dickerson's bill is pending in the House Committee on Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness.

Decriminalization Bills

Arizona

On January 9, Rep. John Fillmore (R) filed House Bill 2044, which would make possession of up to an ounce of marijuana a petty offense punishable by up to a $400 fine. Simple possession is currently a Class 6 felony in Arizona.

Hawaii

In March 2011, the Hawaii Senate passed Senate Bill 1460, which would reduce the penalty for possession of less than an ounce to a civil fine capped at $100. The current law specifies a jail stay of up to 30 days and a $1,000 fine. That bill was carried over and is now before the House Health, Public and Military Affairs, and Judiciary committees. Also carried over is House Bill 544, which would make possession of less than an ounce a violation instead of a misdemeanor and impose a maximum $500 fine. That bill is before the House Judiciary Committee.

Illinois

In January 2011, Rep. LaShawn Ford introduced House Bill 100, which would reduce the penalty for possession of up to 28.35 grams of marijuana to a $500 fine for a first offense, $750 for the second, and $1,000 for a subsequent offense. It would also reduce the charge from a misdemeanor to a petty offense. Under current law, possession of up to an ounce can be penalized with up to six months in jail and a $2,500 fine. The bill has been referred to House Rules Committee, and is still alive in Illinois' two-year session.

Indiana

Last month, Sen. Karen Tallian introduced Senate Bill 347, which would reduce several marijuana-related penalties, including by making possession of up to three ounces of marijuana a civil infraction, punishable by up to a $500 fine and court costs. SB 347 was referred to the Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters.

New Hampshire

Last week, House Bill 1526, which would decriminalize possession of up to an ounce, got a hearing in the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. Sponsored by Rep. William Panek (R),the bill would mandate a maximum $100 fine. It also provides for notification of parents of minor offenders, who could be ordered to attend a drug awareness program.

New Jersey

Last month, Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D) introduced Assembly Bill 1465, which would reduce the penalty for 15 grams or less of marijuana to a civil penalty. The first violation would be punishable by a $150 fine, $200 fine for a second offense, and $500 after that. Any adult caught three times would be ordered to undertake a drug education program, as would any minor regardless of prior offenses. The bill is currently before the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Rhode Island

Last month, more than half of the Rhode Island House of Representatives cosponsored Rep. John Edwards' bill to fine adults for simple possession of marijuana and to sentence minors to drug awareness classes. The bill, House Bill 7092, was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Current law provides for up to a year in jail and $500 fine; the bill would make it a civil offense with a maximum $150 fine.

Tennessee

In February 2011, Rep. Mike Kernell introduced House Bill 1737, which would reduce the penalty for less than 1/8 of an ounce of marijuana to a fine between $250 and $2,500. Possession would remain a Class A misdemeanor, but the bill would remove the possibility of a year-long jail sentence. Fines would remain the same.  A companion bill, Senate Bill 1597, has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both bills remain alive in the state's two-year legislative session.

Vermont

Last year, a tri-partisan group of legislators led by Rep. Jason Lorber filed House Bill 427, which would reduce the penalty for adults' possession of up to an ounce of marijuana to civil fine of up to $150. Minors would be sent to drug education and community service for a first offense, as would adults under 21 convicted of a second or subsequent offense. The current penalty for first offense possession of marijuana is a fine of up to $500 and/or up to six months in jail. Second offense possession is currently punishable by up to two years in prison and/or up to a $1,000 fine. The bill is still alive in the state's two-year legislative session. Last month, Sen. Joe Benning (R) and Sen. Philip Baruth (D) filed Senate Bill 134, which would reduce marijuana penalties, including by reducing the penalty for possession of up to two ounces of marijuana to a civil fine of up to $100. It has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Decriminalization Improvement Bills

New York

Last year, legislators filed bills aimed at removing New York City's reputation as the world's marijuana arrest capital. The state's current decriminalization law creates an exception for marijuana possessed in a public place and which is burning or open to the public view. The NYPD has used that exception to arrest more than 50,000 people a year on misdemeanor charges instead of issuing them tickets. In May, Sen. Mark Grisanti (R) filed Senate Bill 5187, while Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries introduced a companion bill, A 7620. Both bills were referred to their chambers’ Codes Committees and are still alive.

North Carolina

A bill that would reclassify possession of an ounce as an infraction instead of a misdemeanor has been filed in North Carolina. HB 324 increases the decrim amount from a half-ounce, but removes the automatic suspended sentence for a first offense.

Twelve states have decriminalized marijuana possession so far (and possession in small amounts at home is legal under the Alaska constitution), but between an initial burst of reform activity in the 1970s and Nevada's decriminalization in 2002, there were three decades of stagnation. Since then, three more states- -- California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts -- have come on board, and chances are more will follow shortly, Legalization remains a tougher nut to crack, but so far, there are opportunities in five states this year.

• Original Publisher

NORML

The enactment of state laws allowing for the limited legal use of cannabis by qualified patients has little to no causal effect on broader marijuana use, according to data published online in the journal Annals of Epidemiology.

Investigators at McGill University in Montreal obtained state-level estimates of marijuana use from the 2002 through 2009 US National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Researchers used difference-in-differences regression models to estimate the causal effect of medical cannabis laws on marijuana use, and simulations to account for measurement error.

Authors reported: “Difference-in-differences estimates suggested that passing MMLs (medical marijuana laws) decreased past-month use among adolescents … and had no discernible effect on the perceived riskiness of monthly use. … [These] estimates suggest that reported adolescent marijuana use may actually decrease following the passing of medical marijuana laws.”

They concluded, “We find limited evidence of causal effects of medical marijuana laws on measures of reported marijuana use.”

Previous investigations by researcher teams at Brown University in 2011 and Texas A&M in 2007 made similar determinations, concluding, “[C]onsistent with other studies of the liberalization of cannabis laws, medical cannabis laws do not appear to increase use of the drug.”

The findings are in direct conflict with public statements made by Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, who in recent years has frequently alleged that the passage of medical cannabis laws is directly responsible for higher levels of self-reported marijuana consumption among US teenagers.

Full text of the study, “Do Medical Marijuana Laws Increase Marijuana Use? Replication Study and Extension,” can be read online here.

• Original Publisher

• here

KVTZ News Sources

Adults caught with even small amounts of marijuana face new, steep fines of up to $5,000 under a bill introduced Friday in Oregon’s abbreviated legislative session, backers of a move to decriminalize personal marijuana use said Wednesday.

HB 4167 would raise the maximum fine for simple possession of under one ounce from $1,000 to $5,000 for a single offense.

The policy is misguided, say backers of Initiative Petition 24, a Citizens’ Initiative that would eliminate criminal penalties for the personal use of marijuana by adults.

“Oregonians know that it’s a waste of time and scarce resources to investigate and punish adults for personal marijuana use,” says IP-24 Chief Petitioner Robert Wolfe. “We want our tax dollars spent fighting real crime that hurts real people.

"It’s the same message voters sent the Legislature in 1998, the last time lawmakers tried to ‘get tough’ on marijuana.”

Supporters of IP-24 have gathered 25,000 signatures, including 10,000 from the past two weeks alone. IP-24 is sponsored by Citizens for Sensible Law Enforcement, which defeated past attempts to enhance marijuana penalties and aided in the passage of the Oregon’s Medical Marijuana Act in 1998.

“Back in 1998, voters in every single Oregon county rejected that legislative effort to increase penalties for marijuana use. Now, 14 years later, here they come again. With our measure, Citizens for Sensible Law Enforcement seeks to put an end to this wasteful policy of prohibition once and for all.” said Wolfe.

“Just as we did in 1998, we will be glad to ask voters to weigh in on whether or not law enforcement should continue to focus time and attention on punishing Oregon adults for their personal choices. We believe they will agree it’s time to end prohibition.”

IP-24 is a brief constitutional amendment that permits adults 21 and over to possess and produce marijuana for personal use. It does not allow driving under the influence or any other activity that endangers children or public safety. It does not require employers to accommodate or employ people who use marijuana.

The measure would permit the Legislature to further regulate marijuana, and delays implementation for six months to allow them to do so.

IP-24 sponsors need about 117,000 valid signatures on petitions by mid-July, and are on track to get 185,000 signatures to ensure they exceed that requirement. For more information on the campaign, please visit www.endprohibitionagain.com.

• Original Publisher

• www.endprohibitionagain.com

BJ Lutz

Illinois governor Pat Quinn signed a bill into law Monday that's meant to people to seek help if they or friends overdose on drugs.

The law -- SB1701 -- offers immunity from prosecution on minor drug charges to people who seek medical treatment for an overdose. It's hoped that people will call for an ambulance or go to an emergency room without worrying that they'll end up in jail.

Someone who is found with large amounts of drugs after reporting an overdose could still be charged. With heroin, for instance, immunity would not apply to someone carrying more than three grams.

The law goes into effect June 1.

• Original Publisher

Jamie Haase

It's hard to believe that it has already been two years since the dramatic killing of drug kingpin Arturo Beltran Leyva, as it seemed like only yesterday when the ruthless Jefe de Jefe (or boss of bosses) was gunned down by marines in Cuernavaca, Morelos -- some 50 miles south of Mexico City. Being a former special agent with the U.S. government who worked drug investigations along the Mexican border during a slice of Arturo's prime, I found myself reminiscing some over the capo's last stand recently -- as the two year anniversary of his death passed on December 16, 2011.

I'm curious what Arturo Beltran might think today, if he had the chance to look up from hell and catch a glimpse of the escalated narco war. Who knows for certain, but there's no doubt that he'd be furious to see former friend turned fiercest foe -- Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman -- still roaming free and insulated from President Calderon's reach. (Officials in Mexico have made miniscule efforts at nabbing the renowned overlord of the Sinaloa conglomerate since he escaped from prison back in 2001 -- yet the days of ignoring Joaquin Guzman might be short lived, considering El Chapo's notoriety and phenomenon are seemingly growing by the minute).

Not only would Arturo Beltran be bitter over his rival's unchanged "untouchable" status, he'd also be disgusted to learn the fate of his own drug trafficking empire, as the once powerful Beltran Leyva Organization (BLO) that he molded has been crippled into nothing more than a fragmented band of brothers, with no realistic chance of survival (as a legit and competitive drug trafficking entity) if it weren't for a forged alliance with Los Zetas. This has especially been the case since the captures of key BLO lieutenants, Sergio Villarreal Barragan and Edgar Valdez Villarreal (or El Grande and La Barbie per their corny cartel monikers). In reality though, these equally ambitious inner-operatives parted ways instantly upon their boss's death. Believing Barbie to have been Arturo's betrayer, Grande swiftly aligned himself with younger brother Hector Beltran Leyva -- who is the leader of today's splintered BLO (now known mostly as Cartel del Pacifico Sur or Los Mazatlecos).

Getting back to the dead capo's short lived resurrection; after taking in the increased death toll from the past couple of years, Arturo would probably just curse his betrayers and then return to the flames -- knowing full well that the place he's in isn't much worse than the one he left two years ago. The drug lord's killing is significant to me for an array of reasons, but mainly because it's the most vivid event that opened my eyes to the federal government's failed and wasted war on drugs, especially pertaining to the stagnated and archaic prohibition of marijuana -- and it wasn't necessarily his death that triggered it for me, but rather the ironic timing of it.

December 2009 was a whirlwind month, I had literally just returned to Washington D.C., after having worked on the border for several months. I'd been a criminal investigator with Immigration and Customs Enforcement's office of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) who volunteered for a temporary duty assignment in the southwest -- ultimately landing on the Border Enforcement Security Taskforce in Laredo, Texas. Most of the taskforce's investigations were focused on preventing money and guns from being smuggled south of the border into the hands of Mexican cartels (excluding the firearms from Fast and Furious type operations, obviously). Looking back now, I can't recall how many millions of dollars were seized from narco traffickers while I was there, but much of it was destined for awaiting Beltran Leyva leadership below the Rio Grande -- and probably 70 percent of that was cash money being sent back as payment for marijuana loads that had already been trucked up north into the United States via Interstate 35.

It's well known that Los Zetas (under the leadership of Miguel Trevino Morales, or Z40), are the primary gatekeepers of the corridors that bridge Laredo, Texas with her sister city Nuevo Laredo in Tamaulipas, Mexico -- but Arturo Beltran was a close ally at the time and his presence in the region was profound. He initially partnered with the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas at the beginning of 2008, after exiling from Guzman's Sinaloa Cartel. The divorce between Beltran Leyva and Guzman was apparently triggered after Chapo instigated the arrest of Alfredo Beltran Leyva -- a cockier younger brother of Arturo who was becoming overtly unruly and ambitious. Guzman's decision to drop a dime on Alfredo was most likely an attempt to reign in the wandering influence of the Beltran Leyva family, but with the spider web of deceit that is the narco underworld, the betrayal could've also been a simple offering that maximized even more protection and immunity for Chapo himself. Either way, Alfredo's arrest on January 20, 2008, sparked a full blown civil war between opposing loyalists in Sinaloa -- which is Mexico's most notorious drug trafficking state. The fallout violence soon peaked in northwestern Mexico as a result of the inner Sinaloa clash, most notably after a group of Arturo's gunmen carried out the bazooka wielding assassination of Chapo Guzman's 22-year-old son, Edgar Guzman Lopez, in the parking lot of a Culiacan supermarket on May 8, 2008.

It is easy to sidetrack and drift astray when it comes to the intricacies and minutia of the ever-evolving drug war, but for all of the aforementioned reasons my mind stayed finely tuned on Mexico's plight -- even after I completed my tour on the southwest border and returned home to Alexandria, Virginia. Needless to say, I was initially floored to learn the fate of Arturo Beltran when I first turned on the news on December 17, 2009, and it was almost surreal to witness the amount of mainstream coverage that was being devoted to the relatively obscure capo. The grizzly realities that are common place in Mexico are often excluded from national news outlets here in the U.S., though to this day I can't quite wrap my head around why -- considering that this chaos is taking place in our own backyard. In any regard, being a halfway seasoned criminal investigator and all -- it didn't take long to see past the facade and understand why this particular story was getting so much attention from the media. Arturo Beltran was the highest ranking narco to be "immobilized" since President Calderon declared an all-out war against drug traffickers in December 2006, and with the violence continuing to mount in late 2009, both the Mexican government and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration were jonesing at the bit for positive scraps to feed to the press.

For anyone unfamiliar with the blaze of glory that transpired on December 16, 2009, Arturo Beltran was hiding out with a handful of trusted bodyguards in an apartment in the trendy city of Cuernavaca -- which again is about an hour's drive south of the Federal District (Mexico City). He'd been speeding on cocaine and on the lam for the past week, ever since having eluded marines from Mexico's Navy (SEMAR) on December 11th. Arturo escaped the first raid thanks mostly to luck and loyalty, as his freedom came at the expense of three bodyguards who were gunned down during the operation -- meanwhile 11 more were apprehended which freed up enough time for the capo to slip through the cracks. The subsequent manhunt consisted of approximately 200 special ops marines from SEMAR, and their tool belt now included air and artillery support. Obviously no amount of luck or loyalty could've saved Beltran from the jam he was barricaded in this second go-round. Perhaps he could've turned himself in, assuming surrendering was even an option to begin with, but the Jefe de Jefe was old-school and probably dreamt of going out with this sort of legacy.

The marines from SEMAR are elite naval commandos, and they're regarded and respected similarly to that of Special Forces outfits here in the United States. Due to their prominence, the amphibious unit is one of the most incorruptible military forces in Mexico, which is why they're so highly prized when it comes to hunting down infamous kingpins (many of whom with eyes and ears "bought" at the highest levels of government to ensure their protection). Coincidentally, Arturo Beltran will probably go down as one of Mexico's most influential puppet masters when it comes to his skill of persuasion. One of his biggest catches was Noe Ramirez Mandujano, the former head of SIEDO, which is the primary investigative division within Mexico's Office of the Attorney General. At one point Ramirez was bribed to the tune of $450,000 a month for providing the Beltran Leyva clan with information related to the government's movements against drug trafficking groups.

Getting back to the operation from December 16, 2009 (and to make a long story short), acting on intelligence from the U.S. government, SEMAR forces made their move against Arturo Beltran with stealth -- taking no chance of another embarrassing miss. Approximately 100 troops secured the perimeter from the ground, while dozens more repelled to the apartment rooftops from helicopters. Witnesses stated that gunfire droned the upscale community for 90 minutes or so, as the military systematically gunned down Arturo's remaining patriots (one of which was rumored to have been shot in the back mid-air after desperately throwing himself from a top window). Arturo Beltran then sealed his own legacy as he absorbed multiple fatal rounds while collapsing to his knees (apparently with a machine gun in one hand and a grenade pin in the other). When the dust finally cleared, the lifeless bodies of Arturo and six body guards littered the complex grounds. Meanwhile the military suffered one casualty of their own, after a marine succumbed to wounds from a grenade blast.

After the assault was over, some of the troops made a costly mistake by taking trophy photos of Beltran's mangled body covered in bloody pesos and dollar bills. Posing for pics with their catch might have provided some temporary amusement, but their arrogance only fueled the flames more -- as it rubbed the "Don's" death into the faces of his many payroll loyalists. Another senseless and consequential decision made by the authorities was to release the name of the marine who was killed to the press. Melquisedet Angulo Cordova had been a third petty officer with the Navy Special Forces when he died from grenade fragments during the operation. His funeral was held five days later and he was buried with the highest of military honors in his home state of Tabasco. During the ceremony, his mother was presented with a folded flag from the Secretary of the Navy, Mariano Francisco Saynez Mendoza.

Later on that evening, at just a little past midnight and only hours after the funeral, a caravan of gunmen stormed inside the Cordova residence and fired nearly three dozen rounds into the sleeping occupants (killing everyone inside). Sadly this included Angulo's brother, sister, aunt, and most tragic of all -- his mother, Irma Palma Cordova. In a statement to a reporter the previous day, Irma had said: "Thinking as a mother, I used to feel very sad and hurt for the families of soldiers and police who had been killed. It would make me cry," she said. "And now, now it is my turn."

-- rest in peace Miss Irma, and thankfully you didn't have to cry for too long.

This tragedy resonated with me for some reason, and it's actually hard to pinpoint and put into words. Whenever I think about the ill-begotten drug war today, I can't keep this horrific scenario from entering my mind. And even though I've seen hundreds of images with mutilated corpses (literally stacked limb upon limb most of the times), it will always be the Cordova story that gives me the biggest kick in the ass to advocate against drug prohibition. It was primarily this event -- rather than the death of Arturo Beltran -- that fully opened my eyes to the atrocity that is cloaked as "the war on drugs". These are the types of demonic happenings that occur routinely in Mexico as a result of the U.S.'s murderous drug policies, yet coincidentally these stories aren't blasted across every major news outlet like the fall of a prominent drug lord (i.e. Arturo Beltran Leyva, Ignacio Coronel, Antonio Cardenas Guillen, etc.). The Cordova's died in vain, as have tens of thousands of innocents who've suffered the same fate as a result of prohibition's deadly futility. How many of these lives could have been saved if marijuana alone had been previously legalized in the United States? Who knows for sure, but a calculated guess could be made from the fact that at least 50 percent of cartels' profits are derived from planting, harvesting, and smuggling cannabis northbound to consumers in the United States.

By the way, the capo's funeral wasn't much different than the decorated marine's, except Arturo's occurred a day earlier and it was held at the Humaya Gardens Cemetery in Culician, Sinaloa. This cemetery is where Sinaloa's most elite Dons are laid to rest. Many of the mausoleums within this narco paradise are multi-storied, and made out of gold and marble to honor the idolized crime barons. Arturo Beltran's family crypt was awaiting him ahead of time, and his funeral was actually smaller and less gaudy than expected. While there were several female relatives and admirers there for his support, most of the males in his court stayed at home and paid their respects privately -- versus confronting the barrage of media and military who filled the magnified cemetery.

To put Arturo Beltran's killing into perspective, the DEA practically hailed his death to be greater than anything since sliced bread (though that wasn't their exact choice of words). Just a short while after the operation, the DEA's intelligence chief -- Anthony Placido stated: "Nobody left out there has the extensive contacts that Arturo had. He moved thousands of metric tons of drugs into the United States, including cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin," Placido said. "In addition to that ... he is responsible for much of the violence in Mexico. Arturo Beltran Leyva wasn't a big fish. He was a whale."

Though frustrating, I can't help but brush off some of those comments. For starters, I'm in awe that he actually said there wasn't anyone left out there with the extensive contacts that Arturo Beltran had. Secondly, I'm bewildered by the fact that marijuana is completely left out of the equation. Revenues from marijuana smuggling produce the majority of capital for Mexican drug trafficking organizations, and in the case of the Beltran Leyva Organization, I witnessed it firsthand. Yes, Arturo had plenty of contacts in the South American Andes, and for sure cocaine earned his organization boat loads of cash -- but the coca plant played second fiddle to cannabis sativa as it nearly always does with the cartels in Mexico. Yet this DEA executive is reluctant to utter the "M" word, perhaps out of fear that mainstream America might soon wake up to the role that marijuana prohibition is having in the killing games being played out below the Rio Grande.

The point of this article is to ask where we are now after eliminating a handful of key players south of the border: Do these anomaly killings do any real good in the long run? Of course not, and if anything these actions just make things worse as younger generations begin cannibalizing one another for the top spot. In the long-run, cutting the head off the snake proves deadlier in the end, and creates an environment that is even less stable. This point is perfectly illustrated in the fine points of a recently leaked memo from Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

The memo consisted of a CBP analysis that measured the variances of narcotics seizures along the border in relation to the arrests or killings of significant cartel figureheads. The findings were crystal clear, and they revealed that removing high level narcos has absolutely no bearing on drug seizure rates. This begs the question then, if removing critical targets proves to accomplish nothing when it comes to interrupting the flow of narcotics -- then what will it take for the violence to subside? Drug consumption in the United States won't ever be eliminated, especially when it comes to marijuana -- as studies consistently show an increase in the number of Americans using cannabis. Also, the birth rates in Mexico aren't dropping any time soon, and neither are the country's economic hardships. This can only mean that there will be even longer lines of ambitious killers waiting to fill the opportunistic voids that come with dismantling cartels from the top down. This is a terrifying phenomenon considering the morbid grotesqueness of Mexico's narco violence seems to sink to new lows with each replenished generation -- also the gender barriers of old that once segregated females from having active roles in the tortures and killings have diminished today as well.

Going back to the economic hardships for a second, it is plainly evident that poverty is not what is causing the root problem in Mexico, as there are numerous poor and rural communities living in relative harmony there (and across the rest of the world for that matter). Rather, the problem stems from a lethally competitive -- multi-billion dollar illicit industry that is constantly tempting and staring into the faces of millions of disillusioned youths. I'm far from being any type of sociologist, but it seems that the profitability of the drug trade, mixed with a sickening obsession of the narco culture in general, is what's mostly responsible for Mexico's present insecurity. And again being someone who has worked on the permeable border, I know firsthand that any hardships facing Mexico aren't solely restricted to that country. The wisest and really only solution left at this point is to eliminate any and all opportunities to prosper from an industry as evil as the illegal drug trade. It is pure common sense to many of us I know, but there are still several opponents who think that legalizing drugs won't change anything as far as the violence goes -- as there will still be human trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, oil theft, auto theft, piracy, and counterfeiting for the cartels to fall back on. However I'd place a decent wager on the fact that authorities in Mexico would be much more proficient at ridding their nation of these types of scoundrels if all of their drug interdiction time was freed up. Even still, I'd place a heftier bet on the fact that opportunities from drug trafficking (again mostly marijuana) led the majority of these same scoundrels into criminal enterprising in the first place. But maybe that's just my take.

Jamie Haase, a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, served as a special agent with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

• Original Publisher

Scott Morgan

You may think legalizing marijuana is such a great idea, but what if it's actually the worst idea ever? Here's someone who believes the latter, and they've written a letter to their local newspaper explaining why:

What about the children’s day care workers? If they smoke it and their senses are dulled by its use and they drop little Johnny on his head, whose fault is it now? If it’s legalized, there is no crime and no recourse for problems it causes. You may be able to sue for a wrongful death or injuries incurred, but other than that there’s been no crime.
...
The same situation will apply if the driving under the influence of it causes an accident. The police can’t intervene on a situation that isn’t a crime. Please think about these things, it is a big deal and it opens a can of worms that we will pay for the rest of our lives. [emissourian.com]

If even one sentence of this impressively incoherent editorial made any sense at all, I suppose I'd be in a different line of work. Heck, I might even be dead. We might all be dead, slaughtered ironically by the very people whose job it was to care for us while our parents were at work. After all, at the risk of terrifying the above editorial's author, marijuana is already being grown, sold, and smoked in every neighborhood in America (except the South Bronx, where they've now captured every single offender).

Fortunately, things aren't actually that bad in real life, especially if you're not a paranoid idiot. For example, our foremost concerns about bad things happening at day care centers can be resolved satisfactorily in almost every case simply by choosing a facility with a good reputation for not killing the children.

What we have here, and it's hardly a rarity in the marijuana debate, is a bit of a mix up between the rather divergent concepts of legalizing simple possession of marijuana vs. legalizing extraordinary acts of recklessness or insanity whose perpetrator happens to have consumed marijuana prior to the incident. The idea is that walking down the street with a gram of pot in your pocket would no longer be a crime. Walking down the street throwing snakes at people and screaming voodoo curses would still be illegal, but the amount of pot in your pocket at the time would be considered irrelevant at trial.

In other words, the answer to the question "whose fault is it now?" would be the same after legalization as before. If you drop a kid, crash a car, or throw a snake at somebody, it's your fault. If marijuana was involved, it's still your fault for consuming marijuana, not marijuana's fault for being consumed by you. That's the rule for alcohol, and in case anyone somehow managed not to notice, it has yet to turn our day care centers into drunken death camps. 

• Original Publisher

Phillip Smith

In a groundbreaking move, the New Mexico legislature has approved a proposal to study how to enhance and expand the state's already cutting edge harm reduction programs, including a look a medically supervised injection sites (SIJs -- sometimes also known as safe injection sites) for hard drug users. That could clear the way for an eventual SIJ pilot program to operate in the state, although considerable political and legal hurdles remain.

The legislation, Senate Memorial 45, was sponsored by Sen. Richard Martinez, whose constituency includes Rio Arriba County, which has a drug overdose fatality rate five times the state's rate. The state's rate is double the national rate, making New Mexico the nation's leader in drug overdose-related deaths per capita.

"These deaths are preventable," said Martinez. "Overdose spares no one and affects everyone, especially families."

State health officials estimate the state has at least 24,000 injection drug users. Other estimates put that figure as high as 50,000.

The memorial, which was also endorsed by the New Mexico Public Health Association, passed the Senate on a 43-0 vote Monday night and does not need any further action to go into effect. It directs the University of New Mexico's Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy Center to undertake the study of emerging and evidence-based harm reduction approaches, including SIJs, and report back to the legislature by November 1.

"Sadly, our drug overdose epidemic has outgrown our current harm reduction approaches," said Emily Kaltenbach, director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) New Mexico office. "On Monday, our state senators realized this and did not let politics trump science. They clearly stated their intent to go beyond the status quo and explore innovative strategies to help New Mexico’s families."

"Wow, getting something like that on the state level is huge," said Hilary McQuie, Western director for the Harm Reduction Coalition (HRC). "New Mexico once again takes the lead in state harm reduction efforts; it's one of the few states to take a statewide approach to these things."

"Heroin is still the number one cause of ODs here, but we're also seeing a high number of prescription drug overdose deaths," said Kaltenbach, "so I'm incredibly encouraged that the legislature is willing to look beyond the status quo and start studying proven programs like supervised injection sites. We're hoping to study the feasibility and legal and ethical implications, leading to a pilot site in New Mexico."

If that actually happens, it would be the first SIJ in the nation. Although SIJS are operating in at least 27 cities around the world, including Vancouver and Sydney, and have been proven to reduce the spread of HIV, Hep C, and other blood-borne diseases, as well as prevent overdoses, without increasing criminality or drug use, political and legal obstacles in the US have so far prevented them from spreading here. They face morality-based opposition as well as federal issues including a "crack house law," which bars anyone from knowingly allowing others to use controlled substances.

"These same sorts of issues came up when syringe exchange programs were first discussed," said Kaltenbach. "I think the legal issues can be overcome, but the states have to be willing to look at it as an extension of syringe exchange. This study will address those issues."

While New Mexico is the first state to order a study of SIJs, it isn't the only place in the country where they are on the agenda. In San Francisco, drug user groups, activists, and advocates are working toward winning approval for one there, while in New York City, a similar effort is going on.

"The biggest obstacle is the perception of legal barriers," said DPA's Laura Thomas, who has been working on the San Francisco effort. "We have these crack house statutes, as well as state laws, that say it's illegal to knowingly allow people to use controlled substances. We have to figure out if there's room for a research project, like in Sydney, or create an exemption, like in Vancouver, or get a state law passed, like in New Mexico. We need a ruling that says 'yes,' this is not a violation."

In the meantime, the achingly slow process of building political support for an SIJ, or at least a feasibility study, goes forward. A year ago this week, a city Hep C task force recommended looking at SIJs. That followed on a similar recommendation from the city's HIV coalition.

"We continue to try to build support for a safe injection site," said Thomas. "During the mayoral campaign last year, at one of the candidate forums, they were all asked if they would support evaluating whether it would work for San Francisco, and most of them said they did, including our current city attorney, Ed Herrera."

But despite the recommendations and expressions of support, nothing has happened yet. The San Francisco Drug Users' Union is trying to change that.

"We will be pressing the Board of Supervisors to study the possibilities," said the group's Isaac Jackson. "We're also doing a SIJ community design competition, a project in community imagineering. We'll give the winner a nominal prize and we'll present the winning design to the Board," he said.

"We think the city's Human Rights Commission will recommend safe injection sites in April," said HRC's McQuie. "But there have been other bodies and other recommendations. It's a matter of where the political will is and the priorities are."

For HRC, said McQuie, getting a safe injection site up and running in San Francisco is a back burner issue right now, but that could change.

"We have a lot of really great harm reduction projects going on, like the DOPE Project, that aren't getting financial support, and while there was a lot of enthusiasm for awhile about working toward a safe injection site, we kept planning meetings, but nobody would show up. It didn't feel like the energy was there. If the San Francisco Drug Users' Union wants to take some leadership, we would be happy to support it," said McQuie. "I think we will be going back to San Francisco and asking somebody to do something on this issue, but we're not sure who yet."

On the other side of the country, street-level activists are aiming for an SIJ in New York City. Citiwide Harm Reduction in the South Bronx, which is on the verge of opening the city's first fully staffed primary care clinic at a syringe exchange, is preparing to build a full-scale model of an SIJ at its 144th Street building. It may seem like performance act, but its purpose is educational.

"Our inspiration is the Smithsonian museums, where you can go inside the cockpit of the space shuttle," said Citiwide executive director Robert Cordero. "People have this grisly misconception of what a safe injection site would be like, and we want them to be able to have this Smithsonian experience here in the Bronx."

Such a model could be quite useful in educating elected officials and law enforcement, Cordero said.

"SIJs are a humane public health approach to reducing overdoses, HIV, Hep C, and crime, and can provide compassionate care for addicted people until they are ready to get into treatment," he said. "Do we want that, or do we want them just hanging out in front of the bodegas on 149th all day?"

Citiwide isn't going it alone on agitating for SIJs, and it isn't even taking the lead. Instead it is working with groups like HRC and the Vocals-NY Users' Union in a broader campaign.

"We're not trying to be the HRC or Vocals-NY," said Cordero. "We advocate through demonstrating what it would be like while partnering with others who are advocating every day. Our effort is to build the SIJ model, and when anyone comes to New York who is interested in these issues, there can be an educational moment."

Supervised injection sites are not a reality yet in the US, but pressure for them is mounting. Whether it's New Mexico, New York City, or San Francisco, one of these years someone is going to lead the US into the ranks of nations that understand their utility -- and their humanity. New Mexico has just taken a giant step, but let's hope it has to move fast to beat San Francisco and New York.
 

• Original Publisher

Terrance Friday

For the fourth year in a row, Senator Deborah Dawkins of Pass Christian is submitting another proposal in an effort to legalize the use of medical marijuana in Mississippi.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug in the United States. On the flip side, experts say when used for medicinal purposes, the often frowned upon substance can be quite useful. That's why Senator Deborah Dawkins is working hard to legalize its medical use in our state.

"I think most people want their doctors to help them make their own decisions. And to me, we're taking something away from the patients and their physicians," Dawkins said.

A number of studies have shown that some attributes of the cannabis plant can relieve pain, control nausea, and help with a long list of other ailments. As of now, 16 states and the District of Columbia have already legalized the use of medical marijuana.

Dawkins wants Mississippi added to that list, especially since a lab at the University of Mississippi is already involved. The lab serves as the federal government's marijuana repository, growing the plant for research facilities across the country.

"It's something that seems very unfair. That we in Mississippi provide this medicine, that's what it is, medicine, for people in other states and not in our very own," Dawkins said.
 

• Original Publisher