80 Percent of Pennsylvanians Support Legalizing Marijuana for Medical Purposes

He’s in his 30s now, a man with serious health issues, never figuring he’d be in the position he is now: a regular marijuana user.

Back in his high school days, he remembers, he used to scorn the pot smokers. He was an athlete, and saw drug use as inconsistent with sports.

“I would make fun of those kids, call them potheads” said the Lehigh Valley man, who did not want his name published because he’s breaking Pennsylvania law nearly every day. “Now I guess I am.”
He is a big supporter of a bill pending in the state Legislature that would legalize the use of marijuana for medical reasons. The bill was introduced by Rep. Mark Cohen, D-Philadelphia, who concedes that he does not yet have the votes to pass it. He’s sure the time will come.

The bill has set off a spirited debate between those who see marijuana as a helpful medical substance, and those who see the bill as merely a precursor in an attempt to legalize marijuana generally, and also fear it is a gateway to other drug abuse.

Cohen’s proposal is under discussion as a survey showing that some 80 percent of Pennsylvanians are in favor of making marijuana legal for medical purposes.

The survey, by two Franklin & Marshall College staff members, also showed that only 33 percent of the state’s voters favor the outright legalization of marijuana, a development that is one of the root fears of those who oppose the medical marijuana bill.

“Even though there is broad popular support for legalizing medical marijuana in the state, prospects for its legalization seems slim,” wrote the two college surveyors, G. Terry Madonna, director of the center for politics and public affairs and Berwood Yost, director of the center for public research.
That kind of public policy debate is interesting to the Lehigh Valley man who now smokes pot daily in order to ease the pain of his treatments for lymphoma. He was diagnosed with the disease in 2008, after having served in the Army in Iraq.

He began chemo therapy at a hospital near his Lehigh Valley home, and with it, he began a regimen of drugs designed to ease the nausea and pain that came with the treatments and the disease.

One drug alone cost him, out of pocket, $400, for pills to fight nausea. He was also taking two different pain medications. The result, he said, was that he slept all the time, or sometimes not at all, wasn’t eating, was losing weight, and couldn’t work. “I was a zombie for 20 hours a day,” he said.

He told an old Army pal what was going on, and the friend told him about marijuana. “You’re not going to believe it,” the friend told him.

He stopped taking most of the pain medications, and instead, now gets about a half-ounce of marijuana each week, and uses a vaporizer to inhale it every night after work. He said vaporizing it somehow doesn’t make him high, but it does ease the pain, and has really re-made his life.

He feels relaxed for the first time since his diagnosis; he has gained 22 pounds, and is now once again working regularly. Moreover, a sense of anger that he had been carrying around since his diagnosis disappeared, and he no longer feels hung over from the drugs. The marijuana costs him about $50 per month, he said, far less than the prescription drugs he had been taking.

Situations like his are at the center of the debate about medical marijuana.

Leading the opposition to the bill is Rep. Matthew Baker, R-Tioga County, who fears that a medical marijuana bill is actually a “Trojan horse to legalize the use of pot throughout the nation.”
He quotes a 2006 Federal Drug Administration report that says, “no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States…”

He believes many Republicans and Democrats are opposed to medical marijuana. Asked what then might be motivating Cohen, he offers the view that Cohen, of Philadelphia, represents a far more liberal constituency than some other legislators, including himself.

That is one of the few points on which Cohen and Baker agree – that his constituency is more liberal that Baker’s.

Madonna and Yost, in their survey report, address the demographic issue this way:
“Support for legalizing marijuana declines with age, among self-described conservatives, and with born-again Christians,” the report said.

But, they went on to say, “Just about every demographic group supports the use of medical marijuana, but the likelihood of supporting it is higher among women than men, among liberals and moderates than conservatives, and among those who do not consider themselves born-ahead Christians.”
How many people actually use marijuana?

The National Institute on Drug Abuse said a 2007 survey showed that 14.4 million Americans over the age of 12 had used marijuana at least once in the month before being surveyed.
The marijuana advocacy group called the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) says pot has been used by some 100 million Americans overall, and that it ranks just behind alcohol and tobacco in popularity among recreational drugs.

In Pennsylvania, the figure for pot users is based on guesswork. Chris Goldstein, a Philadelphia NORML chapter board member, said there are 40,000 arrests in the state for possession each year, and that’s not nearly enough to put a dent in traffic. He guesstimaed that one in three Pennsylvania adults use marijuana.

Many believe there is a link between that kind of pot use and the “graduation” to harder drugs. One of those people is Sharon Smith, of Mechanicsburg, who Baker suggested as an interview subject.
Smith’s daughter Angela, then 18, died of a heroin overdose in 1998, her body discovered in a creek. She said her daughter began smoking pot at the age of 14, but then graduated to harder drugs until finally she ended up a heroin user.

Smith is vehemently opposed to drugs, and has been crusading against them ever since. She operates a web site called www.momstell.org.

Cohen, who is the chairman of the House Health Committee, where Democrats hold the majority, dismisses the complaints of critics in the other camp that say that pot can be addictive and lead to harder drug use.

“It may be as addictive as chocolate,” he said in an interview.

That is at some odds with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which says that “long term marijuana abuse” can lead to addiction.”Long-term marijuana abusers trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit,” the institute said.

Cohen argues that marijuana is widely available now.

“People who want marijuana know how to get it,” he said.

He compared the legalization of marijuana to the change in gambling laws. Years ago, he noted, the illegal numbers racket in most American cities made money off of gambling. Then the state decided to get into the lottery business, and the money – rather than going to illegal gamblers – goes to help senior citizens.

But he knows he doesn’t have the support to move the bill for a vote now.

“I think people are used to striking an anti-drug pose,” he said.

- Article from The Patriot-News.

Video: MARIJUANA SUPERSTORE OPENS!!

Schwarzenegger Signs Bill Reducing Offense For Marijuana Possession

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes Proposition 19, which would legalize the recreational use of marijuana, but he offered a consolation Thursday by signing a bill that would downgrade possession of an ounce or less from a misdemeanor to an infraction.

SB 1449 was written by state Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who said it will keep marijuana-related cases from going to court-clogging jury trials, although the penalty would remain a fine of up to $100 but no jail time.

"Notwithstanding my opposition to Proposition 19, however, I am signing this measure because possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is an infraction in everything but name," Schwarzenegger wrote in a signing message.

"In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement, and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket."

The governor’s action was denounced by Randy Thomasson, president of saveCalifornia.com.

"This virtual legalization of marijuana definitely sends the wrong message to teenagers and young adults," Thomasson said. “It invites youth to become addicted to mind-altering pot because there's not much hassle and no public stigma and no rehab if they’re caught."

Not surprisingly, the governor was praised by Dale Gieringer, director of California NORML, which supports legalization.

"Gov. Schwarzenegger deserves credit for sparing the state's taxpayers the cost of prosecuting minor pot offenders," Gieringer said. "Californians increasingly recognize that the war on marijuana is a waste of law enforcement resources."

The new law takes effect Jan 1, 2011.

- Article from The Los Angeles Times.

Sorry for not posting yesterday. Very Busy

Working on more awesome stuff to make this blog better. 

Here is a news clip, 

regular posting will resume as scheduled, See ya on Friday. 

Peace & Green

SWAT: Stop Waste and Terror (w/ Video Included)

On February 11, 2010 police in Columbia, Missouri served a search warrant at the home of a suspected marijuana dealer at a residence on Kinloch Court. At the time, all narcotics search warrants were being served by SWAT teams. The police had videotaped the raid for training purposes and it was obtained by the Columbia Tribune and posted on YouTube.com in early May. The now infamous video of the incident went viral, appearing under several different handles and collecting over 2 million views and counting.

In the four-and-a-half minute video, police enter the home, unload seven rounds of ammunition into the family dogs and manhandle the compliant suspect in front of his wife and 7-year-old son. His mother leads the crying child out of the hallway as the police follow a wounded and retreating dog into the kitchen to kill it.

Seattle Hempfest 2010: Planet's Largest Pot Festival (w/ Video Included)

Seattle Hempfest, the world's largest annual "cannabis re-legalization protestival", is less than a week away, from August 21-22.

Organizers say this years' event, which stretches across three Seattle waterfront parks and features live music and speeches from well-known cannabis activists, will focus on "responsible use and harm reduction".

"Hempfest is addressing the issue of responsible use this year because we have both an opportunity and a responsibility to guarantee that everyone in our audience, especially youth, gets a balanced message," said Hempfest Executive Director Vivian McPeak. "There is a conversation America needs to be having regarding cannabis. Only half of that conversation is about changing the law. The other half addresses how we can effectively integrate cannabis into mainstream America, and that part of the conversation involves responsible use and harm reduction."

Admission to Seattle Hempfest is free but, due to funding worries, a suggested $10 donation is being requested by organizers to help offset the estimated $350,000 operating cost.

The traditionally bustling event, which has grown to include over 300,000 attendees a year, features speakers and performers on several stages and hundreds of vendor booths selling t-shirts, pipes, bongs, jewelry, books, magazines and other pot-themed paraphernalia.

This year's roster of over 80 speakers includes Cannabis Culture's own Jodie Emery, NORML director Allen St. Pierre, Washington State Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles and ganja-growing guru Ed Rosenthal and musical acts like Green Jelly, The Herbivores, and Grammy-nominated hip hop artist Skee-Lo and Layzie Bone from Bone Thugs-n-Harmony.

Seattle Hempfest was started 19 years ago and is run by an all-volunteer staff. The event spans three Seattle waterfront parks: Elliott Bay Park (North Entrance), Myrtle Edwards Park, and Olympic Sculpture Park (South Entrance). Click here for a map

According to organizers, Hempfest 2010 is dedicated to late 'Hemperor' Jack Herer, author of the pivotal cannabis book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes, who spoke at last year's event before passing away in April. A new reprint of his book will be available at this year’s event.

Click here to visit Seattle Hempfest's official website

Dennis Peron, Pot Guru, Raided by San Francisco Cops

Things haven't been going well for Dennis Peron lately. Peron, one of the authors of Proposition 215 -- the 1996 voter initiative legalizing marijuana for medical purposes in California -- is on the outs with some cannabis advocates for his staunch opposition to Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana for recreational purposes. In April, he was laid low by a stroke, which led him to sell off a downtown Los Angeles hotel he'd been renovating and focus instead on running the Castro Castle, a pot-friendly inn of sorts he keeps on 17th Street. Then, last week, the San Francisco Police Department came knocking there, according to Peron.

Details are hazy -- and no "official" account from authorities yet exists -- but Peron says the following happened: Members of the SFPD's narcotics unit entered the Castle, at 3745 17th Street, at around 4 p.m. on August 4. They took 12 people into custody -- guests at the inn and some employees, including Peron, who spent the night in jail, he said. Officers also seized an undisclosed amount of cash, 12 laptop computers -- Peron's laptop and the machines of his guests -- prescription drugs belonging to some of his guests, and a pound of marijuana, Peron said.

The following morning, Peron and his crew were released from custody "without so much as a word," he told SF Weekly.

The SFPD Media Relations unit could not immediately confirm the raid when contacted Sunday and Monday, but promised to provide details sometime today. A spokesman for District Attorney Kamala Harris confirmed the raid Monday, and said that no charges were filed -- but could be later. No other information is available "pending an ongoing investigation," said Seth Seward, an assistant district attorney with Harris's office.

The story broke over the weekend in the blogs, where speculation flew and continues to fly:

Peron was targeted because it's the 14th anniversary of the raid of his SF Buyers' Club. Peron was targeted by the same police who nearly killed him in a 1978 raid. Peron was targeted by the Fagans, former chief of police Alex, Sr. and former patrol officer Alex, Jr., best known from the Fajitagate scandal (that'd be a neat trick, as neither of them are still with the department, or have been for some time). Peron was targeted because he hangs out with younger men, who sometimes play with methamphetamine, which is of course illegal. But was it one of these, all of these, none of these? Peron has no idea.

"That's the story right now, 'Why?'" said Peron during an interview Monday at the Castro Castle. "Why me and why now?"

All the marijuana was legal, according to Peron: "It was mine. I grew it and I was in the process of smoking it." Peron admitted that two other people mentioned in the search warrant -- a copy of which SF Weeklyhas requested -- were "tweekers," but "neither of them live here or have any connection with [the Castro Castle]," he said.

So until the official version emerges from the Hall of Justice, the world is left with very little, aside from this: One of the key figures in California's medical marijuana movement was raided last week and his stash was taken. He hasn't been charged with anything, and he doesn't know why any of it happened.

Harassment? Maybe. Meth-related? Who knows. Peron, loquacious even after his April stroke, has his own theories, of course.

"If you ask me, it's an embarrassment for the San Francisco Police Department," he told SF Weekly. "They're taking this marijuana thing out to the very end, no matter what."

- Article from SF Weekly

Video: 'The Young and the Restless' Star Wants Marijuana Legalized

California Marijuana Supporters Lead in Campaign Cash

Supporters of a ballot initiative seeking to legalize recreational use of marijuana in California have raised more money than their opponents, even as the proposition is struggling to gain favor.

Proposition 19 on the November ballot would allow adults to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and local governments to tax its sales.

Campaign finance reports filed Monday show two groups supporting the initiative raised more than $316,000 between April 1 and June 30 and have nearly $162,000 cash on hand.

The main group opposing the initiative has nearly $19,000 cash on hand and raised about $41,000.

Supporters say legalization will raise tax revenue, while critics say it would increase pot use and crime. A recent Field Poll shows more voters opposing the initiative than supporting it.

- Article from AFP.

PLEASE DONATE or VOLUNTEER to help YES ON 19 CONROL & TAX CANNABIS

11 Reasons to End Cannabis Prohibition In Canada

With California heading to a decision on marijuana legalization later this year, the debate is gaining some well deserved exposure in Canada. A reversal of archaic thinking should prevail on reversing prohibition, and Canada should lead down this path.


Here are 11 powerful reasons to end prohibition of cannabis:

1. Legalization would eliminate the estimated $10 billion collected each year in B.C. alone, by gangs ranging from the H.A. to U.N.

2. Gangs exchange marijuana for harder drugs such as cocaine from South of the border, which come into Canada in large quantities, and feed the drug distribution “pushing” system.

3. Shipments of marijuana into the U.S. also get exchanged for American made guns.

4. The price of marijuana will overnight crash to 10% or less of current levels.

5. Legalization would bring much needed tax revenues.

6. Legalization would dramatically reduce whatever effect marijuana might have as a gateway drug – when you eliminate the financial benefit on the street, you eliminate the exposure to the “pusher.” When you eliminate contact with the pusher you eliminate much of the exposure to hard drugs.

7. Allowing Canadians to grow a maximum of 5 plants for personal use, for example, would eliminate the thousands of dangerous, energy sucking, destructive grow ops that the police claim exist in surprising numbers. Apparently 1 in 4 homes in large swaths of Surrey, B.C. are grow ops.

8. Canada would save billions of dollars currently spent on the whole process of catching, charging, “trialing,” and incarcerating users. The enormous bureaucracy burdening the taxpayers, would shrink dramatically. The vocal voices currently against legalization, beside the pushers, include those who financially benefit from existing laws.

9. Overnight you will find that unsafe, spiked marijuana will disappear.

10. Test labs would bring conformity, awareness and a certain degree of safety to consumption. There are 500 cannabinoids in cannabis which can have different effects depending on their degree of presence in the samples. Along with cannabinoid analysis, laboratories could test for fungal, bacterial, e.coli and pesticide screening. “Certification,” would bring a degree of safety and standardization of protocols to what is now a very often dangerous product.

11. Medicinal cannabis use has broad support and cannabis has been proven effective in dealing with pain. Safe cannabis should be made available to sufferers through certified dispensaries.
The spread of hard drugs is disintegrating large portions of Canadian society. The power and reach of the networks that push the hard drugs has been made powerful and ubiquitous by billions made from marijuana. It’s time to end the insanity that has fuelled this festering sore that impacts every neighborhood.

Additions to this list through comments are welcome.

[Go here to read comments from the originally printed story from Digital Journal].

- Article from Digital Journal on July 20, 2010.

California’s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis (A MUST READ)

Some of these blogs are based on the notion that legalization would be worse than “what we have now”.  The assumption there is that if you smoke marijuana in California, you must already have your Prop 215 recommendation from a doctor, and you’d be losing your rights under Prop 19.Most marijuana smokers, believe it or not, are healthy and aren’t comfortable spending money for a doctor to give them permission to use cannabis.  Currently we face a ticket, fine, and misdemeanor drug conviction record for possession an ounce or less of cannabis.  That record prevents us from getting student aid and can cost us our jobs, child custody, and housing, or if we’re on probation, our freedom.  (Even if California succeeds at downgrading possession to an infraction from a misdemeanor, a $100 ticket is a lot of money to some people!)  We face a felony charge if we grow even one plant at home.  For us, Prop 19 is much better than “what we have now”.

Another thing that appears in some of these blogs is outright misinformation, such as talk of a $50/ounce state tax (it’s not in the initiative; that was Ammiano’s bill) or that it would supersede Prop 215 (it wouldn’t, and Prop 19 even references Prop 215 in its language, so it couldn’t).  Others play up the “millionaires”, “big corporations”, and “monopolies” that would be created and the earnest Emerald Triangle family growers who’d be put out of business (which amuses me: Prop 19 allows localities to regulate sales, so why wouldn’t Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino county residents whose economy depends on pot sales lobby really hard to get legalized pot sales OK’d in those counties and cities within, and regulated in a way that protects the small grower?)

Two notable sticking points have to do with minors below 21:  Prop 19 creates a new crime in being an adult over 21 who gives marijuana to adults aged 18-20 and Prop 19 forbids adults over 21 from smoking where minors are present.  Prop 19’s penalties in the first situation mirror the penalties for giving alcohol to 18-20-year-olds, but, yes, it is disturbing to create a new statute that calls for jail time over marijuana.  It’s also questionable whether an adult should be punished for smoking pot if their child can see them – we don’t even require that of alcohol and tobacco.

But are these reason enough to continue ruining the lives of people 21 and older?  Besides, if you’re over 21 smoking with some 18-year-olds or in front of some minors, and you’re doing it inside your home, who is to know?  And if you’re 18-20, wouldn’t you love being legal in 1 to 3 years?
Because the biggest thing Prop 19 does, the forest that these blogs are missing for the trees, is LEGALIZE ADULT MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND POSSESSION.

Even under Prop 215, the adult cannabis consumer is guilty of being a criminal unless proven innocent as a patient.  When Prop 19 passes, the adult cannabis consumer is considered innocent until proven guilty.  It is a complete game changer for law enforcement, because:

• the smell of marijuana on your person is no longer probable cause to search you;
• that joint in your pocket means nothing;
• the seizure of stems, leaves, and seeds from your trash is irrelevant;
• a couple of baggies with weed residue in them are just garbage;
• the sight of that bong on your table visible through the kitchen window isn’t a “welcome” mat for a police search;
• your utility bills raising a bit for water and lights don’t matter;
• your neighbors smelling skunky plants is just a nuisance, not the source for an “anonymous tip”;
• receipts for lights, soil, fertilizer, ballasts, trimmers, and stuff are meaningless;
• infrared signatures of your home aren’t evidence of anything;
• marijuana sniffing K-9 units are out of a job; and
• pre-employment drug testing programs become harder for businesses to maintain for cannabis.

Basically, one of the simplest tools law enforcement has for harassing cannabis consumers – the sight and smell of cannabis and paraphernalia – is no longer in the tool belt.  As long as you’re an adult, keep your grow in a 5?x5? area, don’t smoke in front of kids, and don’t leave the house with over an ounce, you are free from police harassment.

And even if you don’t follow the law perfectly, who’s to know?  If you’re pulled over and there’s an ounce and a half in your backpack, how does that cop know?  Does it “smell heavy” in your car?  So long as you refuse a search, how will he know?  The smell of pot isn’t cause for a search; you’re allowed to have an ounce of it.

If you have a 10?x10? garden, who’s to know?  Is the electric bill that much higher?  Does the garden smell more (probably not at all if you build a good grow room)?  Plus don’t forget that you’re allowed to have more than one ounce, namely, any amount that you grow within your 5?x5? garden, at the location of the garden.  I think by the time law enforcement came back with a warrant to investigate how big my garden is, three-fourths of it would be cut down and I would suddenly have my 5?x5? garden and my hanging plants from the last 5?x5? area I harvested.

Suppose there is four pounds of marijuana at my house.  Why, officer, that’s the results from my last legal 5?x5? personal garden harvest.  What, you don’t see any 5?x5? growing space?  Well, I used to grow, but I took down my garden and sold my equipment after my last harvest.  Why, yes, they were some pretty big plants.  No, I didn’t take any pictures, because what I was doing was perfectly legal.  (Prop 19 also has a nice affirmative defense to claim the marijuana in your home was for your personal use.  These blogs never seem to notice that.)

So below I’ve decided to write a word-for-word analysis of Prop 19, mainly because it seems like many of the people against it have never read it.  Standard disclaimer: I am no lawyer… hell, I’m not even a college graduate.

Proposition 19: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

Title and Summary:
Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.
Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.

If you’re over 21, your personal pot use and cultivation are legal.  Some places may even let you buy and sell it.  You still can’t smoke it at school, in public, and with kids.  Don’t drive stoned.  We might even save and raise some money while we’re at it.

Section 1: Name
This Act shall be known as the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.”

Or, simply, “Prop 19?.

Section 2: Findings, Intent and Purposes
This Act, adopted by the People of the State of California, makes the following Findings and Statement of Intent and Purpose:
A.     Findings
1.     California’s laws criminalizing cannabis (marijuana) have failed and need to be reformed. Despite spending decades arresting millions of non-violent cannabis consumers, we have failed to control cannabis or reduce its availability.
2.     According to surveys, roughly 100 million Americans (around 1/3 of the country’s population) acknowledge that they have used cannabis, 15 million of those Americans having consumed cannabis in the last month. Cannabis consumption is simply a fact of life for a large percentage of Americans.
3.     Despite having some of the strictest cannabis laws in the world, the United States has the largest number of cannabis consumers. The percentage of our citizens who consume cannabis is double that of the percentage of people who consume cannabis in the Netherlands, a country where the selling and adult possession of cannabis is allowed.
4.     According to The National Research Council’s recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption.
5.     Cannabis has fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent.
6.     There is an estimated $15 billion in illegal cannabis transactions in California each year. Taxing and regulating cannabis, like we do with alcohol and cigarettes, will generate billions of dollars in annual revenues for California to fund what matters most to Californians: jobs, health care, schools and libraries, roads, and more.
7.     California wastes millions of dollars a year targeting, arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning non-violent citizens for cannabis related offenses. This money would be better used to combat violent crimes and gangs.
8.     The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, regulated sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business.

Prohibition’s bad, mmmkay?  It doesn’t work, wastes money, and creates crime.  This Act will be a first step in ending that.

B.     Purposes
1.     Reform California’s cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.
2.     Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
3.     Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis.
4.     Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.

News flash: most people, especially non-cannabis consumers, think it is a bad idea for kids to use cannabis.

5.     Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade.
6.     Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.

One blogger suggested that this point #6 would be enough for the courts to assume that the people meant Prop 19 to supersede patients’ medical rights under Prop 215, also known as California Health & Safety Code #11362.5.  Somehow, #6 means that Prop 215 patients would suddenly be limited to 5?x5? gardens and an ounce of medicine.  Which seems odd to me, when you read further in #7 below…

7.     Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

…where they are saying that if your city doesn’t allow cannabis sales, you can still possess your one ounce, except if you’re permitted more than that under Prop 215 (11362.5).  How could any court think that #6 means all of Prop 19 supersedes Prop 215 when a nullified Prop 215 means #7 is granting an exception that wouldn’t exist if it were superseded?

8.     Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

If a city does allow cannabis sales it can regulate how much you buy and sell, except if you’re permitted more than that under Prop 215 (11362.5)… you know, the part that #6 supposedly supersedes.

9.     Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.

Well, that’s a lovely premise, but nothing controls how these governments would spend the money.  But since were talking about local governments, not the state, there will be more local control and pressure over how local marijuana money is spent.

10.   Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding.

Well, people consuming less than an ounce are only getting tickets, not arrests, but still there are arrests for possessing more than an ounce at home and for growing any amount at home.

11.   Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.

Someday the state might decide to let cannabis be sold statewide… probably after the feds end their cannabis prohibition.  This is important: this line doesn’t force California to violate federal law, but it sets the stage for statewide regulation once it doesn’t violate federal law.

12.   Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.

That might be difficult, as California’s universities and teaching hospitals – the places where you might scientifically study cannabis – often have federal ties that prevent them from engaging in cannabis research.  But it will be no more difficult than it is now.

13.   Permit California to fulfill the state’s obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State.

This is kind of a 10th Amendment issue, after all, except for the Supreme Court’s view that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution empowers the Congress to make laws prohibiting citizens of California from consuming a house plant for personal purposes in private.

14.   Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.

This is the best part of Prop 19 – the marijuana plant is declared legal in some situations!

C.      Intent
1.     This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis, including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future: Health and Safety Code sections 11014.5 and 11364.5 [relating to drug paraphernalia]; 11054 [relating to cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinols]; 11357 [relating to possession]; 11358 [relating to cultivation]; 11359 [possession for sale]; 11360 [relating to transportation and sales]; 11366 [relating to maintenance of places]; 11366.5 [relating to use of property]; 11370 [relating to punishment]; 11470 [relating to forfeiture]; 11479 [relating to seizure and destruction]; 11703 [relating to definitions regarding illegal substances]; 11705 [actions for use of illegal controlled substance]; Vehicle Code sections 23222 and 40000.15 [relating to possession].

This Act will legalize cannabis possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption, and sale of cannabis to some extent…

2.     This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.

…except where it concerns kids, schools, and driving or working high.

Section 3: Lawful Activities
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read:
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a)     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i)     Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.

If you’re 21 or older, you can have an ounce of weed on you, out in public, and share it with your 21 and older friends.

(ii)    Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property.  Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.

You can grow a 25 sq ft marijuana garden in your home or on your land.  You might have to get your landlord’s permission if you’re renting.

(iii)    Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.

Whatever you harvest at home in your 25 sq ft garden, you can keep at home.  Not just one ounce, the whole harvest.  No time limit.  If you harvest a pound every three months and have a stash of twelve pounds after four years, and you’re not selling, that pot is all yours and perfectly legit.

(iv)    Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.

Your bongs are now legal, too.

(b)     “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301.

“In any form” = hash, edibles, tinctures.  You’ve got to consume in a non-public place, unless your city is cool and allows public consumption in certain places.  (Hello, hash bar!)

(c)     “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
(i)     possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;
(ii)    consumption in public or in a public place;
(iii)    consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;
(iv)    smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

You can’t sell it without a license, smoke in public, smoke while driving, boating, or flying, or smoke around kids.

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:

Local governments can regulate commercial sales.  It is very important that this initiative didn’t force the State of California to regulate commercial sales, which could have hung this initiative up in court for putting California in “positive conflict” with the federal prohibition.  Here, California isn’t doing anything about sales… literally.  California is saying, “if Berkeley wants to allow weed selling, we won’t stop them.”

(a)     cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
(b)     retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
(c)     appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21;
(d)    age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older;

If a city wants to legalize sales, it can only be up to an ounce per transaction and everybody involved has to be 21 or older.

(e)     consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;

A city can license bars and coffee shops to allow on-site toking, as well as the retail marijuana stores.

(f)     safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;
(g)     prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;

A city can punish you for getting cannabis illegally.  You can grow your own or you can buy it from a licensed store.  You and your friends can share what you grow, up to an ounce each.

(h)    appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare;

A city could limit a pot store’s locations, hours, size, advertising, and keep them away from other businesses.

(i)     appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by;

A city could make you control the smoke and smell and make you be polite to nearby businesses and locals.

(j)     appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public  consumption of cannabis;
(k)    appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;

A city can tax marijuana and keep it out of public view.

(l)     such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section;

A city might decide you are allowed to grow more than a 5?x5? garden and possess more than an ounce for personal consumption.  And maybe they decide you can buy and sell more than an ounce at a time.  Hooray!

(m)   any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.
Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees
(a)     Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation:  administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.

Cities can tax cannabis and create fees for licensing and can use that to cover the costs of enforcing the law.

(b)     Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.

Licensed cannabis businesses have to pay their taxes.

Section 11303: Seizure
(a)     Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.

Cops cannot take your plants or your weed if you’re obeying the law.

Section 11304: Effect of Act and Definitions
(a)     This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive.

You can’t smoke pot while doing something dangerous.  You can’t bring pot to school.

(b)     Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to permit interstate or international transportation of cannabis.  This Act shall be construed to permit a person to transport cannabis in a safe and secure manner from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county pursuant to any ordinances adopted in such cities or counties, notwithstanding any other state law or the lack of any such ordinance in the intervening cities or counties.

You can’t take your weed out of state or out of the country.  But you can take it from one legal place to another, even if the places in-between aren’t legal.

(c)     No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act.  Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

This is a big one.  You can’t be punished or denied privileges based on pot smoking.  The only exception is employers preventing you from smoking pot on the job.  Note the “actually impairs job performance” language.  This is the loophole through which some attorney is going to drive a big truck delivering us freedom from workplace pee testing for cannabis.  Pee test metabolites do not prove workplace impairment.

(d)    Definitions
For purposes of this Act:
(i)     “Marijuana” and “cannabis” are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin.

Hemp is also in Genus Cannabis.  Cities could legalize industrial hemp production.  Hash, hash oil, and edibles are all legal, too.

(ii)    “One ounce” means 28.5 grams.

We just got an extra 0.15 grams… because an ounce is really 28.3495231 grams.

(iii)    For purposes of section 11300(a)(ii) “cannabis plant” means all parts of a living Cannabis plant.
(iv)    In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply:
(a)     only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included;

So the ounce in your plate of brownies is still only an ounce, not the pound that the brownies weigh.

(b)     living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a);

Your plants, in the ground or freshly cut and hanging, don’t count against the one ounce that you can have on your person.  So long as the plants fit in 25 sq ft, you’re golden.  Since you can already have the fruits of your harvest at home, the fact that this also means your plants don’t count against your home weight is irrelevant

(c)     in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.

Even if you have a whole lot of marijuana, you still have a defense in court that your marijuana was for your own personal consumption.

(v)     “residence” means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes.

Since “residence” could have more than one occupant, but each “residence” only gets one 5?x5? garden, this is a minor issue in a multi-roommate situation.  But even sharing the garden, it is more garden than they are allowed to grow now.

(vi)    “local government” means a city, county, or city and county.
(vii)   “licensed premises” is any commercial business, facility, building, land or area that  has a license, permit or is otherwise authorized to cultivate, process, transport, sell, or permit on-premises consumption, of cannabis pursuant to any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local government pursuant to section 11301, or any subsequently enacted state statute or regulation.
Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
Section 11361 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
(a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.

These first two sections confuse many readers as they think these are all new additions to law.  Parts (a) and (b) are the parts of the law as they already exist.  Only (c) and (d) are the new portions:

(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.

This is the one section that gets a lot of attention.  Currently, the punishment for a “gift” of marijuana from a 21+ to a 18-20 is a citation and $100 fine.  Now it will be six months and $1,000.
But this is the punishment in California for providing alcohol to 18-20s.  Politically, initiative backers had to face the fact that “What About the Children?!?” is one of the few compelling arguments the opposition has left.  No initiative that legalizes for 18-year-olds – many of whom are still in high school – has a prayer of passing yet.

(d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.

If you own or work in a pot store and your marijuana gets in the hands of someone under 21, you can’t own, work in, or even go to any pot store for a year.

Section 5: Amendment
Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act.  Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to:

The people, through initiative, or the legislature, through bills, can amend this Act, but only to better define what we said this Act was about in the Purposes above, or to…

(a)     Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.

Nobody can make your one ounce and 5?x5? garden smaller, but the state could give you more.

(b)     Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302.

The state could set up a statewide cannabis industry.

(c)     Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes.

The state could get serious about industrial hemp production.

Section 6: Severability
If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

If the courts strike down, say, the sales portion of the law, that doesn’t kill the personal possession and cultivation parts of the law.

- Article from The Norml Stash Blog on July 17, 2010.

"Marijuana Minister" to remain in federal custody until trial

 The long-standing Hawaii THC Ministry's Rev. Roger Christie was refused bail after being arrested for 100 plants. The U.S. Attorney stated that he is a threat to society because "Mr. Christie listens to no one but himself, that's why he is a danger to the community".

The self-proclaimed "Marijuana Minister" will remain in federal custody until he stands trial on three counts of drug trafficking. Roger Christie was hoping to post bond.

Roger Christie headed The Hawaii Cannabis Ministry in Hilo until earlier this month when he was arrested by federal authorities. The 61-year-old claims to use the drug for religious purposes.
In court testimony, his attorney argued Christie was not a threat to society and should be given the chance to post bond while awaiting trial.

Federal authorities feel differently. U.S. Attorney Michael Kawahara told Judge Alan Kay, "Mr. Christie listens to no one but himself, that's why he is a danger to the community."

Kawahara went on to say Christie and other members of the THC Ministry had been raided by federal authorities in March, yet they still didn't stop their illegal activities.

Christie and other members of the THC Ministry are accused of conspiring to manufacture, distribute and possess with the intent to distribute more than 100 marijuana plants.

In court testimony it was revealed the ministry had a price list for marijuana sales, or what it called a donation list. Feds conducted wire taps on the organization and in one instance an employee questions a fellow employee on what to do when customers ask what the price is. The fellow employee says "memorize it."

In the end Judge Kay agreed with the prosecution saying that public safety could not be guaranteed if Christie were allowed to post bond.

That means he will remain in federal detention until his trial gets underway.

- Article By Jai Cunningham from KHON2.com News

Click here to go to the THC Ministry website

TYT: Why Pot Should Be Legal

My favorite News team (TYT) talks Marijuana in there latest video.

RISE UP! 

TAKE ACTION!

GET CLOSER TO LEGALIZING!

SPEAK OUT & VOTE!

DONT BE SCARED!

WE ARE IN THIS TOGETHER!

Recent Studies The Mainstream Media Forgot To Mention

Investigators and pundits alike are fond of calling for ‘more research’ into the safety and efficacy of marijuana and its active compounds. Ironically, when such calls are heeded and new research is published, nobody wants to talk about it.


For example, researchers at the State University of New York (SUNY), Upstate Medical University in Syracuse publisheddata in the June issue of the journalPharmacology concluding that the administration of the plant cannabinoids delta-8-THC and delta-9-THC halted cellular respiration and tumor growth in human oral cancer cells. Specifically, investigators reported that cannabinoids were a “potent inhibitor” of Tu183 human cancer cells, a notoriously difficult to treat type of oral cancer.

Of course, this is hardly the first time that pot’s compounds have been demonstrated to possess anti-cancer properties. As has been widely reported here and elsewhere, US government researchers were first aware of this finding over 35 years ago, and today there exist published scientific studies demonstrating that cannabinoids can inhibit the proliferation of a wide range of cancers — including brain cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, pancreatic cancer, biliary tract cancer, and lymphoma. Nonetheless, abstract prohibitionist concerns regarding marijuana’s supposed cancer risk continue to dominate the headlines while actual scientific studies debunking these allegations tend to go unnoticed.

Similarly, preclinical data published online last week in the journal Cell Communication and Signaling reported that the administration of the non-psychoactive cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD) increases adult neurogenesis (the active production of new neurons) in laboratory animals. Authors speculated that cannabis’ pro-neurogenic effects may explain why the plant appears to be useful in the treatment of certain neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer’s disease or ALS.
As I wrote last week, to date there are now over 20,000 published studies or reviews in the scientific literature pertaining to marijuana and its active compounds — making marijuana the most studied plant on Earth. But what’s the point in further research if nobody even bothers to pay attention to the research that’s already been done?

- Article from NORML on July 6, 2010.
By Paul Armentano, NORML

Pot Advocates Ask Colorado to Allow Medical Marijuana Use for PTSD

Cannabis advocates on Wednesday filed a petition to include post-traumatic stress disorder on the state's list of medical-marijuana-approved conditions.


The petition argues that medical marijuana can help with PTSD — especially in veterans — by easing depression, anxiety and nightmares. The petition was formally filed at the state health department by Kevin Grimsinger, an Army veteran and double amputee who said he lost his legs after stepping on a land mine in 2001 in Afghanistan.

"People who have served our country or other people who were injured and have PTSD should be able to have access to medicine that helps them," said Brian Vicente, executive director of Sensible Colorado, an advocacy group backing the petition.

Colorado voters in 2000 approved a constitutional amendment allowing for the use of medical marijuana for eight conditions. The amendment also creates a petition process by which more conditions can be approved.

Grimsinger's petition will be reviewed by Ned Calonge, the state's chief medical officer, who will determine within 180 days whether it warrants a public hearing before the state Board of Health. If the board gives the OK, doctors would be able to write marijuana recommendations for PTSD.
Four previous petitions — for Parkinson's disease, anxiety, asthma and bipolar disorder — were denied for lack of a scientific basis. The PTSD petition cites multiple studies that suggest marijuana can be beneficial to PTSD patients.

State Rep. Joe Miklosi, a Denver Democrat who supports the petition, said that should be enough to prompt a public hearing.

"All we're asking for is a fair shot, a fair hearing and review process," he said.
Grimsinger, who uses a wheelchair, works as a veterans outreach coordinator for a medical-marijuana dispensary. He said marijuana has helped ease his pain, both physical and emotional.

- Article from The Denver Post.

Legalizing Marijuana in California Would Lower Prices ALOT!

READ THE STUDY
 
While the state Board of Equalization has estimated taxing legal marijuana could raise more than $1 billion in revenue, the RAND study cautions that any potential revenue could be dramatically higher or lower based on a number of factors, including the level of taxation, the amount of tax evasion and the response by the federal government.

Past research provides solid evidence that marijuana consumption goes up when prices go down, but the magnitude of the consumption increase cannot be predicted because prices will fall to levels below those ever studied, researchers say. Consumption also might rise because of non-price effects such as advertising or a reduction in stigma, researchers say.

In addition to uncertainty about the taxes levied and evaded, researchers do not know how users will respond to such a large drop in price. Even under a scenario with high taxes ($50 per ounce) and a moderate rate of tax evasion (25 percent), researchers cannot rule out consumption increases of 50 percent to 100 percent, and possibly even larger. If prevalence increased by 100 percent, marijuana use in California would be close to the prevalence levels recorded in the late 1970s.

The analysis, prepared by the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, was conducted in an effort to objectively outline the key issues that voters and legislators should consider as California weighs marijuana legalization.

"There is considerable uncertainty about the impact that legalizing marijuana in California will have on consumption and public budgets," said Beau Kilmer, the study's lead author and a policy researcher at RAND. "No government has legalized the production and distribution of marijuana for general use, so there is little evidence on which to base any predictions about how this might work in California,"
The analysis also suggests that the annual cost of enforcing current marijuana laws is smaller than suggested by others. The RAND study estimates that the cost of enforcing the current laws probably totals less than $300 million.

"It is critical that legislators and the public understand what is known and unknown as the state weighs this unprecedented step," said Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, a study co-author and co-director with Kilmer of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center.

Two proposals are pending that would legalize the production and sale of marijuana in California. Assembly Bill 2254 authored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) would legalize marijuana for those aged 21 and older and task the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control with regulating its possession, sale and cultivation. The bill would create a $50 per ounce excise tax and these funds would be used to fund drug education, awareness, and rehabilitation programs under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.

In November, California voters will consider a ballot measure titled the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 that would make it legal for those aged 21 and older to cultivate marijuana on a 5-foot-by-5-foot plot, and possess, process, share or transport up to one ounce of marijuana. In addition, the initiative would authorize cities or counties to allow, regulate and tax the commercial cultivation and sales of marijuana. Such activities would remain illegal in jurisdictions that do not opt in.

In only two countries have there been changes in the criminal status of supplying marijuana. The Netherlands allows for sale of small amounts of marijuana (5 grams) in licensed coffee shops and in Australia four jurisdictions have reduced the penalties for cultivation of a small number of marijuana plants to confiscation and a fine. Neither has legalized larger-scale commercial cultivation of the sort California is considering.

In 1975, California was one of the first states to reduce the maximum penalty for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana from incarceration to a misdemeanor with a $100 fine. In 1996, California became the first state to allow marijuana to be grown and consumed for medical purposes.
RAND researchers say one effect of legalizing marijuana would be to dramatically drop the price as growers move from clandestine operations to legal production. Based on an analysis of known production costs and surveys of the current price of marijuana, researchers suggest the untaxed retail price of high-quality marijuana could drop to as low as $38 per ounce compared to about $375 per ounce today.

RAND researchers caution there are many factors that make it difficult to accurately estimate revenue that might be generated by any tax on legal marijuana. The higher the tax, the greater the incentives would be for a gray market in marijuana to develop, researchers say.

"A fixed excise tax per ounce may give producers and users an incentive to shift to smaller quantities of higher-potency forms of marijuana," said study co-author Jonathan P. Caulkins, the H. Guyford Stever Professor of Operations Research at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College and Qatar campus. Such a shift is another factor that could lower revenues collected from marijuana taxes.
In addition, since the November ballot initiative leaves it to local governments to set tax rates, the size of any levy could vary broadly. A jurisdiction with a low tax rate might attract marijuana buyers from elsewhere in the state or even other states, further complicating efforts to predict government revenues from the sale of legal marijuana, according to researchers.

The RAND report also investigates some of the costs to the state and society in general, such as drug treatment and other health expenses, that may change if marijuana is legalized in California.
It's unclear whether legalizing marijuana may increase or decrease drug treatment costs, according to the study. More than half of the 32,000 admissions for treatment of marijuana abuse in California during in 2009 resulted from criminal justice referrals, which could drop if legalization is approved. However, an increase in marijuana use could cause a spike in those who voluntarily seek treatment for marijuana abuse, researchers say.

The report, "Altered State? Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets," can be found at www.rand.org. Funding for this study was provided by RAND's Investment in People and Ideas program, which combines philanthropic contributions from individuals, foundations, and private-sector firms with earnings from RAND's endowment and operations to support research on issues that reach beyond the scope of traditional client sponsorship.

Other authors of the study are Robert J. MacCoun of the University of California, Berkeley, and Peter H. Reuter of the University of Maryland.

The RAND Drug Policy Research Center is a joint project of RAND Health and the RAND Safety and Justice program within RAND Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment. The goal of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center is to provide a firm, empirical foundation upon which sound drug policies can be built.

Press release from the Rand Corporation.

San Francisco Sets First Pot Brownie/Chronic Milkshake Regulations

 The San Francisco Department of Public Health set some of America's first pot-brownie and -milkshake regulations in response to the growing sector of the medical cannabis industry.
Edible baked goods, as well as ice cream, lollipops, chewing gum, and even olive oil tinged with THC has become a smash hit sector of California's dispensaries, owners say. But such edibles can also lead to frightening experiences and even emergency room visits when they are accidentally ingested or improperly prepared. Anecdotal stories and news headlines abound of grandmas, children, and pets accidentally eating unmarked THC edibles and experiencing cannabis' sometimes harrowing effects.
According to David Byrnes with California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, the state does not track cannabis-specific emergency room visits, so there's no way to quantify a rise related to the now-$14 billion state industry.

“Marijuana is grouped with other psychodysleptics (hallucinogens), so it may be pot or something more potent. They are categorized as poisonings, ... the coding is just too vague,” Byrnes stated.
San Francisco's medical cannabis regulations call for labeling the amount of marijuana on each individually marked, opaquely wrapped cookie or rice krispie treat, and keeping pets and children out any kitchen where they're being made. No treats should resemble any type of candy. And no dispensary can make hot or cold-dependent foods like milkshakes or ice cream without a special permit from the Public Health Department, which has designed coursework and an exam for permitees.
San Francisco's Green Cross delivery dispensary operator Kevin Reed has implemented the guidelines and says they're necessary to prevent accidental exposure to the psychoactive herb.

"There are a million different advantages to edible products, but then you have people who turn around and put Snickers labels on it, and an average kid can't tell the different between a Snickers bar and a pot Snicker bars,” he said. “There's still this Wild West mentality.”

Reed's grandmother accidentally got into a plate of pot cookies at his house four years ago and demanded to see an emergency room doctor when the effects came on.
“The first one was good, so thirty to forty minutes she had another. She wasn't from here and didn't have any education. When I came in she said she ate these two cookies and said she was feeling kind of funny. Her blood pressure was up, her heart was pumping. She got paranoid and asked to be taken to the emergency room.

“I told her she could get in trouble for no reason if she went to the emergency room and she became even more paranoid. Eventually I had to hold her down. She accused me of, 'You just want to take my insurance money and my inheritance.' Stuff a crazy redneck mom from Alabama would say.
“I would definitely recommend that patients consider cookies just like their medication, like their Vicodin. It should all be locked up,” Reed continued. “If it's not labeled, you don't want to be that one explaining to Mom why her heart is beating that fast.”

David Goldman, a spokesperson for medical pot group Americans for Safe Access said the drug is rather harmless, but people should exercise some basic common sense.
"Most people after they come down from brownies, they feel fine, they're hungry and okay," he said. “I think the real onus is on parents and guardians of children to cook and keep edibles in a safe place. It's just common sense.”

Even experienced users need to pay attention to dosage, Goldman added, who also sits on San Francisco's Medical Cannabis Task Force.
“I once ate a cookie that had more THC in it that I would have liked, because I didn't know the dosage. I was able to understand that I'm fine, I'm buzzing a little bit but I'm fine. I went to bed and woke up the next day and I felt great.”

Some people aren't so lucky. Kinman Chan, a thirty-year-old San Francisco man claimed he was high on a double dose of medical pot cookies when he screamed, dropped his pants, and attacked crew members on a cross-country flight, forcing its diversion to Pittsburgh, Calif., the Associated Press reported in February.

“Crew members said Chan made odd gestures before he entered the plane's rear restroom shortly after takeoff and began to scream, according to the complaint.
Chan told the FBI that he "came back to reality" and exited the restroom, at which point the crew noticed his "pants were down, his shirt was untucked and all the compartments in the restroom were opened."

The charge of interfering with the duties of a flight attendant carries up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.”

Dr. Chris Johnson, DVM, and intern at San Francisco Veterinary Specialists says he comes from Oklahoma, where accidentally poisoning animals with pot is not really in issue. In San Francisco, however pot trumps other poisoning vectors like cats eating Tylenol, animals getting into blood pressure medication, insecticides and antifreeze:
“Of the top five sources of poisoning, I would have to say certainly marijuana is at the top. I would have to say chocolate is at the top but those two go hand in hand,” he said. “It's strictly anecdotal, I don't think any epidemiological studies have been done, but we've seen quite a bit of cases this past year. I've probably seen ten cases through my internship in the ER, and I worked it for four months.”
Johnson said animals (usually dogs) present symptoms of stress when they've been dosed, but like humans it's never killed anyone. Pot makes animals uncomfortable, and the course of treatment involves fluids and observation.

“Most of the time they're really jittery and they're kind of hyperactive. They're very sensitive to different stimuli like noise and light,” he said. “We may or may not give things like Valium to kind of help and just relax them.”

A San Francisco resident and edible cannabis consumer who wished to remain anonymous told Legalization Nation that he accidentally left out a plate of pot brownies overnight and awoke in the early morning to his beloved dog vomiting and staggering down the hallway. It was terrifying.
"We thought he was having a stroke," he said.

Reed and Goldman recommend consumers:
- Only buy individually wrapped edibles with an expiration date and dosage from a licensed dispensary.
- Know your tolerance before ingesting cannabis, or only eat a small amount to determine effects.
- Keep edibles locked up at all times.

By David Downs, East Bay Express
- Article from East Bay Express.