|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(formerly The Week Online with DRCNet) Issue #390 -- 6/10/05
"Raising Awareness of the Consequences of Drug Prohibition" Phillip S. Smith, Editor
subscribe for FREE now! ---- make a donation ---- search Table of Contents
1.
Editorial:
Learn
to
See
Hope
David Borden, Executive Director, [email protected]
Any positive change can easily be set back. A dramatic example is the reinstitution of mandatory minimum drug sentences in 1986 after previous mandatory minimums had been repealed only in 1970. And even in the areas where we have support, it is hard to make the actual changes happen. Medical marijuana -- the big issue of the week, following the long-awaited Raich Supreme Court ruling and with a Congressional vote awaiting next week -- is the perfect example of this. Some polls say we have as much as 80% support on the medical marijuana issue. Yet Congress continues to hold on to the power to prosecute (or persecute) patients and their providers. It can be discouraging. On the other hand... some polls say we have as much as 80% support. This wasn't the case 10 years ago. That's good news. There was a fear that in the wake of an adverse ruling on Raich, the feds would feel emboldened to step up the raids and really put down the medical marijuana movement. There was a fear that states would back down on their own medical marijuana laws, or on passing new ones. It's too soon to tell; those things could still happen. But the early signs for the most part paint a different picture. The medical marijuana co-ops in California and elsewhere continue to operate as usual. Editorials calling on Congress to finally address the issue have appeared in papers across the country in record numbers. A state medical marijuana bill has passed a legislative body -- the Rhode Island Senate -- by an overwhelming, record margin, only one day after the ruling. And while some state officials have made ominous statements, they have been so transparently inaccurate that advocates see little difficulty in putting the lie to them and keeping their states' laws on track. There was a fear that an adverse ruling in the Raich case could have an adverse effect on the prospects for passage of federal legislation. This Tuesday when Congress votes on the Hinchey/Rohrabacher amendment we'll find out. But after seeing things unfold, in going through our several articles preparing to publish this issue, most of all when reading our interview with Angel Raich herself -- that is not my prediction. Rather, my view, albeit intuitive, is that rejection by the court has elevated the moral stature of our grievances even further. Now, for example, I think I see more hope for short-term progress in the legislative arena than I did a few days ago. I'm not ready to say that I think medical marijuana will pass the US Congress next week or even this year. But I'm hopeful that Tuesday's vote will demonstrate progress on the issue, and maybe a good deal of progress. We'll find out about that soon. But if it turns out that I'm wrong on this particular, still I believe I'm right in the larger sense. As former governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson used to say, support for the drug war is a mile wide but an inch deep. Once people learn what's really going on, it's not hard to bring them to our side of things; the possibilities for transforming public opinion are real. These times while dark hold hope for change, and those who learn to see hope can bring it to fruition all the sooner thereby.
2.
Feature:
Raich
Case
Ruling
--
Feds
Can
Enforce
Marijuana
Laws
Against
Patients,
but
State
Laws
Remain
in
Effect
The US Supreme Court Monday ruled Monday that federal officials may arrest and prosecute medical marijuana users and providers even in states where it is legal. The decision in Gonzales v. Raich returns California and other Western states to the situation that held before plaintiffs Angel Raich and Diane Monson won a 2003 injunction at the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco barring federal officials from raiding or prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers in California and other medical marijuana states within the jurisdiction of the appeals court. In Monday's ruling, the court overturned the 9th Circuit, holding the Constitution's interstate commerce clause could be employed to allow the federal government to claim jurisdiction over medical marijuana through the Controlled Substances Act.
The 6-3 decision saw an unusual split in the court, with conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, who in previous cases involving gun control and violence against women had come down against a sweeping interpretation of the commerce clause and in favor of states' rights, this time coming down on the other side of the issue. Scalia and Kennedy joined "liberal bloc" Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens in the majority, while Chief Justice William Rehnquist was joined in the dissent by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas. It is worth pointing out that although the Supreme Court claimed federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause, the marijuana in question was homegrown, not sold or purchased, and never left the state of California. In other words, as the English language is commonly understood, it was neither interstate nor commerce. But citing a 1942 Supreme Court case where the court held that a farmer who grew wheat for his family's use affected interstate wheat markets, the court Monday held patients growing their own marijuana affected the interstate marijuana market. When thus defined as affecting interstate commerce, the noncommercial, intrastate use of medical marijuana can be constitutionally regulated by federal law, in this case the Controlled Substances Act, the majority held. In both the wheat case and Monday's case, "the regulation is squarely within Congress's commerce power because production of the commodity meant for consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity," Justice Stevens wrote for the majority. And with Congress thus having the power to regulate in-state, non-commercial medical marijuana, it is free to use the drug laws to do so. "The Controlled Substances Act is a valid exercise of federal power, even as applied to the troubling facts of this case," Stevens wrote. Even though the decision was made difficult by Raich and Monson's "strong arguments they will suffer irreparable harm" if denied medical marijuana, "well-settled law controls our answer." "To be sure," he added in a footnote, "the wheat market is a lawful market that Congress sought to protect and stabilize, whereas the marijuana market is an unlawful market that Congress sought to eradicate. The difference, however, is of no constitutional import." While Stevens and the majority ruled against Raich and Monson, they expressed a measure of sympathy for medical marijuana. There were other legal options for patients, Stevens wrote, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress." In her dissent, joined in most points by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, Justice O'Connor wrote that the federal government was attempting to usurp powers that should be reserved for the states. "The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens," Justice O'Connor wrote. The court should have deferred to California's judgment in the matter, she added, noting that the state "has come to its own conclusion about the difficult and sensitive question of whether marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering." Writing a separate dissent, Justice Thomas warned that the court was stretching the reach of the commerce clause too far. Noting that Raich and Monson's medical marijuana never reached the market and had no "demonstrable" effect on it, he wrote: "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything," including "quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers." Reaction to the ruling from interested parties was quick and largely predictable. "Today's decision marks the end of medical marijuana as a political issue," said Office of National Drug Control policy head John Walters, whistling past the graveyard. The ruling was a defeat for "the pro-drug politics that are being promoted in America under the guise of medicine," he said. Also happy was congressional arch-drug warrior Indiana Republican Rep. Mark Souder, who said the Supreme Court's ruling was a "common sense" decision. "Our federal drug laws are designed to ensure that we have uniform, scientifically-based national health and safety standards for drugs and medicines. We cannot allow the state initiative process to undermine those standards on the basis of political -- not scientific -- arguments," said Souder. "Denying the federal government the power to set and enforce uniform standards would simply open up an alternative route for illegal drug trafficking and abuse." Some foes of medical marijuana couldn't settle for the victory they won, but also attempted to distort the court's decision. "This is an important victory for sound drug policy, but more importantly, it is a victory for the future of our children and the hope for a drug-free America," said Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation. But then, the foundation's press release went on to boldly, and falsely, claim, the ruling "determined that states cannot legalize marijuana for so-called medical purposes." While the Marijuana Policy Project, which helped bankroll the case, pronounced itself "disappointed" with the decision, the organization also took pains to clarify what Fay and the Drug Free America Foundation were falsely disseminating. "While we're disappointed, the validity of state medical marijuana laws was never at issue in this case," said MPP executive director Rob Kampia. "The medical marijuana laws of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Vermont will continue to protect patients from arrest by state and local authorities. Because the DEA and other federal agents make only one percent of our nation's 750,000 marijuana arrests every year, patients in states with medical marijuana laws retain a high level of protection. Congress should act today to give those patients complete protection from arrest." Congress is expected to vote later this month on a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) that would prohibit the federal government from spending taxpayers' dollars to prosecute patients who comply with their state's medical marijuana laws. Also pending in Congress is House Bill HR 2087, "the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act," sponsored by Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Ron Paul (R-TX), Sam Farr (D-CA), Rohrabacher, and Hinchey, along with 31 cosponsors, which would reclassify marijuana under federal law to properly recognize its medical utility and enable physicians to legally prescribe it under controlled circumstances, and the "Truth in Trials Act," S. 2989, sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin (D-IL), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Jim Jeffords (I-VT), which would allow federal marijuana defendants to win acquittal if they could prove they were acting in accord with state medical marijuana laws. Those bills are not, however, expected to gain much traction in the Republican-controlled Congress. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) shared both MPP's disappointment and its analysis of the decision. "The bottom line is that state and local laws protecting medicinal cannabis patients and their physicians remain in place and are unaffected by this ruling," NORML executive director Allen St. Pierre said. Congress must act, he added. "It's time for the federal government to butt out of doctors' decisions regarding which medicine is the most safe and effective for their patients." California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the top law enforcement official in the most populous medical marijuana state, was quick to reassure patients that little had changed. "Today's ruling does not overturn California law permitting the use of medical marijuana, but it does uphold a federal regulatory scheme that contradicts the will of California voters and limits the right of states to provide appropriate medical care for its citizens," said Lockyer Monday. "Although I am disappointed in the outcome of today's decision, legitimate medical marijuana patients in California must know that state and federal laws are no different today than they were yesterday." His point was echoed by the American Civil Liberties Union. "The power of state governments to enact and enforce state medical marijuana laws is not affected by the Supreme Court's ruling," said Allen Hopper, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Drug Law Reform Project. "State laws allowing the use of medical marijuana still offer patients significant protection." But not from the feds. As California Attorney General Lockyer noted disapprovingly, the continuing conflict between state and federal law "means that seriously ill Californians will continue to run the risk of arrest and prosecution under federal law when they grow or use marijuana as medicine."
3.
DRCNet
Interview:
Supreme
Court
Plaintiff
Angel
McLary
Raich
Along with Diane Monson,
38-year-old Oakland resident Angel
Raich was a plaintiff in the Supreme Court medical marijuana case decided
Monday. The mother of two children and wife of attorney Robert Raich,
who was part of the team arguing the case, Raich suffers from a staggering
variety of illnesses and conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor,
that she treats with medical marijuana. In 2002, as the DEA swept
down on California medical marijuana patients and providers, Raich and
Monson joined forces in a lawsuit seeking relief from federal harassment.
They won in the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003 when that court
issued an injunction barring the federal government from persecuting patients
and providers in medical marijuana states. Now, with Monday's Supreme
Court decision in favor of the federal government, the status quo ante
has been restored. Drug War Chronicle spoke with Raich Thursday to
see how she is responding to the decision and what comes next.
4.
Feature:
In
the
Wake
of
Raich
--
Officials
in
Three
Medical
Marijuana
States
Overreact
While the Supreme Court's Monday ruling in the Raich case did not invalidate any state medical marijuana laws -- they were not addressed by the court -- officials in at least three medical marijuana states reacted as if it had. In Oregon, the administrator of the state's medical marijuana program called an immediate moratorium on the issuing of new patient registry cards pending an opinion from the state attorney general. In Alaska, Attorney General David Marquez warned that he was considering suspending the program there. And in Hawaii, the US Attorney there said the ruling meant that medical marijuana was dead -- and that he might try to prosecute doctors who recommend it.
"This is troubling," said Paul Armentano, senior policy analyst for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "The law is not on the side of these people trying to shut down programs, and with all the drug reform movements in the country and all the attorneys in those states, there will be enough pressure exerted so that these programs stay in place. If not, look for lawsuits." The panic reaction began almost immediately after the ruling was announced Monday morning. That same day, Dr. Grant Higginson, head of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program, announced he had halted issuance of medical marijuana cards pending an opinion from Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers. "We need to proceed cautiously until we understand the ramifications of this ruling," said Higginson. "We have contacted the state attorney general to ask for a formal legal opinion on how the court's ruling affects Oregon's program." Matters were not helped when a politician considered an ally by most of the Oregon medical marijuana movement went off the reservation after the decision. "My view is that medical marijuana is dead in Oregon," said Rep. Robert Ackerman (D-Eugene), the chairman of a House judiciary subcommittee. "The program is pretty much over, except maybe to conform our law to the Supreme Court decision." The state's well-organized and highly vocal medical marijuana community is fighting back. Activists have peppered Higginson, Attorney General Myers, and their state representatives with demands that the program be reinstated. The community is giving Myers until today to act. "If the Department of Human Services does not resume issuing OMMP cards by this Friday, Oregon NORML, in coordination with Americans for Safe Access, Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse, Voter Power, the Mercy Center, EMPOWER, THC Foundation, and Oregon Green Free, will conduct a protest rally on Monday," said Madeline Martinez, head of Oregon NORML. The Oregon action also caught the eye of the Marijuana Policy Project. "Oregon has done more harm to patients today than the DEA ever could," said MPP executive director Rob Kampia. "By depriving patients of the only protection they have under state law, Oregon is saying that not only federal agents, but also state and local police, can raid, arrest and prosecute seriously ill medical marijuana patients. This is grossly unjust, and we look forward to suing the Oregon government in court." As of Thursday, Attorney General Myers still had not issued an opinion, according to reports from Oregon activists. But it looks like he has plenty to think about, with protests and lawsuits looming on the horizon. In Alaska, where state government officials are vehemently opposed to marijuana, Attorney General David Marquez warned that he may consider suspending new patient registrations there. "Alaska's medicinal use law is very similar to the law in California," he said Monday. "Today's decision did not strike down the California law, but rather affirmed the authority of the federal government to regulate marijuana. The question we must analyze is whether and how the state medicinal use laws can continue to operate in light of this ruling." "There has been some discussion
among public officials about possibly suspending the registry," said MPP
communications director Bruce Mirken, "but we have already put both Oregon
and Alaska on notice that we will sue them if they suspend these programs."
"The statement by the US Attorney for Hawaii that medical marijuana is now illegal and that he might now prosecute doctors is a complete misreading of the law and the opinion," said ASA's Hermes. "In the Conant case, the Supreme Court upheld doctors' ability to recommend medical marijuana as protected under the First Amendment. The US Attorney in Hawaii just has it flat wrong." US Attorney Kubo's comments were "bizarre" and "shockingly misinformed," said MPP's Mirken. "In Raich, the Supreme Court said you can go after the patients, but in Conant, they said you couldn't go after the doctors, so this guy says 'let's go after the doctors.' You have to wonder where he got his law degree. We are very interested in making sure this guy doesn't do anything illegal, and we will be keeping a close eye on the situation," said Mirken. "Kubo seems to be publicly announcing an intention to break the law." "The US Attorney got it wrong," said Lois Perrin, Legal Director of the ACLU of Hawaii. "Doctors have a clear right to continue to recommend medical marijuana, and that right is protected by the United States Constitution." The ACLU of Hawaii has issued a deadline of next Wednesday for Kubo to retract his statement," Perrin added. "If we have to, we will go to federal court next week to reaffirm doctors' rights." In the meantime, however, Kubo's comments are already having a noxious impact. Optometrist Joyce Cassen, one of the 116 Hawaii doctors who have issued medical marijuana recommendations, told the Honolulu Advertiser Tuesday, she wouldn't be issuing any more. "If it could become something I could be prosecuted for, I certainly would want to stay away from that," she said. The situation wasn't helped by a federal Public Defender who should know better. "I don't think I could be counseling anyone to continue their marijuana use, especially if it's a federal crime," said Public Defender Peter Wolff. "I think the Hawaii program is essentially dead, unless doctors are willing to take a huge risk to their ability to practice medicine, and why would they do that?" he told the Advertiser. Other medical marijuana states have reacted more reasonably. Attorneys general in California, Colorado, Montana, and Nevada have publicly clarified that the Raich decision does not invalidate their state laws. But as seen from the examples of Alaska, Hawaii, and Oregon, the Raich verdict has activists and reformers putting out fires caused by misunderstanding of the verdict at best, and sometimes willful misinterpretation.
5.
Feature:
Raich
Ramifications
--
The
Good,
the
Bad,
and
the
Ugly
But the decision's ramifications are already beginning to reverberate in the nation's political scene. DRCNet spoke this week with some leading reform voices about how the Raich decision will affect the prospects for medical marijuana in four key arenas: California's burgeoning medical marijuana dispensaries, states that have existing medical marijuana laws, state legislatures, and the US Congress. As DRCNet reported last month, communities across California have been moving to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries, whose numbers in the state have mushroomed to around 160 at last count. Some have imposed moratoria on new clubs while they ponder regulations, and some of those localities explicitly said they were waiting for a decision in Raich before they acted. "There is nothing changing in the Bay Area -- Alameda County and San Francisco are moving ahead," said Dale Gieringer, executive director of California NORML. Indeed, Alameda County Wednesday passed an ordinance allowing an additional three dispensaries to set up in addition to the seven already approved by the county. But the county backed away from a proposal to create a dispensary inside a county-run hospital. The Monday Supreme Court decision doomed that idea, said Alameda County Supervisor Gail Steele. "Everyone feels very vulnerable now, but the people of California voted for medical marijuana and we are trying to make this possible," she told the Tri-Valley Heralds. Still, said Gieringer, he does not anticipate a major impact on dispensaries. "There may be some places where people get cold feet or people who don't want medical marijuana in their communities use this as an excuse, but my sense is that if the dispensaries were okay Sunday, they're okay today." "I don't think the co-ops are in any more danger today than before the ruling," said Paul Armentano, senior policy analyst for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "In the Oakland Cannabis Co-op Case, the court ruled 8-0 that the feds could prosecute them, but they're still there." California medical marijuana proponents will need to do two things, said Gieringer. "First, our job is to make clear that this decision changes nothing; it simply maintains the status quo," he said. "And we need to encourage local officials to stand up for their patients, and that's not always easy and comfortable, but there is no reason a community can't say it supports these establishments, like the city of Santa Cruz did when WAMM was raided." That education process can only be helped by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who moved quickly to reassure patients that little had changed. "Today's ruling does not overturn California law permitting the use of medical marijuana, but it does uphold a federal regulatory scheme that contradicts the will of California voters and limits the right of states to provide appropriate medical care for its citizens," said Lockyer Tuesday. If California medical marijuana patients and dispensaries are not being affected, it is hard to say the same thing about programs in some of the states where medical marijuana is legal. While most media coverage has been clear that the Raich decision did not address the legality of state medical marijuana laws, some state and federal officials are behaving as if it had outlawed them. Some states have followed California's stand-up lead, but officials in two medical marijuana states -- Alaska and Hawaii -- have made remarks suggesting they will target the programs, while in Oregon, the state's medical marijuana program director has ordained a temporary moratorium on the issuance of new patient cards. "Some people with vested interests who oppose the medicinal use of marijuana may be purposely getting the decision wrong," said NORML's Armentano. (See related story this issue for more detail and discussion.) With medical marijuana bills moving or planned in various state legislatures, and with solons in various states referring to fear of conflict with federal law even before the Raich decision, concerns that Raich will have an adverse affect on moves in the states may seen justified, but that hasn't been the case yet. In fact, in the only state legislative action on medical marijuana since the Raich ruling, the Rhode Island Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to approve a medical marijuana bill. (See related story this issue) "At least in some places, we're seeing legislatures who are being defiant instead of being cowed by the decision," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. We already saw a very positive impact in Rhode Island. They responded there by passing a medical marijuana bill by the most lopsided margin ever. We hope to see more of that." "While this didn't seem to have a negative effect in Rhode Island, legislators at the state level who are looking for a convenient excuse to punt on this issue will seize on the Raich decision as further ammunition for arguing against medical marijuana bills," said NORML's Armentano. "But you won't see longstanding, committed proponents of this issue alter their support for medical marijuana because they understand that the state laws have never been challenged by the federal government, and probably won't be." New York Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Saratoga County) is not a longstanding, committed proponent of medical marijuana, but he is a key gatekeeper in the New York legislature. Just weeks ago, Bruno announced he would finally allow a medical marijuana bill to move in New York, but in what could be a troubling sign of things to come, both Bruno and the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Vincent Leibell (R-Putnam County) signaled Tuesday they would abandon the bill. "To enact it, it would seem to me, would put New York residents in harm's way," Leibell told the New York Daily News. "We'd in effect be sanctioning breaking federal law, which we can't do and won't do." Although Leibell is mistaken, he is unlikely to be the last legislator to get Raich wrong, with bad consequences for medical marijuana. One place where the Raich decision may have a positive impact is the US Congress. With Justice Stevens suggesting outright that medical marijuana supporters take their case to Congress, a three-year old effort to block federal law enforcement spending to harass patients and providers in medical marijuana states could gain renewed energy. The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, set to be introduced next week as part of an appropriations bill, could pick up support because of the decision, said reformers. Last year it had 148 votes, 70 short of the number needed to be approved. "Our informal head count suggests that when Hinchey comes up, we'll probably get more votes than ever before," said MPP's Mirken. "This has energized people, and Justice Stevens' language putting the ball in Congress' court has given this a great impetus. The champagne-popping at the drug czar's office will be brief." "We'll get a good indicator of Raich's impact next week, when Hinchey goes to its third vote," said NORML's Armentano. "I would guess there is now a sense of urgency in Congress now that many of them represent those tens of thousands of people who use marijuana legally under state law, but now need protection from federal prosecution. Congress has a choice, and the Hinchey vote gives it a chance to go on record as supporting the rights of patients instead of waging war on them." "This could be a potential boost for Hinchey," said Bill Piper, national affairs director for the Drug Police Alliance. "The Supreme Court has now said it is up to Congress to protect patients, and every member of Congress has probably read at least one article saying the federal government has the authority to arrest patients, so it's on their minds. In that sense, this is a timely decision." While the odds against passage of Hinchey this year are high, they are not prohibitive, said DPA's Piper. "It will be difficult but not impossible to come up with 70 more votes, which is what we need. What really matters is that we continue to get a strong showing. Even if we pick up only a few votes, that sends a message to the Justice Department that raiding patients can have political consequences."
6.
Medical
Marijuana:
One
Day
After
Raich,
Rhode
Island
Senate
Passes
Medical
Marijuana
Bill
After the Supreme Court issued its ruling allowing the federal government to go after patients and providers in medical marijuana states, drug czar John Walters chortled that medical marijuana is "dead" as a political issue. But legislators in Rhode Island must not have been listening. On Tuesday, the Rhode Island Senate passed a medical marijuana bill by the most impressive margin ever recorded on such a vote, 34-2. A companion bill in the House will be amended to conform to the Senate bill, and could come up for a House committee vote as early as next week, the Providence Daily News reported. But even if the bill passes the lower chamber, it faces a veto from Gov. Donald Carcieri. A Carcieri spokesman claimed the governor was taking no position on the medical benefits or health risks of marijuana, but was concerned about the well-being of Rhode Islanders. "This would give Rhode Islanders a false sense of security, placing them in jeopardy of federal prosecution," said spokesman Jeff Neal, noting the US Supreme Court's ruling Monday. Neal said the governor was also concerned about "a number of very significant loopholes" in the bill, including a provision that would direct the Health Department to automatically issue licenses to any qualifying nonprofit allowing it to grow and distribute marijuana. Finally, Neal said, Carcieri was concerned that state police officers would be placed in an "untenable position" because they are supposed to uphold federal laws. Sponsored by Sen. Rhoda Perry (D-Providence), the bill would allow patients with "a debilitating medical condition" to obtain a doctor's recommendation to use medical marijuana. Under the bill, the state Health Department would issue licenses to qualifying patients and organizations. Patients would be able to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana and could grow up to 12 plants. The sponsor of the House version of the bill told the Daily News the vote Tuesday showed that Rhode Island legislators understood the Raich decision was not a bar to passing the bill. "This isn't about federal court rulings," said Rep. Thomas Slater (D-Providence). "This is about compassion for people who need help." "Even though the Supreme Court won't protect patients like me, it's gratifying to see that my state lawmakers will," said Rhonda O'Donnell, a multiple sclerosis sufferer from Warwick who has testified in favor of both Rhode Island bills. "The Supreme Court told us to take our fight to the legislature, and that's what we're doing. I will keep fighting until Governor Carcieri signs this compassionate legislation."
7.
Weekly:
This
Week's
Corrupt
Cops
Stories
More trouble for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a coke-crazed cop gets his first sentence, a deputy picks the wrong time to score, and a Mississippi twofer this week. Just another installment in the never-ending annals of prohibition-related law enforcement corruption. Let's get to it: In Springfield, Georgia, former Effingham County deputy sheriff Melinda Stewart Johnson was indicted Wednesday on felony drug and gun charges after being arrested in March as she bought marijuana during a sting operation. She was in uniform and on patrol when the deal went down, prosecutors told the Associated Press. She was charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana and possession of firearm -- her official deputy's weapon -- during the commission of a felony. She was fired March 8. In San Diego, a federal grand jury indicted a US Customs inspector Tuesday on charges she accepted up to $30,000 in cash and a deluxe spa from a corrupt immigration inspector and failed to report the wrongdoing. Daphiney Caganap, who has been placed on administrative leave from her current job as US Customs port director at the Detroit airport, was charged with nine counts of conspiracy to defraud the US, accepting gratuities, and making false statements. According to federal prosecutors, Caganap received gifts and money from the corrupt inspector, who was collecting thousands of dollars a week for turning a blind eye to marijuana and undocumented workers passing through the San Ysidro port of entry. In June 2000, as that inspector was being investigated, Caganap allegedly met with him and offered to provide help and information in return for goodies. The corrupt immigration inspector will apparently escape punishment, since he is now a "cooperating witness" for the prosecution. In Dedham, Massachusetts, former State Police Sgt. Timothy White was sentenced to two years in jail for assaulting his wife, but his troubles are far from over. The charges for which he was sentenced arose when White's wife called police to their home in January 2003, but that call led to an investigation that also showed that White had stolen up to 27 pounds of cocaine from the state evidence locker and he and his wife had teamed up to sell it along with two other people. Maura White gained immunity from prosecution for testifying against her husband. She will do so again in October, when he faces trail on the cocaine charges, as well as a charge of marijuana distribution. In Biloxi, Mississippi, a 14-year veteran of the Biloxi Police Department was arrested June 3 and charged with one count each of sale of Ecstasy and possession with intent to distribute. Darrell Cvitanovich, Jr., is the drug dog officer for the Biloxi Police. While initial police reports mentioned another drug being seized as well, Cvitanovich has not been charged with any other offenses, TV WLOX 13 reported. In Tupelo, Mississippi, former Plantersville police officer Billy Hanna has been sentenced to eight years in prison after he pled guilty to two counts of selling steroids and one count of possessing methamphetamine. Hanna pled guilty May 27 and was sentenced June 3 to 48 years in prison, but sentencing judge Paul Funderburk suspended all but eight years of that sentence. Hanna was busted last year in Lee County while in uniform in his police car.
8.
Marijuana:
Retailers
Say
Legalize
It
in
Online
Poll
Perhaps with dollar signs in their eyes, 71% of retail industry professionals participating in an online poll this week supported the legalization of marijuana. Prompted by last week's news that Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman had headed a list of more than 500 economists calling for a national debate on marijuana policy, RetailWire.com, a forum for industry professionals, took the question to its readership and found surprising support. "From a purely practical standpoint, many are now convinced that legalizing marijuana in the US would be of great benefit to the economy, particularly to retail businesses, and would alleviate other social problems and injustices," RetailWire.com noted in a Tuesday news release on the poll results titled "Retail-ize It!" While retail professionals were keen to free the weed for commercial purposes, RetailWire.com's "BrainTrust panelists," a group of industry professionals who regularly comment on retail issues for the web site, were more evenly divided. "Why not?" asked panelist Michael Richmond, an executive for Packaging and Technology Integrated Solutions. "Friedman et al make strong arguments for legalization from a variety of platforms. The obvious way to start the process is to put it in with the BATF, set some guidelines, sell it like you sell alcohol and cigarettes. My sense is that, if it were legalized, there would be fewer traffic fatalities but we might have to support the new snacking tax because of the munchies! I think the positives really outweigh the negatives." Virtual retail consultant James Tenser of VSN Strategies, however, raised a caution flag, though not from the expected direction. "Speaking hypothetically," wrote Tenser, "marijuana might prove to be a profitable line for retailers. And it seems righteous to stop incarcerating young people for simple possession at a high cost to taxpayers. But I wouldn't advocate that retailers take an active pro-pot stance. Most have been backing away from tobacco sales due mainly to health concerns. Pot risks are similar. And considering the present quality of the retail workforce -- what kind of labor pool would chain retailers have to draw from if pot were actually legal?" Cheap munchie jokes and faux concerns about pot smokers being able to handle the intellectual rigors of WalMart aside, the RetailWire.com poll and discussion, while admittedly unscientific, strongly suggest the pro-legalization sentiment is spreading even in unexpected quarters. Readers may appreciate Eric Sterling's A Businessperson's Guide to the Drug Problem.
9.
Europe:
Dutch
Medical
Marijuana
Program
Ailing
in
Face
of
Widespread
Availability
for
All
If marijuana is easily and legally available for all comers, you don't really need a medical marijuana program, the Dutch government is finding out. Although the Netherlands has been in the vanguard in approving medical marijuana -- it is the first and only country on earth where prescription pot is available on pharmacy shelves -- the Dutch Health Ministry announced Monday that it will reevaluate the program later this year and may shut it down.
After intensive studies, the Dutch government set up the Bureau of Medicinal Cannabis to supply standardized, quality-controlled marijuana grown under government contract by private entities for the treatment of chronic pain from Multiple Sclerosis, HIV/AIDS, cancer, and other diseases. Pharmacy sales of prescription marijuana began in September 2003, but fell flat, said Kuik. Sales were only one-third of those anticipated and the program is losing money, he said. Kuik also listed other contributing factors for the program's problems. Doctors who had lobbied for the program didn't bother to actually prescribe marijuana once they could do so, Kuik said. Also, not all insurance companies reimburse patients for prescribed marijuana. But it seems obvious the primary reason for the program's lack of success is the easy availability of marijuana in Holland. Why bother going to the doctor or the drug store when you can get your medicine over the counter at the coffee shop, and save money doing so?
10.
Canada:
Vancouver
Tells
Ottawa
to
Legalize
It
A city of Vancouver report calls for the full-blown legalization of marijuana in Canada, and Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell went on record Wednesday endorsing the report and its conclusions. The report is not yet official city policy -- it must be approved by the city council June 14 and then undergo a period of public discussion -- but Campbell's endorsement is a clear sign of where the process is headed. The report, Preventing Harm From Psychoactive Substances, is a comprehensive effort to address drug- and drug prohibition-related harms in the Western Canadian city known for its lax attitudes toward marijuana and its cutting edge approach to hard drugs. The call to legalize marijuana is but one of the dozens of recommendations in the 70-page document. No more halfway measures, said Mayor Campbell. "I think the decriminalization doesn't do anybody any good," he told the Vancouver Sun. "It sends that message that it's okay, but it's a crime to obtain it." Instead, said Campbell, Canada should legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana. Cannabis is big business in Canada, with published estimates of the annual profits from pot running between US $4 and $6 billion. Last year, the conservative Fraser Institute released a report saying legalization could yield $1.5 billion a year in tax revenues. A national poll last November found that 57% of Canadians favored legalization.
11.
Asia:
Indonesian
Protestors
Call
for
Corby's
Execution
While
Australians
Call
for
Bali
Boycott
The case of Schapelle Corby, the 27-year-old Australian woman sentenced to 20 years in an Indonesian prison May 27 after being convicted of smuggling nine pounds of marijuana into the resort island of Bali, continues to roil relations between the two countries. While Corby and her attorneys take the first steps toward appealing her conviction and sentence, some outraged Australians are calling for a boycott of Bali -- a popular destination for young Australians -- while others have engaged in vandalism and a June 1 fake anthrax attack on the Indonesian embassy in Canberra. In Indonesia, meanwhile, anti-drug fundamentalists marched Sunday in Jakarta to call for Corby's execution.
The turmoil over the Corby case is playing into preexisting strains between the two neighbors, with Australian criticism of the Indonesians sometimes bordering on the xenophobic, if not the downright racist, while in Indonesia, Muslim extremists linked to Al Qaeda last week threatened new bomb attacks in Jakarta on Westerners in general and Australians in particular. A Muslim extremist bombing in Bali in October 2002 killed 202 people, including 88 Australians. While two of the actual bombers in that attack were sentenced to death, the intellectual author of the attacks, cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, was sentenced to only 2 ½ years in prison for conspiracy in March, a sentence often contrasted with Corby's by her supporters. "How they can give the guy who masterminded the Bali bombings two years jail and give Schapelle what is effectively a life sentence is beyond belief and a disgrace to most Australians, said ex-Corby boyfriend Shannon McLure. "Australia is a big-hearted country and we gave Indonesia a billion dollars after the tsunami. They should give us something in return. They should give us back Schapelle," he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. According to Australian press reports, talk show callers, newspaper columnists, and radio ranters alike have echoed McLure's words and anger toward the Indonesians. "If I could get the money I gave to the tsunami appeal back, I would," said one talk show caller who identified himself as John, from the Sydney suburb of Maroubra. "I will never, ever travel to Bali again in fear that this could even happen to me or any of my family," said another talk show caller. That is exactly what some Australians and Corby supporters around the world would like to see happen. Vows to boycott and calls for an organized boycott have come not only from outraged Australians but also from some Australian travel agents. About 180,000 Australians annually visit Bali and make up the major part of its tourism trade. That has Bali worried. This week, while the Bali Tourism Board claimed no have seen no impact from boycott calls, it was worried enough to appeal to Australian travel agents to ignore boycott calls. "The Balinese tourism industry has only just turned the corner in recent times. We urge calm in this situation. Bali is a beautiful destination. We continue to welcome Australians warmly and hope that the Corby case will have no impact on Australians' desire to visit our beautiful island and continue to preserve the livelihood of our Balinese people."
12.
Asia:
In
Major
Shift,
China
to
Promote
Needle
Exchange
In an implicit acknowledgment that purely repressive measures have not worked to reduce China's burgeoning HIV infection rate, the Chinese Health Ministry this week called on local communities around the country to promote needle exchange programs and the distribution of free condoms. The move marks a clear departure from the Chinese government's previous policy of forbidding such harm reduction measures.
The Chinese have not always been so open. For years, the Beijing government denied it had an AIDS problem. No longer. In new guidelines for dealing with HIV/AIDS, the Health Ministry called on local governments to tailor harm reduction measures such as needle exchange to high-risk groups in their areas. The ministry guidelines include a proposal for using needle exchanges in combination with methadone maintenance for heroin addicts -- a group the government had almost completely ignored in the past, but which is probably responsible for most new HIV infections. "Under the national health system's launching of a people's war against drugs, drug eradication, AIDS prevention, and daily tasks must be closely joined," said a copy of the guidelines posted on the Health Ministry's Web site. According to official Chinese statistics, some 840,000 people have HIV and 80,000 have developed full-blown AIDS. But many observers believe the figure is much higher. Chinese state media reported in 2003 that authorities expected 300,000 new cases that year, and the United Nations has published estimates that China could have 10 million or more HIV cases within five years. In addition to intravenous drug users, the Health Ministry called on local governments to do prevention education with other high-risk groups, including migrant workers, gay men, and prostitutes. Prostitutes should be encouraged to require that customers use condoms, the ministry said, and people who have sexually transmitted diseases should get them free.
13.
Media
Scan:
Pain
Man,
Connecticut
Cocaine
Sentencing,
Uncontrolled
Substances
Pain Man -- Here to Guide the Sick and Dying Through Federal Drug Policy, animator Mark Fiore for the San Francisco Chronicle Connecticut Weighs Cocaine Sentencing Policy, National Public Radio Uncontrolled Substances, journalist Silja Talvi on prohibition vs. harm reduction, for Seattle's Evergreen Monthly
14.
Weekly:
This
Week
in
History
June 11, 2001: The US Supreme Court rules that the use by the police of a thermal imaging device to detect patterns of heat coming from a private home is a search that requires a warrant. June 13, 1994 -- The RAND Corporation releases a study finding that drug treatment is seven times more cost effective than law enforcement for reducing cocaine use. June 14, 2000: Bestselling author, cancer and AIDS patient, and high profile medical marijuana activist Peter McWilliams is found dead in his home in Los Angeles, California. Barred by a federal court order from using marijuana to counteract the extreme nausea caused by his AIDS drugs, McWilliams choked to death on his own vomit, slumped on his bathroom floor. His federal prosecutors said they were "saddened by his death." June 15, 1998: Random House publishes Mike Gray's "Drug Crazy: How We Got Into This Mess and How We Can Get Out."
15.
Weekly:
The
Reformer's
Calendar
Please submit listings of events concerning drug policy and related topics to [email protected]. June 11, 11:00am-5:00pm, Ottawa, ON, Canada, "Truth, Hope and Compassion (THC) Rally," sponsored by Crosstown Traffic (http://www.crosstowntraffic.ca). Contact Tim Meehan at (613) 230-1937 or [email protected] or Russell Barth at (613) 761-6504 or [email protected] for further information. June 28, New York, NY, An Opiate Overdose Prevention Conference, sponsored by the Harm Reduction Coalition and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Admission free, space limited, please RSVP to secure your space. At the Holiday Inn Conference Center, W. 32nd St. & Broadway, contact Paula Santiago at (212) 213-6376 ext. 155 or [email protected]. July 8-9, 7:00pm, New Brunswick, NJ, "Waiting to Inhale," screenings of new medical marijuana documentary, at the New Jersey International Film Festival. At Rutgers University, Scott Hall #123, 43 College Ave., visit http://www.njfilmfest.com for info. August 12-13, Washington, DC, "Over 2 Million Imprisoned – Too Many!", March on DC, sponsored by Family and Friends of People Incarcerated (FMI). Reception Friday evening, march Saturday morning from 9:00am to noon. Contact Roberta Franklin at (334) 220-4670 or firstladytms©aol.com, or visit http://www.journeyforjustice.org for further information. August 13, Washington, DC, "Million Family Members and Friends of Inmates March," sponsored by Family Members of Inmates. Contact Roberta Franklin at (334) 220-4670 or [email protected] for further information. August 19-20, Salt Lake City, UT, "Science and Response in 2005," First National Conference on Methamphetamine, HIV and Hepatitis C. Sponsored by the Harm Reduction Coalition and the Harm Reduction Project, visit http://www.harmredux.org/conference2005.htm after January 15 or contact Amanda Whipple at (801) 355-0234 ext. 3 for further information. August 20-21, 10:00am-8:00pm, Seattle, WA, Seattle Hempfest 2005. At Myrtle Edwards Park, Pier 70, admission free, visit http://www.hempfest.org or (206) 781-5734 or [email protected] for further information. August 28, 11:00am-9:00pm, Olympia, WA, Third Annual Olympia Hempfest. At Heritage Park, visit http://www.olyhempfest.com for further information. September 17, Boston, MA, "Sixteenth Annual Fall Freedom Rally," sponsored by MASSCANN. On Boston Common, visit http://www.masscann.org for updates, or contact (781) 944-2266 or [email protected]. September 23-25, New Paltz, NY, Students for Sensible Drug Policy Northeast Conference. At SUNY New Paltz, contact Jenny Loeb at [email protected] for further information. September 25-29, Kabul, Afghanistan, "The 2005 Kabul International Symposium – Drug Policy: Challenges and Responses." Sponsored by the Senlis Council, at Kabul University, visit http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/events/kabul/ or e-mail [email protected] for further information. October 2, noon, Madison WI, "Great Midwest Marijuana Harvest Festival." At the UW Campus Library Mall, visit http://www.weedstock.com for further information. November 9-12, Long Beach, CA, "Building a Movement for Reason, Compassion and Justice," the 2005 International Drug Policy Reform Conference. Sponsored by Drug Policy Alliance, at the Westin Hotel, details to be announced. Visit http://www.drugpolicy.org/events/dpa2005/ for updates. November 13-16, Markham, Ontario, "Issues of Substance," Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse National Conference 2005. At Hilton Suites Toronto/Markham Conference Centre & Spa, visit http://www.ccsa.ca/pdf/ccsa-annconf-abstract-2005-e.pdf for info. February 9-11, 2006, Tasmania, Australia, The Eleventh International Conference on Penal Abolition (ICOPA), coordinated by Justice Action. For further information visit http://www.justiceaction.org.au/ICOPA/ndx_icopa.html or contact +612-9660 9111 or [email protected]. April 5-8, 2006, Santa Barbara, CA, Fourth National Clinical Conference on Cannabis Therapeutics. Sponsored by Patients Out of Time, details to be announced, visit http://www.medicalcannabis.com for updates. If you like what you see here and want to get these bulletins by e-mail, please fill out our quick signup form at https://stopthedrugwar.org/WOLSignup.shtml. PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the contents of Drug War Chronicle is hereby granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and, where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification for our records, including physical copies where material has appeared in print. Contact: StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail [email protected]. Thank you. Articles of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of the DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
