Stunned at the rapid increase in the number of registered medical marijuana patients in the state, the Colorado Senate voted overwhelmingly Monday to impose new restrictions on physicians who make

It's been a big week for marijuana at the statehouse in Providence, with lawmakers Tuesday introducing a decriminalization bill and hearing testimony on the effects of marijuana prohibition Wednesd

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                              

February 3, 2010

Rhode Island House Members Introduce Bill to Decriminalize Marijuana

Bill would decriminalize the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana and substitute a civil penalty of $150

CONTACT: Kurt A. Gardinier, MPP director of communications …… 202-905-0738 or kgardinier@mpp.org

PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND —A bill to decriminalize the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana and substitute a civil penalty of $150 was introduced in the Rhode Island House of Representatives yesterday. H 7317, a bipartisan bill was co-sponsored by 35 House members and has been referred to the House Judiciary committee. The Rhode Island State Senate is likely to introduce their version of the bill later this week. If the bill becomes law, Rhode Island would join their neighboring state to the north, Massachusetts, and become the 14th state to pass a law to decriminalize marijuana. In 2008, Massachusetts voters passed a similar decriminalization law with 65% of the vote.

         “Rhode Island lawmakers should be applauded for their support of this bill that will save the state much needed money and resources by not arresting, prosecuting, sentencing and incarcerating marijuana users,” said Karen O’Keefe, MPP director of state policies. “We look forward to the day when the citizens of this state no longer have to fear being handcuffed and thrown in jail for using a substance far safer than alcohol.”

         The entire text of the bill can be read at:

www.rilin.state.ri.us/billtext10/housetext10/h7317.pdf

         With more than 29,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit www.mpp.org.

####

New Jersey became the 14th state to establish protections for patients who use cannabis on the advice of their doctors. The "New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act" signed into law by Governor Jon Corzine shields qualified patients from arrest and prosecution for possession and transportation, and mandates distribution of medical cannabis by state-regulated "Alternative Treatment Centers." As the 11th most populous state in the nation, New Jersey is the third largest state to pass medical cannabis legislation, after California and Michigan.

"The passage of New Jersey's medical cannabis law is a victory for commonsense health policies," said Caren Woodson, ASA's government affairs director. "It's only a matter of time before the federal government catches up."

The bill was passed by a 48-14 vote by the General Assembly and a 25-13 vote by the State Senate after years of lobbying by patients and advocates. New Jersey officials must now develop regulations for administering the program that will go into effect in six months. The law prohibits patients from cultivating their own medicine, requiring them to purchase their medicine from one of the six distribution centers to be established by the state.

The number of patients who will qualify for access through the state-run program is unclear, since lawmakers intentionally excluded the primary condition for which patients use cannabis: chronic pain. Among the qualifying conditions for which a doctor may recommend cannabis are cancer, HIV/AIDS, Lou Gehrig's disease, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis.

Following the signing of his state's medical cannabis bill, U.S. Representative Donald Payne (NJ-10) added his name to the list of co-sponsors on the federal Truth in Trials bill, which would allow medical cannabis patients who face federal marijuana charges that they were acting in compliance with state law. Currently, federal rules of evidence prevent cannabis patients from using any type of medical defense.

The "New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act" can be downloaded here.

Maryland to Consider Medical Cannabis Bill

Maryland Delegate Dan Morhaim announced at a January 26 press conference that he will be introducing a bi-partisan bill to protect the state's medical cannabis patients.

The bill would reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug under state law and allow eligible patients to obtain and possess medical cannabis when recommended by a physician. Similar to New Jersey's recently enacted law, patients would be required to purchase their medicine from designated centers run and regulated by the state.
Morhaim estimates that Maryland could register 1,000 qualified patients per month, if the bill is passed.

District of Columbia Takes Up Implementation

Medical cannabis patients in Washington, D.C. are edging closer to legal protection, in the wake of a lifting of the Congressional ban on implementing the medical cannabis initiative passed overwhelmingly by city voters in 1998. City Councilmember David Catania has introduced a bill, co-sponsored by nine of the 13 council members, that would put Initiative 59 into effect.

The council will consider regulations on how many dispensaries to allow, whether they'll be nonprofit, for which conditions patients can qualify, and rules for cultivation. Catania has said he anticipates five to 10 nonprofit dispensaries in the city, restricted to locations at least 1,000 feet from schools, parks and other dispensaries.
A council spokesperson predicted the council will pass the bill by late spring, and may be approved in Congress by the end of summer.

California Supreme Court Nixes Quantity Limits on Medical Marijuana

Protection from arrest upheld for state-issued ID cardholders
In a unanimous ruling, the California Supreme Court said lawmakers cannot impose limits on how much cannabis qualified patients may possess or cultivate. The published decision in People v. Kelly struck down plant and possession guidelines established by the state legislature in 2003, declaring the limits to be an unconstitutional change to the Compassionate Use Act approved by voters in 1996. Under the ruling, California patients are entitled to quantities consistent with their reasonable personal use.

The court left intact the legislature's voluntary ID card program, which provides protection from arrest and prosecution for card-carrying patients who are within state or local guidelines for personal-use quantities. Californians who exceed those guidelines may still have to go to court to prove their compliance with state law.

"The California Supreme Court did the right thing by abolishing arbitrary limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation," said Joe Elford, ASA Chief Counsel. "At the same time, the court may have left too much discretion to law enforcement. Qualified patients should not fear arrest and prosecution."

The ruling affirms the decision of an appellate court to overturn the conviction of a southern California man, Patrick Kelly, who uses cannabis to treat a number of serious medical conditions, including hepatitis C, chronic back pain, and cirrhosis. A jury had concluded that the 12 ounces of dried cannabis and 7 plants Kelly had at his home exceeded the limits of 8 ounces and six mature plants established by the legislature's 2003 Medical Marijuana Program Act.

In an unusual twist, attorneys for both Kelly and the State of California told the court that the legislative limits on medical marijuana should be abolished as unconstitutional. Both parties also opposed the appellate court's invalidation of the entire statute, Health & Safety Code Section 11362.77, which protects ID cardholders from arrest and prosecution if they are in compliance with local or state guidelines. The state high court agreed, and reversed the appellate decision on the ID card program.

The California Supreme Court decision can be downloaded here.

Appeals Court Requests More Briefs on Dispensary Bans

In a critical case that addresses the right of medical cannabis dispensaries to operate, a California appeals court has asked for additional briefs. The case of Qualified Patients Association v. City of Anaheim, brought by attorney Anthony Curiale and argued at appeal by ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, raises the question of whether the legislature's 2003 Medical Marijuana Program Act preempts municipalities from banning dispensaries. ASA argues that it does, but the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District has asked for additional arguments on the legislature's intent, as the law specifies exemptions from statutes that could be the basis for such bans. A favorable ruling would mean legal challenges to any local ordinances that ban collectives and cooperatives from dispensing cannabis to qualified patients.

LA to Regulate Medical Cannabis Dispensaries

Restrictions on Locations May Be "Poison Pill"

The second largest city in the U.S. has adopted regulations for the operation of medical cannabis dispensaries. After more than two years of lobbying by ASA and other patient advocates, the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance establishing rules for the operation of patient collectives and cooperatives that dispense medical cannabis.

"This is a bittersweet victory for medical marijuana patients in Los Angeles," said Don Duncan, who led the lobbying effort as ASA's California director. "We've fought hard for sound regulations, but this ordinance includes "poison-pill" restrictions that threaten to wipe out nearly all of the dispensaries in the city."

More than 500 medical cannabis dispensaries currently serve Los Angelenos. The new regulations limit the number of dispensaries that may operate in the city to 70, though the 137 dispensaries that were registered with the city two years ago, when the city council established an Interim Control Ordinance, can apply to remain open.

Among the new rules with which dispensaries must comply are restrictions on location. The ordinance establishes buffer zones of 1,000 feet around schools, parks, and other "sensitive use" locations, and prevents any dispensaries from being located adjacent to residential or mixed-use buildings.

"Dispensaries will be unable to locate in virtually any of the commercial zones in the city," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "They will be relegated to remote industrial zones, making access unnecessarily onerous for many patients."

The vast majority of registered dispensaries cannot comply with the ordinance's proximity restrictions and may be forced to move, but a concession won by ASA creates an exception for operators who can demonstrate they have been "good neighbors" in their current location.

Los Angeles joins more than 40 other cities and counties in California that have adopted regulations for the distribution of medical cannabis through patient collectives and cooperatives.

ASA Affiliate Packs Sheriff Candidates Forum

At a recent forum, candidates for sheriff in Sacramento County, California, faced questions on medical cannabis from a host of patients and advocates organized by Crusaders for Patients Rights (CPR), an ASA affiliate. The January 20 forum was sponsored by the League of Women Voters, the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association and the Sacramento County Law Enforcement Managers' Association.

Prior to the forum, Lanette Davies of CPR urged members at the organization's meeting to attend, which she then followed up with an announcement of the forum on the ASA Sacramento email list. The result was that of the 50 people in attendance at the forum, a dozen were patients or advocates.

Questions for the candidates were selected by the League of women Voters from cards submitted by attendees. Thanks to the strong showing by CPR, 25-30 of the cards submitted had questions about medical cannabis, with two being presented to the candidates for sheriff.

Bret Daniels, a former sheriff's deputy, gave his full support. Jim Cooper, a captain in the department who is currently the mayor of Elk Grove, said he supports legitimate patients but feels there is too much abuse. Scott Jones, also a department captain, states he supports the law. The three men are seeking to replace Sheriff John McGinness, who is retiring after one term.

The forum has been broadcast twice on local cable channels.

As I discussed last night, yesterday's special YouTube Interview with the President conspicuously -- though predictably -- excluded the top-rated questions from the contest, all of which had to with legalizing marijuana. So now everyone's calling out YouTube for censoring their own forum, the whole purpose of which was to ask Obama the questions that got the most online votes.

Since YouTube publicly credited itself with deciding which questions were asked, I guess it's only fair that they take the blame for blatantly ignoring the single biggest constituency that participated in their forum. But let's not forget that it's the President himself who has twice failed to form even one intelligent sentence in response to the marijuana questions that continue to dominate these forums. He's proven that he can't or won't discuss this issue seriously, so if YouTube sought to avoid another embarrassing controversy, it's at least partially the President's fault for setting such pathetic precedent.

All are welcome at the Hope Support Group Meeting. Responsible onsite medication is allowed for legal medical cannabis patients.

Comedian Howard Rover, The Comedy Store, NUG Magazine and San Diego Americans for Safe Access presents:

Medical Marijuana ExtravaGANJA! A night of comedy!

Long time gay rights and cannabis activist Dennis Peron founded California's dispensary in San Francisco in 1990.

Another online Q&A contest concluded Monday without any straight answers from the President about why marijuana remains illegal. YouTube, which sponsored the forum, declined to ask the President a single marijuana-related question, despite overwhelming public demand.

As was the case with every previous online forum of this sort, questions about marijuana legalization were not only prominent, they were by far the most popular vote-getters.

These are the top three highest-rated questions from the entire contest:

"Mr. President, When you asked the country to give you questions, one of the most asked was "Are you going to legalize Marijuana". When you read it, you laughed like it wasnt serious. Why is that?"
None, Florida
1,906 Votes

"What are your plans for cannabis legalization?"
Anonymous, Oklahoma
1,783 Votes                         

"Why don't you legalize marijuana, it seems like a great way to gain tax money, and people should have to right to use it if they please, and it would cripple gang activity? Do you plan to?"
Lussy Picker, Kentucky
1,766 Votes             

Sadly, none of these questions were answered. In contrast, the most popular question that wasn't about marijuana received 1,331 votes and, yes, the President answered that one. It was about net neutrality, which Obama says he supports. So, at least we'll continue to enjoy free speech on the internet, even as the White House pretends not to hear us.

Incredibly, this political popularity contest was broken up into categories including Jobs & the Economy, Health Care, Energy & Environment, Foreign Policy & National Security, Education, Financial Reform, and Government Reform, yet it was the "Other" section which drew the most votes, due entirely to its emphasis on legalizing marijuana. "Other" has become a de-facto euphemism for drug policy reform in several of these White House sponsored forums, which wouldn't keep happening if "Crime & Drug Policy" were given its own well-deserved category alongside the other issues that supposedly encompass the modern political landscape.

Instead, the whole online voting process has become a self-evident mockery, as the contest's democratic structure is violated time and again simply to avoid answering one simple question. But if you're frustrated by all of this, don't be. We're winning the online debate, and we're doing so at a time when online outreach is important enough to the White House that they keep coming back for more.

Stunned at the rapid increase in the number of registered medical marijuana patients in the state, the Colorado Senate voted overwhelmingly Monday to impose new restrictions on physicians who make medical marijuana recommendations. The Senate voted 34-1 to pass SB 109.

Sponsored by Sens. Chris Romer (D-Denver) and Nancy Spence (R-Centennial), the bill would require physicians who make medical marijuana recommendations to have a "bona fide" relationship with patients, including treating a patient before he applies for medical marijuana, conducting a thorough physical exam, and providing follow-up care. The bill would also bar doctors from being paid by dispensaries to write recommendations and require that they not have any restrictions on their medical licenses. Doctors would have to keep records of all medical marijuana recommendations and provide them to state health agencies seeking to investigate doctors for violating state laws.

The bill would also require persons between 18 and 21 to get recommended by two different physicians.

Colorado began registering medical marijuana patients in June 2001 after voters approved a constitutional amendment legalizing its use. For years, the number of patients hovered around 2,000, but after state courts last year threw out a regulation limiting the number of patients caregivers could provide for to five and the Obama administration signaled that it was not going to interfere in medical marijuana states, the numbers exploded. By last September, there were more than 17,000 registered patients, and now the number is near 40,000. A similar boom has gone on with dispensaries, with Colorado now second only to California in their numbers.

The bill was supported by Colorado law enforcement and the Colorado Medical Association, but was opposed by most medical marijuana patients and providers.

"This is the beginning of the end of the Wild West" for the state's booming medical-marijuana industry, said bill sponsor Sen. Chris Romer.

"This bill is an unprecedented assault on the doctor-patient privilege that would hold medical marijuana doctors to a higher standard than any other doctor," medical marijuana attorney Robert Correy told lawmakers. "This would cause human suffering. The most sick and the most poor would be disproportionately harmed. You're going to see the Board of Medical Examiners conducting witch hunts against medical marijuana providers."

The bill now moves to the House.

Former French Polynesia President Oscar Temaru has said

• read full post
• add comment

The Oakland-based activists behind the Tax and Regulate Cannabis 2010 California marijuana legalization initiative Thursday handed in more th

The Los Angeles City Council voted 9-3 Tuesday to approve a medical marijuana dispensary ordinance

The Obama administration announced this week that it is nominating acting

Once again, the President wants to know what you think about marijuana policy. His latest online voting forum is sponsored by YouTube, and you can submit your questions about marijuana legalization either on video or in writing.

Participants are asked to focus their questions on how legalization will impact the following areas:

Jobs & the Economy
Health care
Energy & Environment
Foreign Policy & National Security
Education
Financial Reform
Government Reform

After looking around a bit, I've noticed that some internet trolls have been attempting to disrupt the dialogue by submitting questions that have nothing to do with the legalization of marijuana. Some of the categories include a number of non-marijuana-related questions, so please click over there and use your up and down votes to keep the conversation focused by making sure the marijuana questions stay at the top in each section.

With all the problems facing our nation, obsessively discussing marijuana legalization on the internet is more important than ever. After all, if people get sick of hearing about this, there's only one way to shut us up.

Update: Just kidding. I'm pretty sure the forum isn't intended to discuss marijuana legalization exclusively. But you'd almost think it was, considering how many people have questions for the President about why our marijuana laws haven't been fixed yet. I wonder how many more of these online votes we have to dominate before we get a straight answer.

Dear friends:

A couple of weeks ago, we told you about a district attorney in Nevada who obnoxiously said that making marijuana legal in Nevada would turn the state into Sodom and Gomorra. When we said the MPP-supported campaign in the state, Nevadans for Sensible Marijuana Laws, wasn't going to let that attack go unanswered, we weren't kidding.

Yesterday, in the lobby of the building where district attorney Richard Gammick has his office, MPP's Dave Schwartz, who serves as NSML's campaign manager, unveiled a TV ad attacking Gammick for his irrational stance. We really love the ad and wanted to share it with you. Take a look:

 This is just an opening salvo in what will be an ongoing campaign to highlight the hypocrisy of law enforcement officials who know that alcohol causes more societal problems than marijuana, yet advocate for the continued persecution of anyone who chooses to use marijuana instead of alcohol.

We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it any more. If you feel the same and want to see more ads like this — in Nevada or in other parts of the country — would you please make a contribution today? We're 100% dependant on contributions from people like you, and we really need your help today.

Sincerely,

Steve Fox
Director of State Campaigns
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

Cannapalooza is the international marketplace for all things cannabis. The first event of its kind to be held in Las Vegas... that's right, Sin City!

Predictably, the trajectory towards more compassionate marijuana policies brings people out of the shadows to celebrate this unique and infinitely useful plant. Unlike other medicines, cannabis comes in a thousand forms and lends itself to inquiry and discussion comparable to that of music, art, food and wine. Mix in the fact that a lot of people are able to appreciate it openly for the first time in their lives and it should come as no surprise that they're organizing events to see who can grow the best stuff.

Such contests generated controversy this week, raising the question of whether medical marijuana patients might be enjoying their freedom at the expense of further political progress. In Colorado, an upcoming event prompted a critical editorial questioning whether a pot contest serves any legitimate medical purpose. Meanwhile, in Michigan, a similar event was shut down after law-enforcement officials questioned its legality due to the state's tight restrictions on distribution by caregivers. Despite overwhelming public support for medical marijuana, the idea of patients convening to consume large quantities of top-grade medicine seems a bit of a stretch for some observers.

Surely, we can expect more of this sort of thing, and I understand the enthusiasm for bringing together a community that's been forced underground for generations. But there's also a line that has to be drawn somewhere and those whose states are ahead of the curve should really consider the impact of their approach on those still fighting for reform elsewhere in the country. The example you set inevitably impacts the tone of the debates taking place elsewhere. The "lessons of California" have inspired much more restrictive approaches in subsequent medical marijuana states, resulting in fewer patients receiving the care and protection that they need. Yet the problem in California was never really the distribution of medicine to a large patient population, but rather the conspicuous magnitude of the cultural and industrial phenomenon that Prop. 215 became.

Obviously, to us at least, any difficulties adapting to the new reality of medical marijuana in America are to be blamed first and foremost on the drug war, the Feds, sometimes the press, and absolutely the local governments that failed to regulate the industry in the hope that it would just go away. But as decades of hysteria and injustice begin finally to subside, our work isn't necessarily going to get any easier. Pot-tasting parties are awesome, I'm sure, but they're awfully far removed from the professional advocacy that got us to this point and if they piss off even a few people, then maybe it's better to wait or just invite people you know.  

Marijuana remains illegal for healthy people everywhere in America, thus the examples set today by the medical marijuana community will inevitably shape the political landscape and determine the future of the movement for complete and permanent reform.

Marijuana undermines academic performance, they claim, so the punishment for marijuana is that you're not allowed to go to school anymore:

Three Liberty High School students were expelled for possession of what police and district officials say they suspect is marijuana on Jan. 13, 20 and 21.School employees found a 15-year-old student in possession of a small amount of marijuana on campus Jan. 13.

School officials proceeded to ask questions about other students who might have marijuana on campus as well… [Issaquah Press]

Yeah! Get the kids to rat on their friends so you can expel as many of them as possible. Teach them responsibility by taking away the one responsibility they have. Make them be normal by separating them from their peers and leaving them with no one to turn to.

And if these kids grow up to be total losers, we'll blame it on the marijuana.