Latest

ASA's web page on the San Diego case: http://www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/article.php?id=4405 For Immediate Release: October 16th, 2008 California Supreme Court Denies Review of San Diego Medical Marijuana Case Advocates prepared to pursue litigation against counties refusing to uphold state law San Francisco, CA -- The California Supreme Court refused to review a landmark medical marijuana case today that will require all counties to implement the state identification program. The County of San Diego filed suit against the State of California in February 2006, arguing that state law was preempted by federal law. That argument was rejected by the San Diego Superior Court in December of 2006 and was also later denied by the Fourth District Court of Appeals on July 31, 2008. The lawsuit challenged the validity of the state identification card program, as well as the foundation of California's medical marijuana laws, but the decisions by both lower and appellate courts found that the ID card program and state law remained valid and does not violate the state constitution. "The San Diego case is now final under California law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel of Americans for Safe Access, who argued before the appellate court on behalf of patients. "The courts have made clear that federal law does not preempt state law relating to medical marijuana and that local officials must comply with California's medical marijuana laws." In a unanimous opinion earlier this year, the Court of Appeals ruled that the federal Controlled Substances Act "signifies Congress's intent to maintain the power of states to elect 'to serve as a laboratory in the trial of novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country' by preserving all state laws that do not positively conflict with the CSA." Americans for Safe Access (ASA), along with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project, defended the interests of patients in fighting San Diego's appeal to the State Supreme Court. Both organizations successfully intervened as defendants in the lawsuit in August of 2006, while the case was still being litigated in the Superior Court. After the appellate court ruling, ASA put all counties that had not yet implemented the ID card program on notice of their obligation to implement state law, in particular the state ID card program, which both assists law enforcement and affords greater greater protection to patients. "We expect the remaining holdout counties to implement the medical marijuana card program immediately," continued Elford. "And if they continue to refuse to comply with state law, we will call upon the courts to require them to do so." San Diego County was originally joined by San Bernardino and Merced Counties, but Merced chose not to appeal, opting instead to implement the state ID card program and a Sheriff's policy on medical marijuana patient encounters. In an unusual move, the City of San Diego voiced its opposition to the County's lawsuit by filing an amicus 'friend of the court' brief in December 2007, siding with the Attorney General and medical marijuana patient advocates. For further information: California Court of Appeals ruling from July 31, 2008: http://www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/San_Diego_Appeal_Ruling.pdf ASA's web page on the San Diego case: http://www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/article.php?id=4405

[Courtesy of Drug Policy Alliance] For Immediate Release: October 16, 2008 For More Info: Tony Newman: (646) 335-5384 ARRIVE, an Innovative Addiction Treatment Program, Celebrates its 20-year Anniversary at October 23 Gathering Cutting-edge Program Challenges Notions that Threat of Prison and Abstinence are Required to Receive Help New York Center will Honor its more than 8,700 Graduates and Visionary Leader, Howard Josepher The pioneering drug program, ARRIVE, will celebrate their 20-year anniversary of serving the New York City community in its fight against drug addiction and HIV/AIDS at a gathering at Pacha nightclub (618 W. 46th St.) on Thursday, October 23 from 6 p.m. until 10 p.m. ARRIVE started in a church basement in 1988 in an attempt to help drug users who were contracting HIV through dirty syringes. In 1990, Exponents was founded as a non-profit organization to keep the ARRIVE pilot project alive. The organization has 40 staff members, the majority of whom have histories of addiction and incarceration and are graduates of ARRIVE. With more than 8,700 graduates, the cutting-edge program differs from many of the status quo treatment programs by challenging the notion that people have to be coerced into treatment by the threat of jail. The program has always been voluntary and has better results in getting people through their program than programs that favor the punitive, coercive treatment models. The ARRIVE program also doesn’t demand abstinence from drugs in order to access their help. “ARRIVE changed the paradigm of how we treat and help drug users and the response has been nothing short of phenomenal. Over the years, thousands of inner-city drug users voluntarily showed up for the program and over 75% of them graduated.", said Howard Josepher, founder of Exponents and an ex-offender who overcame his heroin addiction 40 years ago. “We now have more that 8,700 graduates and not a single one of them was coerced or mandated to attend. Our experience has been, contrary to popular belief, that addicts will seek out treatment if it is presented in a non-punitive and non-judgmental manner.” Each week, hundreds of New Yorkers participate in Exponents’ full range of programs, which include: recovery readiness (active users), drug treatment and recovery services. Other services offered include job skill training, support groups, stress reduction, health and wellness information, acupuncture; relapse prevention techniques, help with benefits and advocacy and communication skill trainings. Another special aspect of Exponents is the focus on building community and empowering through advocacy. Exponents’ participants and graduates have been on the front lines of demonstrations and activism whether it be organizing against New York’s draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws or pushing for access to clean syringes to reduce HIV transmission. “ARRIVE has been such an integral part of my recovery, support, career, and life,” said Bobbi Hart Charles. “I walked into the Exponents’ office on Beach Street June 1991 and seventeen years later I am still clean. As a direct result of the counseling and encouragement that I received at Exponents, I returned to school and obtained a Master’s Degree in Public Administration, specializing in Healthcare Administration and Policy. Norbert and I just celebrated our fourth wedding anniversary and I still feel like a newly wed! As I look back over my life, and I think things over, I can truly say that I’ve been blessed and I have a testimony. ARRIVE is a very large part of that testimony!”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 15, 2008 CONTACT: Scott Mortimer at 978-463-3788, Maddy Webster at 617-776-8344, or Bill Downing at 781-944-2266 Boston — Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts announces that, for the 5th consecutive election cycle, Massachusetts citizens will vote on marijuana reform Public Policy Questions. Since 2000, voters in over 125 towns representing one-third of the Commonwealth have voted overwhelmingly in favor of marijuana reform (see attachment PPQtotal.doc or http://www.dpfma.org for detailed election results). For the 2008 election, activists from DPFMA and MassCann/NORML have placed four Public Policy Questions in State Representative districts concerning the medicinal use of marijuana. Voters in 15 towns will be able to decide the following ballot question: “Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor’s written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use?” 1st Middlesex Representative Robert S. Hargraves Question 4 – Towns of Ayer, Dunstable, Groton, Pepperell, and Townsend. 13th Norfolk Representative Lida E. Harkins Question 4 – Medfield, Needham, and precincts 1 and 2 of Dover. (The PPQ will appear as Question 5 in Needham) 21st Middlesex Representative Charles A. Murphy Question 4– Bedford, Burlington, precinct 3 of Wilmington. 6th Plymouth Representative Daniel K. Webster Question 4– Hanson, Pembroke, precincts 2,3,4,5 of Duxbury, precinct 2 of Halifax. In January 2008 the American College of Physicians released a landmark position paper endorsing full legal protection for medical marijuana patients. (report available at http://www.acponline.org/acp_news/medmarinews.htm) The ACP represents 124,000 member doctors and is the second largest physician group in the US. Since 2000 Massachusetts voters have passed 41 marijuana reform PPQs by a wide margin, 68% yes for medical marijuana and 62% for decriminalization. This year all Massachusetts voters will also vote on Question 2, a binding referendum that will make simple possession a civil offense with $100 fine. DPFMA has been working with the state legislature to pass H.2247, “An Act to Regulate the Medical Use of Marijuana by Patients Approved by Physicians and Certified by the Department of Public Health” sponsored by Rep. Frank Smizik. Currently twelve states including Vermont, Rhode Island, and Maine have passed similar legislation to protect medical marijuana patients from arrest and imprisonment. ###

We are not in Kansas anymore: One ritual I quickly picked up on in DC is the effusive praise that people give each other, especially politicians. It all seemed pretty over-the-top to me. Until this week, I never did it. At the Leadership Institute’s monthly breakfast, Republican Congressman and minority whip (2nd most powerful position) Roy Blunt addressed us and mostly spoke of the bailout. I was able to ask a question. Before I asked it, I thanked him for his many, recent 18 hour days and hard work to find a solution to the economic mess. I then asked him how hard Ronald Reagan was rolling over in his grave, as Republicans voted to nationalize our banking system. As I have said earlier, often it is important to stay on topic, in order to be called upon later. Still Frosty’s little brother: Attending a conservative conference today, I was able to address about 150 in a breakout session. Wearing standard LEAP attire at such events (dress slacks, dress shirt and LEAP T-shirt), they all got a good look at the message (I have the ‘legalize drugs’ message also on the front). During the two days, I was able to have nearly 2,000 attendees at least be exposed to the idea, at least via the shirt. I chatted with a good 50. Oh yeah, after the session was over, 6-8 people came up and asked if I were related to Frosty Wooldridge. He is quite famous with conservatives on another issue. Yes, I replied, I am his little brother.

[Courtesy of CATO] Drug Reformers: Last month Cato Unbound, our online forum for big picture topics, featured an exchange of views regarding drug policy and responsible drug use. Here's a summary description: To some degree, we all know what life is like under drug prohibition. It's been the status quo for decades. But what would life be like without the war on drugs? This is much harder to imagine. Those who support drug prohibition often do so with the premise, implicit or explicit, that life without prohibition would be marked by vastly more irresponsibility, addiction, accidents, health problems, and death. Those who favor ending drug prohibition are forced to argue, not only for an unfamiliar policy, but also against this parade of horribles. Yet are we not able to think about and manage these substances rationally and responsibly? If we are, then as a society, the more effective way to face psychoactive substances may simply be to allow each individual to decide for himself what role, if any, these substances will have. For this month's lead essay , we have invited Earth and Fire Erowid, the maintainers of the drug information site Erowid.org , to discuss how prohibition itself has shaped the way we think about drugs, and how the drug war has prevented us from forming responsible, well-informed views of psychoactive substances. Prohibition, they argue, has created an oversimplified and caricatured view of psychoactive drugs: On the one side are legal drugs, which are presumed to be relatively safe; on the other are the illegals, and public understanding of their effects often reaches no further than rumors and "Just Say No." This simplistic understanding has stunted any efforts toward building a culture of responsible use. Although it is virtually impossible to say that greater prohibition efforts have meant decreased drug use, these efforts certainly have produced less-informed drug use, and this has produced precisely the irresponsibility, addiction, accidents, and health problems that all of us worry about. Commending on the Erowids' essay will be Jonathan Caulkins, former co-director of the RAND Corporation's Drug Policy Research Center and Professor of Operations Research and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University's Qatar Campus; Jacob Sullum, senior editor at Reason magazine and author of Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use; and Mark Kleiman, professor of policy studies at the UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research. To check out this online exchange, go here: http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/september-2008-responsible-drug-use