News Brief

As the Canada Press reports:

Marc Emery's lawyer says the self-described “Prince of Pot” has been ordered extradited to the United States. Kirk Tousaw says he received word from the federal justice department shortly after the long time marijuana advocate turned himself into custody today that the minister has decided to sign off on his extradition. Mr. Emery has been out on bail since last fall, when he was released from custody as the minister made the final decision in his case. He made a plea deal with U.S. prosecutors last year, agreeing to plead guilty in connection to his Vancouver-based seed-selling business in return for a sentence of five years in prison. It's not clear when Mr. Emery will be sent to the U.S., but Mr. Tousaw says he expects it will happen within the week.

Emery turned himself in this morning. This was the day Justice Minister Rob Nicholson had to decide whether to okay the extradition, deny it, or postpone a decision. Emery spoke briefly before vanishing into the gulag:

“I think of myself as a great Canadian – I've worked my whole life for individual freedom in this country, I've never asked for anything in return,” Mr. Emery told reporters outside B.C. Supreme Court in downtown Vancouver, with his wife by his side and a throng of supporters carrying “Free Marc” signs. “And now I will be possibly handed over to the United States for a five-year sentence for the so-called crime of selling seeds from my desk. I'm proud of what I've done, and I have no regrets.”

Well, I, for one, can rest easier tonight knowing this dangerous criminal is behind bars.

The District of Columbia City Council Tuesday voted unanimously to give final approval to a bill that would legalize the use of medical marijuana in the nation's capital. But while medical marijuana advocates welcomed the move, they complained that the bill is unduly restrictive. It is not quite a done deal. The bill now goes to Mayor Adrian Fenty for his signature. After that happens, it must then undergo a mandatory 30-day review by Congress, but since Congress last year lifted the rider that had barred DC from implementing medical marijuana ever since voters approved it in 1998, it is not expected to turn around and kill it in the District now. The measure allows for five distribution centers to provide marijuana to seriously ill patients suffering from chronic or debilitating medical conditions. That number could rise to eight under rule-making authority held by the mayor. Distribution centers can be for-profit or non-profit and must be at least 300 feet from schools. Marijuana for patients will be grown in registered cultivation centers. Each center will be allowed to grow no more than 95 plants. Patients may legally obtain marijuana only from distribution centers. They may not legally grow their own supply or procure it outside the DC medical marijuana system. Patients may possess no more than two ounces of marijuana per month, although the mayor is authorized to raise that cap to four ounces under his rule-making authority. Patients can only use their medicine at home. The final bill is largely unchanged from the bill approved two weeks ago, much to the chagrin of medical marijuana advocates. They had sought a number of changes, including: • Removing the language prohibiting patients from using marijuana or paraphernalia not obtained from a licensed dispensary. • Removing the limitation to home consumption in favor of a simple public smoking ban. • Including severe, chronic pain as a qualifying condition for patients. • Removing the cap of 95 plants on cultivation centers. • Increased possession/purchasing limits. • Including home cultivation. Advocates did not get the changes they wanted, leaving DC with a medical marijuana law that is one of the most restrictive in the land. All they got was the future possibility of raising the possession and purchasing cap for patients. Still, a medical marijuana law is a medical marijuana law. "Today marks a long overdue victory for D.C. voters and potentially thousands of chronically ill residents who will benefit from legal access to medical marijuana," said Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies for the Marijuana Policy Project. "It has taken nearly 12 years, but the District will at last have a law that recognizes the mounting scientific consensus that, for many conditions, marijuana can be safe and effective medicine." The DC medical marijuana program would allow members of Congress to get a first-hand look at how such programs work and ease the passage of medical marijuana legislation at the federal level, O'Keefe suggested. "A well-working medical marijuana program in the nation’s capital will also provide members of Congress who have never seen such programs up close with a unique opportunity to do so, she said. Once they see for themselves that these laws do nothing but provide compassionate care for seriously ill patients, hopefully they will understand the need to create a federal policy that no longer criminalizes patients in any state who could benefit from this legitimate treatment option." The Drug Policy Alliance also welcomed passage of the bill, but was more critical of its faults. "The DC Council should be congratulated for exempting AIDS, cancer and other patients from the punitive war on marijuana," said national affairs director Bill Piper. "No one should face jail for using marijuana, especially patients following their doctor’s recommendation. This has been a long fight, but the voice of DC voters is finally starting to be heard." Piper noted that DC voters passed medical marijuana with 69% of the vote in 1998 and accused the council of ignoring what voters wanted. "While the Council is heeding the will of voters in important areas, such as allowing the regulated sale of marijuana for medical use, it is ignoring the will of voters in other important areas – most notably by prohibiting patients from growing their own medicine; a key component of the 1998 initiative, and a key component of medical marijuana laws in 13 states," he said. "The legislation also only protects patients from arrest if they use marijuana obtained from a dispensary. Yet experience in other states show that dispensaries routinely face shortages of marijuana. And the federal government could shut down DC’s dispensaries. If either happens, patients will be forced to buy their marijuana from non-dispensary sources. They shouldn’t face arrest for doing so. No patient should face arrest for following their doctor’s recommendation. This is a glaring problem with the legislation; the Council needs to fix it or the health of patients could be undermined." The reaction from Americans for Safe Access (ASA) was similar. "We are certainly excited to implement a bill that has taken 11 years to see the light of day," said Steph Sherer, ASA executive director. "However, the District Council's failure to listen to patients' needs will have serious unintended effects that may force us to work for years to correct." Once the legislation takes effect, DC will join 14 states that recognize medical marijuana.

A SurveyUSA poll conducted this week for a consortium of California television stations showed majority support for marijuana legalization. An initiative that would do just that, Control and Tax Cannabis California 2019, will be on the ballot in November. The poll found that 56% of those surveyed responded affirmatively to the question, "Should the state of California legalize marijuana?" That's the same number as supported legalization in a Field poll a year ago this month. In this week's poll, only 42% answered negatively, with 3% undecided. People under 35 supported legalization by a margin of three-to-one (74%-25%), with support declining to 46% among the 35-to-49 age group, rising to 49% among the 50-64 group, then declining again to 39% among those 65 and older. Among all voters under age 50, support was at 61%, while among those over 50, it dropped to 46% The poll revealed a significant gender gap, with 65% of men supporting legalization, while a dramatically lower 46% of women supported it. That means legalization supporters will have to work to win over a key demographic. There was majority support for legalization among all ethnic groups except Hispanics, of whom only 45% wanted to free the weed. Support was highest among blacks (67%), followed by whites (59%), and Asians (58%). Somewhat surprisingly, there was majority support for legalization in all regions of the state, although only barely, except for the San Francisco Bay area, where support was at 65%. In Central California and the Inland Empire, support was at 54%, and in the Greater Los Angeles area, support was at 52%. The poll was conducted Tuesday and involved interviews with 500 adults across the state. It has a margin of sampling error of plus/minus 4.4%.

Earlier today, I blogged about Philadelphia embracing a sort of decriminalization of minor marijuana possession based on an article that appeared today in the Philadelphia Inquirer. It appears that article not only caught my attention, but also that of a lot of Philadelphians, who have been calling up the DA's office all day. This afternoon, District Attorney Seth Williams issued the following statement of clarification:

Based upon inquiries to this office it appears that some confusion exists regarding potential changes in charging policy when it comes to minimal amounts of marijuana. "We are not decriminalizing marijuana--any effort like that would be one for the legislature to undertake. The penalty available for these minimal amount offenses remains exactly the same. What we are doing is properly dealing with cases involving minimal amounts of marijuana in the most efficient and cost effective process possible. Those arrested for these offenses will still be restrained, identified and processed by police in police custody. They will still have to answer to the charges, but they will be doing so in a speedier and more efficient process. We want to use valuable court resources in the best way possible and we believe that means giving minor drug offenders the option of getting into diversionary programs, get drug education or enter drug treatment centers. Again we are NOT decriminalizing marijuana, and the penalty for these offenses remains the same."

It looks like DA Williams is trying to have it both ways. The Inquirer story--which Williams doesn't contradict in his statement--says that small-time pot offenders will be sent to a special "quality of life" court and fined. While Williams is correct that it would be that state legislature that woud decriminalize marijuana possession, It is a sort of de facto partial decriminalization, with people arrested, but not processed in the criminal courts or jailed upon conviction. I'll try to have this cleared up by the time we publish the Chronicle story about it on Friday.

People caught with 30 grams (a bit more than an ounce) or less of marijuana in Philadelphia will no longer be charged with criminal misdemeanors, but with civil summary offenses under a new policy that will go into effect later this month. Fines are expected to be in the $200 to $300 range. But while pot smokers won't face criminal charges, they will still be arrested, handcuffed, searched, detained, and fingerprinted. Then, their cases will be heard by a special "quality of life" court that is already in use for things like dealing with unruly Eagles fans and public drinking. "We're not going stop locking people up," Lt. Frank Vanore, a police spokesman, told the Philadelphia Inquirer, . Marijuana possession remained illegal, he said. "We're going to stop people for it. . . . Our officers are trained to do that. Whether or not they make it through the charging process, that's up to the D We can't control that. Until they legalize it, we're not going to stop." According to the Inquirer, the policy shift is the result of a collaboration between new District Attorney Seth Williams and a pair of Pennsylvania Supreme Court judges. It is part of an effort to unclog the city's overwhelmed court dockets. Under Williams' predecessor, former DA Lynn Abraham, police arrested an average of 3,000 people a year for small-time pot possession, about 75% of them black. That figure represents roughly 5% of the city's criminal caseload. About another 2,000 are arrested for marijuana distribution and 2,500 more are arrested for possession of more than 30 grams. Overall, enforcing drug prohibition has resulted in about 18,000 arrests a year in Philadelphia, or nearly one-third of the entire criminal caseload. "We have to be smart on crime," Williams told the Inquirer. "We can't declare a war on drugs by going after the kid who's smoking a joint on 55th Street. We have to go after the large traffickers." Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Castille, one of the two justices who worked with Williams on the policy shift, said decrim was "appropriate" for such a small-time offense. "It's a minor crime when you're faced with major drug crimes." Removing such cases from the criminal courts, he said, "unclogs the system." Philadelphia NORML has been quietly lobbying city officials for the change. "The marijuana consumers of Philadelphia welcome this," said chapter head Chris Goldstein. "This is a very progressive thing to do on the part of the city," Goldstein said of the new policy. "I couldn't be happier about this." Goldstein was much less enthused by the continued arrests policy. "It is completely absurd," he said. "It's harsh. For minor marijuana possession, it's very harsh treatment." In most states and localities with decriminalization laws or policies, people are merely issued a ticket after police seize their stash. Still, this is a quarter-step forward for Philadelphia.

New Jersey Multiple Sclerosis patient John Ray Wilson was sentenced last Friday to five years in prison for growing marijuana plants to ease his symptoms. Wilson, whose case we profiled in December, originally faced up to 20 years in prison, but a jury failed to convict him of the most serious, maintaining a habitation where marijuana is manufactured. He was convicted of manufacturing marijuana (17 plants) and possession of psychedelic mushrooms. Wilson was convicted in December, before New Jersey recognized medical marijuana. Ironically, it became the 14th state to do so between the time Wilson was convicted and his sentencing. But the new New Jersey law would not have protected Wilson's marijuana growing because it only allows for patients to obtain it at state-monitored dispensaries. State Superior Court Judge Robert Reed banned any references to Wilson's medical condition during his trial, finding that personal use was not a defense and that New Jersey had no law protecting medical marijuana use. Wilson was ultimately able to make a brief, one-sentence mention of his medical reasons for growing marijuana, but that wasn't enough to sway the jury. Wilson's attorney, James Wronko, told the Associated Press that the outcome might have been different had the jury been allowed to hear more about his illness. "We're disappointed that he's in state prison for smoking marijuana to treat his multiple sclerosis," Wronko . "I think anytime someone using marijuana for their own medical use goes to state prison, it's clearly a harsh sentence." Wilson's case became a cause célèbre for regional medical marijuana advocates, and also drew attention from the state legislature. Two state senators, Nicholas Scutari, sponsor of the medical marijuana bill, and Ray Lesniak, called in October for Gov. Jon Corzine (D) to pardon Wilson. But Corzine punted, saying he preferred to wait until after Wilson's trial had finished. Now, Wilson has been sentenced to prison, Corzine's term has ended, and new Republican Gov. Chris Christie is not nearly as medical marijuana-friendly. Wronko said an appeal of the sentence was in the works.

As the Chronicle story below reports, New York City is about to pay yet again for unlawfully strip-searching minor offenders, including people busted for public pot possession. If this includes you, it just might behoove you to contact the law firm handling the lawsuit in question, Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff, and Abady. Here's the story: Law Enforcement: New York City to Pay Out $33 Million for Unlawful Strip Searches For the third time in the past ten years, New York City has been forced to pay big bucks for subjecting non-violent prisoners—including minor marijuana offenders—to illegal strip searches. In a settlement announced Monday, the city announced it had agreed to pay $33 million to settle the most recent lawsuit stemming from the illegal strip searches. The settlement applies to roughly 100,000 people who were strip-searched after being charged with misdemeanors and taken to Rikers Island or other city jails. These were people who were arrested and strip-searched between 1999 and 2007. In 2001, under the Giulani administration, the city settled a similar lawsuit on behalf of 40,000 people strip-searched prior to arraignment for $40 million. In 2005, the city agreed to pay millions of dollars more to settle a lawsuit on behalf of thousands of people illegally strip-searched at Rikers and other city jails between 1999 and 2002. The most recent settlement came from a lawsuit filed in 2005 by a local law firm. In 2007, the city acknowledged wrongdoing and agreed to hire monitors to ensure that the practice was stopped. But the settlement includes at least 19 people who had been illegally strip-searched after 2007. Richard Emery, law lawyer for the plaintiffs, told the New York Times it had been settled law since 1986 that it was unconstitutional to require people accused of minor crimes to submit to strip searches. "The city knew this was illegal in 1986, they said it was illegal and they stopped in 2002, and they continued to pursue this illegal practice without justification," he said. "We hope the settlement constitutes some semblance of justice." It is expected that about 15% of those illegally strip searched, or 15,000 people, will file claims seeking damages. If that's the case, each plaintiff who files would collect about $2,000, although at least two women subjected to involuntary gynecological exams will receive $20,000. The law firm will get $3 million for its efforts. Emery said many of those strip-searched had been charged with misdemeanors like shoplifting, trespassing, jumping subway turnstiles, or failure to pay child support. Others were small-time marijuana offenders. Under New York law, pot possession is decriminalized, but the NYPD has a common practice of ordering people to empty their pockets—which you are not required to do—and then charging them with public possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor. David Sanchez, 39, of the Bronx, was one of the people strip-searched after a minor pot bust. He said he was searched twice by officers after being arrested in a stop and frisk outside a friend's apartment, but after he was arraigned and taken to Rikers Island, jail guards demanded he submit to a strip-search. "I was put into a cage and told to take off my clothes," he said Monday, describing how he had to squat and spread his buttocks. "It was horrifying, being a grown man. I was humiliated." "I don’t know why it was done," Emery said, "but it seems like it was a punishment, a way of showing the inmates who is in charge." And now the good burghers of New York City will pay yet again for the misdeeds of their public servants. Will the third time be the charm? Check back in a few years.

As the Chronicle story below reports, New York City is about to pay yet again for unlawfully strip-searching minor offenders, including people busted for public pot possession. If this includes you, it just might behoove you to contact the law firm handling the lawsuit in question, Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff, and Abady. Here's the story: Law Enforcement: New York City to Pay Out $33 Million for Unlawful Strip Searches For the third time in the past ten years, New York City has been forced to pay big bucks for subjecting non-violent prisoners—including minor marijuana offenders—to illegal strip searches. In a settlement announced Monday, the city announced it had agreed to pay $33 million to settle the most recent lawsuit stemming from the illegal strip searches. The settlement applies to roughly 100,000 people who were strip-searched after being charged with misdemeanors and taken to Rikers Island or other city jails. These were people who were arrested and strip-searched between 1999 and 2007. In 2001, under the Giulani administration, the city settled a similar lawsuit on behalf of 40,000 people strip-searched prior to arraignment for $40 million. In 2005, the city agreed to pay millions of dollars more to settle a lawsuit on behalf of thousands of people illegally strip-searched at Rikers and other city jails between 1999 and 2002. The most recent settlement came from a lawsuit filed in 2005 by a local law firm. In 2007, the city acknowledged wrongdoing and agreed to hire monitors to ensure that the practice was stopped. But the settlement includes at least 19 people who had been illegally strip-searched after 2007. Richard Emery, law lawyer for the plaintiffs, told the New York Times it had been settled law since 1986 that it was unconstitutional to require people accused of minor crimes to submit to strip searches. "The city knew this was illegal in 1986, they said it was illegal and they stopped in 2002, and they continued to pursue this illegal practice without justification," he said. "We hope the settlement constitutes some semblance of justice." It is expected that about 15% of those illegally strip searched, or 15,000 people, will file claims seeking damages. If that's the case, each plaintiff who files would collect about $2,000, although at least two women subjected to involuntary gynecological exams will receive $20,000. The law firm will get $3 million for its efforts. Emery said many of those strip-searched had been charged with misdemeanors like shoplifting, trespassing, jumping subway turnstiles, or failure to pay child support. Others were small-time marijuana offenders. Under New York law, pot possession is decriminalized, but the NYPD has a common practice of ordering people to empty their pockets—which you are not required to do—and then charging them with public possession of marijuana, a misdemeanor. David Sanchez, 39, of the Bronx, was one of the people strip-searched after a minor pot bust. He said he was searched twice by officers after being arrested in a stop and frisk outside a friend's apartment, but after he was arraigned and taken to Rikers Island, jail guards demanded he submit to a strip-search. "I was put into a cage and told to take off my clothes," he said Monday, describing how he had to squat and spread his buttocks. "It was horrifying, being a grown man. I was humiliated." "I don’t know why it was done," Emery said, "but it seems like it was a punishment, a way of showing the inmates who is in charge." And now the good burghers of New York City will pay yet again for the misdeeds of their public servants. Will the third time be the charm? Check back in a few years.

The South Dakota Secretary of State's office Monday certified an initiative legalizing medical marijuana for the November ballot. The initiative, the South Dakota Safe Access Act, is sponsored by the South Dakota Coalition for Compassion, a statewide group of doctors, patients, law enforcement officials, and concerned citizens. It is being backed by the Marijuana Policy Project. South Dakota has the dubious distinction of being the only state where voters rejected an initiative to allow the use of medical marijuana. Amidst concerted opposition from South Dakota law enforcement and the Bush administration Office of National Drug Control Policy, which sent officials to the state to campaign against the measure, voters defeated a 2006 initiative by a margin of 52% to 48%. This year's initiative would allow qualified patients to possess up to an ounce of usable marijuana and would allow patients or their caregiver to grow up to six plants. Patients would register with the state and obtain a state registry ID card upon getting a physician's approval to use marijuana for conditions including some cancers, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, and seizures, as well as specific disabilities, including wasting syndrome, chronic pain, severe nausea, and seizures. "The coalition could not be more proud of this truly grassroots accomplishment," said Emmit Reistroffer, coalition communications director, in a statement. The group collected 32,000 signatures, nearly double the number of valid signatures needed. "Our members are united behind protecting the sick and the dying, and we now aim to educate the public about the various medical applications for cannabis before the election this November." “We are excited that South Dakota voters will have another opportunity to make the medical use of marijuana legal for patients in the state,” said Steve Fox, director of state campaigns for the Marijuana Policy Project. “Given the increasing level of support for medical marijuana across the country over the past few years, we are fully confident that a solid majority of voters in the state will support patients’ rights this November.”

The US Senate approved on a voice vote Wednesday a bill that would reduce, but not eliminate, the disparity in sentences handed down to people convicted of crack versus powder cocaine charges. The bill championed by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), SB 1789 would reduce the current, much maligned, 100:1 ratio to 18:1. Under current law, it takes only five grams of crack cocaine to earn a mandatory minimum five-year federal prison sentence, but 500 grams of powder cocaine to garner the same sentence. The law has been especially devastating in black communities, which make up about 30% of all crack consumers, but account for more than 80% of all federal crack prosecutions. Under the bill passes by the Senate, it would now take an ounce of crack for the mandatory minimums to kick in. Durbin's bill originally called for completely eliminating the sentencing disparity, but was stalled until a Senate gym meeting between Durbin and opposition Judiciary Committee heavy-hitters Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL). After that informal confab, the bill was amended to 18:1 and passed unanimously last week by the committee. A bill in the House by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) that would completely eliminate the disparity by the simple act of eliminating all references to crack in the federal statute, HR 3245, passed out of the House Judiciary Committee last July, but has not come to a floor vote. Now that the Senate has approved its bill, pressure will be on the House to just approve the Senate version. Sen. Durbin told the Associated Press that while he had originally sought to completely eliminate the disparity, the final bill was a good compromise. "If this bill is enacted into law, it will immediately ensure that every year, thousands of people are treated more fairly in our criminal justice system," he said. Durbin added that the harsher treatment of crack offenders combined with federal prosecutors' predilection for disproportionately going after black crack offenders had eroded respect for the law. "Law enforcement experts say that the crack-powder disparity undermines trust in the criminal justice system, especially in the African-American community." But drug reformers and civil rights groups that had pushed for complete elimination of the sentencing disparity had a definitely mixed reaction to the Senate vote. It was progress, but not enough, they said. "We strongly supported Sen. Durbin's bill, which would have completely eliminated the disparity," said Wade Henderson, head of the Leadership Council for Civil and Human Rights in a statement Wednesday. Adding that the group was "disappointed" that disparities remain, Henderson said that "this legislation represents progress, but not the end of the fight." "Today is a bittersweet day," said Jasmine Tyler of the Drug Policy Alliance in a Wednesday statement. "On one hand, we’ve moved the issue of disparate sentencing for two forms of the same drug forward, restoring some integrity to our criminal justice system. But, on the other hand, the Senate, by reducing the 100:1 disparity to 18:1, instead of eliminating it, has proven how difficult it is to ensure racial justice, even in 2010."