California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Decriminalizes Cannabis

San Francisco Gate

Citing the need to reduce spending on prosecution and courts, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a measure that makes marijuana possession an infraction, on par with traffic and littering tickets.

The Republican governor's unexpected support for the measure comes one month before voters decide whether to legalize adult recreational use of marijuana in California.

"In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket," wrote Schwarzenegger, who opposes Proposition 19, the marijuana initiative.

The law, which takes effect immediately, reduces possession of up to an ounce of marijuana - about the amount that will fit in a sandwich-size bag - from a misdemeanor to an infraction. Already, marijuana possession was the only misdemeanor under California law that didn't allow for jail time.

edit to clarify/add

all laws passed in CA take effect on Jan. 1 of the next year so this law will not be in effect until that time.

here is a link to the bill

Denver Examiner

The new law will not take effect until January 1, 2011, and it will still remain relevant even if Proposition 19 passes.

Prop 19 leaves misdemeanor possession penalties in place for public use and smoking in the presence of children; under SB 1449, these offenses are now simple infractions. Leaving dispensary owners opposed to Prop 19 with one less objection.

California NORML originally called for making petty possession an infraction when the state passed its original landmark decriminalization law in 1975, but the Legislature made it a minor misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $100 fine.

This marks the first time in 35 years that penalties for non-medical use of marijuana have been reduced in California.

Drug Criminalization Structure Squanders $88 Billion PER YEAR

Weed Wars blog at the Sacramento Post

A new report, "The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition," has been published by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron and Katherine Waldock, a PhD candidate at the Stern School of Business at New York University. This report has been published by The Cato Institute.

An announcement for Cato study asserts that the "drug criminalization structure" nationally "squanders a total of $88 billion a year - $41.3 billion spent to prosecute the 'war on drugs' and $46.7 billion in lost potential revenue from the taxation of legal drug sales."

A .pdf of the report is available at the link above.

Obama drug-policy adviser says the administration opposes marijuana legalization

...and isn't big on medical marijuana.

Billings Gazette

HELENA — The Obama administration adamantly opposes legalizing marijuana and has a dubious view of medical marijuana, a top White House drug policy adviser said here Thursday night.

Kevin Sabet, special adviser for policy at the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, said marijuana is a dangerous drug that causes documented health and social problems, and should not be subject to voter approval for its use.

“Marijuana cannot be the one exception in history of the world that doesn’t go through a scientific process to be approved as medicine,” he told the Montana Supreme Court Administrator’s annual drug court conference in Helena. “It doesn’t make any sense.

“How can we imagine that a dangerous, illegal drug like marijuana should be voted on by the people? That’s not how we do medicine in this country.

...Sabet said he believes medical marijuana programs are part of a strategy to legalize marijuana, and that the Obama administration is staunchly opposed to legalization.”

...Sabet also said legalization proponents have created a “false dichotomy” by suggesting the only alternatives are legalization or a harsh, punitive approach that emphasizes incarceration.

Those aren’t the only options, and the Obama administration favors an approach that pairs treatment with law enforcement, to reduce illegal drug usage and addiction without sending people to prison, he said.

Sigh. So tired of these stale talking points.

Legal Cannabis is the Best Thing for Medical Marijuana Patients Since Prop. 215

In recent weeks some people in California have spoken out against Prop. 19 by declaring it hurts medical marijuana patients.

A medical marijuana and Prop. 19 supporter asked California attorney David Nick to comment.

For 18 years, David Nick has successfully litigated a cornucopia of issues regarding cannabis and the applicable laws in both trial and appellate courts. He has not confined his practice to marijuana law, but also litigates cases involving constitutional rights and criminal procedure.

David Nick has never lost a jury trial in a state marijuana case including many precedent setting trials involving some of the most revered figures in the medical marijuana movement such as Brownie Mary, Dennis Peron (Nick has been Peron’s sole attorney since 1994) and Steve Kubby.

Here's what Nick has to say:

PROP. 19 IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO MMJ PATIENTS SINCE PROP. 215

Anyone who claims that Proposition 19 will restrict or eliminate rights under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) or the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) is simply wrong. If anything, Proposition 19 will permit individuals to grow and possess much more than ever before with patients, coops and collectives still receiving the same protections they are entitled to under the CUA and MMP.

Here is why.

The legal arguments claiming the "sky will fall" if Prop. 19 passes are based on the fallacious conclusion that the Initiative invalidates the CUA and MMP. This baseless fear stems from a flawed legal analysis which focuses on just about every portion of Prop. 19 EXCEPT the relevant portions. This flawed legal analysis is driven by an incorrect understanding of the rules of statutory construction.

PROP. 19 PROVIDES ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS TO PATIENTS FROM THE ACTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

Section 2B presents the controlling and relevant purposes for understanding what Prop. 19 can and cannot do. This section EXPRESSLY excludes the reach of Prop. 19 from the CUA and MMP. Sections 2B (7 & 8) specifically state that the purpose of this initiative is to give municipalities total and complete control over the commercial sales of marijuana "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.”

This is an email from the attorney. You can read the rest of it here

David Borden, Exec. Director of Stop the Drug War, brings this email to the attention of the larger public and notes that opposition is not across the board among those currently involved in the medical marijuana community.

Fortunately, only some medical marijuana people are so shortsighted as to oppose this historic and important measure. Harborside Health Center in Oakland, and the Berkeley Patients Group are among the top quality groups lending their support to Prop 19. But it's still worth asking, why are some other medical marijuana providers opposing it?

Famed Canadian Marc Emery, from his US prison cell offered the obvious explanation: money.

Of course, the answer could also be a misreading of the current Proposition or simply failing to read the language and arguments themselves among those who have joined those who put their financial gain above every person in this nation who stands to benefit from an end to the war on cannabis.

The Most Censored Health Story of This Century

Cannabis Cures Cancer

Project Censored, Top 25 Stories, 2001
The U.S. Government Attempted to Repress the Marijuana Cancer Research.

...The Madrid researcher (studying the tumor-reducing qualities of cannabinoids, noted in the post immediately below) said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. “I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by theses people, but it has proven impossible,” Guzman said. His response wasn’t surprising, considering that in 1983 the Reagan/Bush administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966/76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer. “We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared,” he says.

Cured: A Cannabis Story

Antineoplastic Activity Of Cannabinoids

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 55, No. 3, September 1975 (via the UK Cannabis Internet Activist)

Investigations into the physiologic processes affected by the psychoactive constitutuents of marihuana [delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC) and delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-8-THC)] purified from Cannabis sativa are extensive (1).

However, only recently have attempts been made to elucidate the biochemical basis for their cytotoxic or cytostatic activity. Leuchtenberger et al. (2) demonstrated that human lung cultures exposed to marihuana smoke showed alterations in DNA synthesis, with the appearance of anaphase bridges. (me: Anaphase bridges are one example of cancer cell abnormalities. Chromosomes are pulled in opposite directions by the spindle apparatus. This can result in double strand breaks that recombine as aberrations.)

A preliminary report from this laboratory (9) indicated that the ability of delta-9-THC to interfere with normal cell functions might prove efficacious against neoplasms. (me: an abnormal mass of tissue.) This report represents an effort to test various cannabinoids in several in vivo and in vitro tumor systems to determine the kinds of tumors that are sensitive to these compounds and reveal their possible biochemical sites of action(s).

...Delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol (CBN) all inhibited primary Lewis lung tumor growth, whereas cannabidiol (CBD) enhanced tumor growth.

Oral administration of 25, 50, or 100 mg delta-9-THC/kg inhibited primary tumor growth by 48, 72, and 75% respectively, when measured 12 days post tumor inoculation (table 1)

This paper, published more than 25 years ago, indicates that cannabis is a first-line cancer treatment. The reason this information is not widely available is that there is little to no profit for anyone (other than those suffering from cancer and the ones who love them) in this knowledge. Cannabis is a naturally-occurring substance whose properties may not be copyrighted.

Researchers at Harvard published a study in 2007 that indicates cannabis cuts lung cancer tumors by 50%.

Science News

They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.

THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.

Although the researchers do not know why THC inhibits tumor growth, they say the substance could be activating molecules that arrest the cell cycle. They speculate that THC may also interfere with angiogenesis and vascularization, which promotes cancer growth.

Research in Spain, published in 2009, demonstrated the mechanism by which cannabis induces cancer cell death.

Journal of Clinical Investigation

Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active component of marijuana (7), exerts a wide variety of biological effects by mimicking endogenous substances — the endocannabinoids — that bind to and activate specific cannabinoid receptors (8). One of the most exciting areas of research in the cannabinoid field is the study of the potential application of cannabinoids as antitumoral agents (9). Cannabinoid administration has been found to curb the growth of several types of tumor xenografts in rats and mice (9, 10).

Based on this preclinical evidence, a pilot clinical trial has been recently run to investigate the antitumoral action of THC on recurrent gliomas (11). Recent findings have also shown that the pro-apoptotic and tumor growth–inhibiting activity of cannabinoids relies on the upregulation of the transcriptional co-activator p8 (12) and its target the pseudo-kinase tribbles homolog 3 (TRB3) (13).

However, the mechanisms that promote the activation of this signaling route as well as the targets downstream of TRB3 that mediate its tumor cell–killing action remain elusive. In this study we found that ER stress–evoked upregulation of the p8/TRB3 pathway induced autophagy via inhibition of the Akt/mTORC1 axis and that activation of autophagy promoted the apoptotic death of tumor cells. The uncovering of this pathway, which we believe is novel, for promoting tumor cell death may have therapeutic implications in the treatment of cancer.

California Breast Cancer Research Program (from Molecular Cancer Therapeutics)

An anti-cancer agent with a low toxicity profile that can both inhibit cancer cell growth and metastasis would be extremely valuable clinically. We have discovered that cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychotropic cannabinoid constituent of the plant Cannabis sativa, can inhibit the growth, migration and invasion of aggressive breast cancer cells in culture.

Cannabinoid compounds, in general, have low toxicity profiles. Furthermore, our preliminary research demonstrated that CBD is a novel inhibitor of a protein whose activity has been closely linked to the aggressiveness of human breast cancers; called inhibitor of DNA binding-1 (Id-1). Whether CBD can inhibit the spread of metastatic breast cancer in vivo (in the body), compared to cell culture conditions, has not been determined.

However, CBD has been demonstrated to inhibit aggressive human brain cancers in vivo. Understanding the mechanisms behind the anti-cancer activity of CBD may lead to the validation of new biological targets for diagnostics and therapies for breast cancer.

Combining Cannabinoids Enhances Inhibition of Brain Cancer Cells

The study was done at the California Pacific Medical Center by researchers who combined a non-psychoactive ingredient of marijauna, cannabidiol (CBD), with Δ9-tetrahyrdocannabinol (Δ9-THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in Cannabis. The findings demonstrated the inhibitory effect of these two ingredients on brain cancer cells when used together.

“Our study not only suggests that combining these two compounds creates a synergistic effect,” says Sean McAllister, Ph.D., a scientist at CPMCRI and the lead author of the study. “but it also helps identify molecular mechanisms at work here, and that may lead to more effective treatments for glioblastoma and potentially other aggressive cancers.”

It would seem that "magic nature," as noted in the Michael Pollan quote here, does indeed have knowledge to impart.

Beer Distributors Donate $10,000 to Keep Cannabis Illegal

Redding Record Spotlight

On Sept. 7, the California Beer & Beverage Distributors gave $10,000 to a committee opposing Proposition 19, the measure that would change state law to legalize pot and allow it to be taxed and regulated.

The California Police Chiefs Association has given the most to the Proposition 19 opposition with a contribution of $30,000, according to Cal-Access, a website operated by the secretary of state’s office.

“Unless the beer distributors in California have suddenly developed a philosophical opposition to the use of intoxicating substances, the motivation behind this contribution is clear,” Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, said in statement. “Plain and simple, the alcohol industry is trying to kill the competition. Their mission is to drive people to drink.”

No one from the Beer Pac was available for comment.

This isn't the first time the Beer lobbyists have worked to continue prohibition (irony duly noted... or rather, hypocrisy, or rather, the truth that prohibition is a financial fight, not only for the petrol and forestry industries, but for the alcoholic beverage industry as well.)

In 2008, "the California Beer and Beverage Distributors contributed $100,000 to the campaign against Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA). This initiative proposed to, among other things, reduce the penalty for cannabis possession in California from a misdemeanor to an infraction, similar to a traffic ticket."

"...The original bill authorizing the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign specifically banned the use of campaign funds to address underage drinking. In fact, when lawmakers attempted to amend the bill so that anti-alcohol messages could be included, the NBWA (National Beer Wholesalers Association) strongly opposed the amendment. To this day, the national Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign has remained almost entirely alcohol-free."

Oh, btw, the NBWA gave more than $8 million to federal candidates between 2003 and 2008 "and ranked among the top five most generous PACs each cycle, reaching the no. 2 slot in 2005-6."

(From the book, Marijuana is Safer, pp. 90-91.)

hmmmm.

Parallel Universes in Legal Cannabis Debate

Sacramento Bee: Weed Wars

A state Capitol hearing today on how Proposition 19 may affect the future universe of California produced such disparate views that Assemblyman Tom Ammiano pondered the potential outcomes as perhaps only he can.

"A drug czar today could be on Dancing With the Stars tomorrow," he said.

"It will not impede the drug cartels that are coming across our border and actually growing on our state and federal lands," (Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully. Speaking on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association) told the joint legislative public safety committee hearing chaired by Ammiano and state Sen. Mark Leno, two San Francisco lawmakers and Prop 19 supporters.

But Prop 19 campaign spokeswoman Dale Sky Jones argued that California's initiative will bring about changes mirroring the end of alcohol prohibition if passed.

"This is the first step to take control away from the criminals," she said, adding: "We don't have illegal grape-growing cartels in our national forests. And they don't take out guns. They take out advertising."

Rand Corp. researcher Beau Kilmer claimed cannabis use would increase..."back to where we were in the 70s."

The 70's? OH NO!





If I have to listen to ABBA and the BeeGees in order for justice to be done...I'm ready to make that sacrifice.

Notes on Arizona's Medical Marijuana Prop. 203

Ballotopedia: Proposition 203

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project filed the petition with the Secretary of State’s Office on November 23, 2009, which listed Diane Manchester as the official chairman of the organization. Manchester is a former civilian employee of the Phoenix Police Department who retired on disability. She has turned to medical marijuana in order to help her cope with pain that results from her multiple sclerosis. She has taken her place as chairman due to the growing fear among medical marijuana patients that they might be arrested. According to Manchester: “I am so prone to being scared, and it’s terrible. I want to stop the fear of the people who need it (marijuana). I am so tired of not being able to tell the truth. I know when my name and picture are out there people are going to know me. And that’s okay.”[7]

The Arizona Republic, July 2, 2010

As of Thursday's filing deadline, nine measures qualified for the Nov. 2 general-election ballot. But only one initiative - an effort to legalize medical marijuana - qualified for through a citizen petition.

Proposition 203, driven by the Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project, proposes to allow patients with a debilitating medical condition such as cancer, HIV or multiple sclerosis to purchase, possess and use 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks with a doctor's recommendation.

Non-profit dispensaries regulated by the state would grow and sell the drug to approved patients.

It still would be illegal to use marijuana in a public place or drive under the influence of marijuana, but the initiative would forbid employers from firing qualified medical-marijuana users who test positive for the drug unless they can prove patients used or were impaired while at work.

This current Arizona proposition differs from California's 1996 medical marijuana law. The Arizona proposition creates non-profits to dispense marijuana that are regulated by the state. California law allows for-profit sales that are not state regulated. Among the other 14 legal marijuana laws in this nation, states allow personal cultivation.

In 1996, the people of Arizona voted to enact a medical marijuana law. The Arizona Legislature voted to overturn the will of the people. The Arizona medical marijuana law was to be hamstrung by federal drug scheduling that prevents doctors from prescribing medical marijuana on the basis of its erroneous scheduling. Catch-420. Doctors were threatened with revocation of their licenses to practice if they prescribed cannabis. Arizona voters rejected that attempt by legislators to impede the implementation of the law in 1998.

Drug Policy Alliance

An analysis by the Arizona Supreme Court found that Proposition 200 diverted 2,600 non-violent offenders into drug treatment in its first year, saving Arizona taxpayers $2.56 million. Over three-fourths of the offenders tested drug-free after completing the program. A follow-up Supreme Court study in 2001 found that Proposition 200 saved taxpayers over $6 million in prisons costs in its second year. The Supreme Court concluded, “The Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996 has allowed the judicial branch to build an effective probation model to treat and supervise substance abusing offenders.

...Despite the fact that two out of three Arizona voters voted for Proposition 200, the Arizona legislature passed legislation overturning most of the initiative. In 1998, voters supported referendums on the legislation such as Proposition 300 and 301 and defeated the changes. Voters also approved an initiative making it more difficult for legislators to tamper with voter-approved initiatives in the future.

In November of 2002 voters narrowly rejected a new drug policy reform bill, Proposition 203. This bill would have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, repealed mandatory minimums, set up a medical marijuana program, and removed court control of non-violent drug offenders. The bill still won the support of 43 percent of voters, demonstrating that support for such bills continues despite resistance from federal officials.

Proposition 203 got on the ballot in Arizona with 252,000 submitted signatures. One fiscal budget legislative study projects that 66,000 citizens of Arizona would qualify as medical marijuana recipients under the current proposition.

Doctors must continue, however, to contend with FDA drug scheduling that hinders the legal use of marijuana - a substance that is considered more dangerous to the federal government than Oxycontin, aka "hillbilly heroin," aka Limbaugh's drug of choice.

This scheduling continues in spite of the reality that there is no realistic scenario for overdose of cannabis in its natural form or any studies that indicate cannabis is physically addictive...again, unlike Oxycontin or Valium or a host of other barbiturates that are physically addictive and able to cause death in users by over- or misuse.

Arizona Republic, September 19, 2010

Even physicians who staunchly oppose the proposition said marijuana can provide medicinal relief for patients.

Dr. Lesley Meng, an oncologist who runs Desert Springs Cancer Care in Scottsdale, said 5 to 10 percent of her patients have told her they use marijuana for medicinal reasons. The clinic sees about 50 to 60 patients a day, she said.

Dr. Sue Sisley, who has a private practice in Scottsdale and specializes in internal medicine and psychiatry, said she has seen patients' quality of life improve after using marijuana to cope with chemotherapy or AIDS side effects.

Dr. Carol Peairs, an anesthesiologist in Phoenix who specializes in pain management, said she does not support Prop. 203 because "anecdote and emotion are not the way to prove a new medicine."

Dr. Ed Gogek, a psychiatrist in Prescott who specializes in addictions, said the medical community "absolutely recognizes" that marijuana is an addictive drug. Marijuana is not as addictive as tobacco or cocaine but about as addictive as alcohol, Gogek said.

Dr. Peairs might want to avail herself of the thousands of studies that indicate the value of medical marijuana.

NORML has a link here.

In 2008, investigators at McGill University Health Centre and McGill University in Montreal and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver reviewed 23 clinical investigations of medicinal cannabinoid drugs (typically oral THC or liquid cannabis extracts) and eight observational studies conducted between 1966 and 2007. Investigators "did not find a higher incidence rate of serious adverse events associated with medical cannabinoid use" compared to non-using controls over these three decades.

In some of these cases, modern science is now affirming longtime anecdotal reports of medicinal cannabis users (e.g., the use of cannabis to alleviate GI disorders). In other cases, this research is highlighting entirely new potential clinical utilities for cannabinoids (e.g., the use of cannabinoids to modify the progression of diabetes.)

This confirmation of anecdotal reports has taken place in spite of the federal government's attempt to demonize the use of a plant for medical use.

Dr. Gogek might want to elaborate on the studies noted by the Drug Policy Alliance that indicate marijuana is mildly addictive in less than 1% of the user population.

Fact: Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.

*United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. DASIS Report Series, Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral. 2002. June 24 2005.

*Johnson, L.D., et al. “National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1994, Volume II: College Students and Young Adults.” Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.

*Kandel, D.B., et al. “Prevalence and demographic correlates of symptoms of dependence on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in the U.S. population.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 44 (1997):11-29.

*Stephens, R.S., et al. “Adult marijuana users seeking treatment.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61 (1993): 1100-1104.

All physicians in Arizona might want to investigate this statement by the former DEA administrator Frances Young:

"In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.

(US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22], (September 6, 1988), p. 57.)

This statement was made more than twenty years ago.

I would be hesitant to consult any doctor who chose to remain ignorant about the medical truth of a substance for more than twenty years.

America's Missing Hemp Market

Hemp was abandoned, even though it is a multi-purpose crop that aids in weed suppression (and is thus useful in crop rotation), provides superior paper products, is the best source of EFAs for humans, and even has the capacity to make a car body that is structurally superior to steel. While the U.S. continues to make all cannabis crops illegal, even those varieties bred for low THC content, Canada is at work manufacturing an electric car whose body is made out of hemp.

via CBC News

The article above notes a hemp car was first created by Henry Ford.

Popular Mechanics, December, 1941

Over in England it's saccharine for sugar; on the continent it's charcoal "gasogenes" in the rumble seat instead of gasoline in the tank. Here in America there's plenty of sugar, plenty of gasoline. Yet there's an industrial revolution in progress just the same, a revolution in materials that will affect every home. After twelve years of research, the Ford Motor Company has completed an experimental automobile with a plastic body. Although its design takes advantage of the properties of plastics, the streamline car does not differ greatly in appearance from its steel counterpart.

The only steel in the hand-made body is found in the tubular welded frame on which are mounted 14 plastic panels, 3/16 inch thick. Composed of a mixture of farm crops and synthetic chemicals, the plastic is reported to withstand a blow 10 times as great as steel without denting. Even the windows and windshield are of plastic. The total weight of the plastic car is about 2,000 pounds, compared with 3,000 pounds for a steel automobile of the same size. Although no hint has been given as to when plastic cars may go into production, the experimental model is pictured as a step toward materialization of Henry Ford's belief that some day he would "grow automobiles from the soil."

When Henry Ford recently unveiled his plastic car, result of 12 years of research, he gave the world a glimpse of the automobile of tomorrow, its tough panels molded under hydraulic pressure of 1,500 pounds per square inch from a recipe that calls for 70 percent ofcellulose fibers from wheat straw, hemp and sisal plus 30 percent resin binder. The only steel in the car is its tubular welded frame. The plastic car weighs a ton, 1,000 pounds lighter than a comparable steel car. Manufacturers are already taking a low-priced plastic car to test the public's taste by 1943.

I posted a video of Ford's Hemp Car via YouTube here.

Popular Mechanics, February, 1938. Hemp: The New Billion Dollar Crop

The natural materials in hemp make it an economical source of pulp for any grade of paper manufactured, and the high percentage of alpha cellulose promises an unlimited supply of raw material for the thousands of cellulose products our chemists have developed.

It is generally believed that all linen is produced from flax. Actually, the majority comes from hemp--authorities estimate that more than half of our imported linen fabrics are manufactured from hemp fiber. Another misconception is that burlap is made from hemp. Actually, its source is usually jute, and practically all of the burlap we use is woven by laborers in India who receive only four cents a day. Binder twine is usually made from sisal which comes from Yucatan and East Africa.

All of these products, now imported, can be produced from home- grown hemp. Fish nets, bow strings, canvas, strong rope, overalls, damask tablecloths, fine linen garments, towels, bed linen and thousands of other everyday items can be grown on American farms.

Our imports of foreign fabrics and fibers average about $200,000,000 per year; in raw fibers alone we imported over $50,000,000 in the first six months of 1937. All of this income can be made available for Americans.

The paper industry offers even greater possibilities. As an industry it amounts to over $1,000,000,000 a year, and of that eighty per cent is imported. But hemp will produce every grade of paper, and government figures estimate that 10,000 acres devoted to hemp will produce as much paper as 40,000 acres of average pulp land.

World War II era propaganda to encourage farmers to grow cannabis to produce material for the war effort.

North American Industrial Hemp Council 1997 Fact Sheet

Former San Jose Chief of Police Calls For Legalization of Cannabis

Alternet

Joseph D. McNamara writes:

California voters have a chance on this November's ballot to bring common sense to law enforcement by legalizing marijuana for adults. As San Jose's retired chief of police and a cop with 35 years experience on the front lines in the war on marijuana, I'm voting yes.

He cites the arguments of opponents of Prop. 19 and shoots them down.Regarding the claim that Mexican cartel violence would increase, McNamara says:

No one today shoots up the local neighborhood to compete in the beer market. The federal Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that Mexican cartels derive more than 60 percent of their profits from marijuana. How much did the cartels make last year dealing in Budweiser, Corona or Dos Equis? Legalization would seriously cripple their operations. With more than 20,000 people in Mexico killed in the past three years in drug turf battles, which are spreading north of the border, undercutting the cartels is an urgent priority for both Mexicans' and Americans' safety.

Regarding the lack of political courage and the vested interests of certain groups:

The same professional politicians who recklessly caused huge budget deficits predictably are taking an irresponsible position of opposing the "evil" of cannabis legalization, just as they opposed California voters' decision a decade ago to legalize medical marijuana. The California Police Chiefs Association, of which I have been a member for 34 years, is also in opposition. Personally, I have never even smoked a cigarette, let alone taken a hit from a bong, and while I have great respect for the police chiefs, I wouldn't want to live in a country where it is a crime to behave contrary to the way cops think we should.

That perhaps brings up the most significant and least considered cost of criminalizing marijuana - turning people into criminals for behavior of which we disapprove, even though it doesn't take others' property or endanger their safety. It is worth remembering that our last three presidents, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, would have been stigmatized for life and never would have become presidents if they had been in the wrong place at the wrong time and been busted for pot during their reckless youthful days. Countless other Americans weren't so lucky. California voters have an opportunity in November to return reason to our state by decriminalizing adult use of marijuana.

Politicians become irrelevant when they do not have the courage to look at facts and recognize the value of changes in laws that - in this case, most certainly - were bad laws to begin with - born of corruption and collusion with favored corporate entities. Sort of like how we can't get to the point of health care reform in the U.S. - because political institutions have been so corrupted by the corporate cartels called health insurance and the pharmaceutical industry.


McNamara is joined by other members of LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)

From left, Stephen Downing, retired deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, William Fox, former deputy Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, former Torrance Police Department beat officer and drug identification expert Kyle Kazan, at podium; and retired Orange County Superior Court Judge Jim Gray, right. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

Their statement was noted in the Press Democrat

Current law enforcement officials are obligated to support laws and are ethically unable to oppose it in public, but retired officers can speak out, said McNamara, who is now a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute.

“We’re pushing police into a war they didn’t declare and they can’t win, and that comes at so much cost to taxpayers and society,” he said.

Nationally, President Barack Obama’s director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske, spoke out against the proposed law. Nine former Drug Enforcement Administration bosses wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that legalizing the drug threatens federal authority.

Federally authority should be threatened when it insists on bad laws.

Prosecutor who indicted Marc Emery ("king of pot") : Legalize It

Seattle Times

As Emery's prosecutor and a former federal law-enforcement official...I'm not afraid to say out loud what most of my former colleagues know is true: Our marijuana policy is dangerous and wrong and should be changed through the legislative process to better protect the public safety.

Congress has failed to recognize what many already know about our policy of criminal prohibition of marijuana — it has utterly failed. Listed by the U.S. government as a "Schedule One" drug alongside heroin, the demand for marijuana in this country for decades has outpaced the ability of law enforcement to eliminate it.

Not only does our policy directly threaten our public safety and rest upon false medical assumptions, but our national laws are now in direct and irreconcilable conflict with state laws, including Washington state. So called "medical" marijuana reaches precious few patients and backdoor potheads mock legitimate medical use by glaucoma and chemotherapy patients. State laws are trumped by federal laws that recognize no such thing as "medicinal" or "personal" use and are no defense to arrests by federal agents and prosecution in federal courts.

So the policy is wrong, the law has failed, the public is endangered, no one in law enforcement is talking about it and precious few policymakers will honestly face the soft-on-crime sound bite in their next elections.

While I don't share McKay's stereotypes about many cannabis users, his rational approach to the issue of cannabis laws in this nation is necessary and long-overdue from the many, as he notes in his op-ed, who are in law enforcement who recognize the law is the worst offender in regard to cannabis drug policy in this U.S.

McKay's op-ed only touches briefly, however, on the real problem with making rational changes to current law: the toxic political environment promoted by right-wing politicians who care more about scoring points on a political opponent than they do about the welfare of American citizens.

John McKay knows this aspect of American political life personally. He was one of the attorneys who was ousted by the theocratic quislings in the Gonzales Attn. General's office, most likely because of his attempt to keep an investigation into the murder (in his home) of Asst. U.S. Attn. General Tom Wales (who took on the NRA, the death penalty and white-collar crime.)

Jeffrey Toobin wrote about the incidents leading to the firing in The New Yorker:

On September 22, 2006, McKay’s office received a glowing evaluation from the Department of Justice. On December 7th, McKay, along with six other U.S. Attorneys, was fired.

...Gonzales’s justifications for McKay’s dismissal now seem unlikely to be true, because it has become clear that Justice Department officials were seeking to fire McKay before 2006. On March 2, 2005, Kyle Sampson, Gonzales’s chief of staff, included McKay’s name on a list of thirteen U.S. Attorneys to be fired, in an e-mail to Harriet Miers, the White House counsel. Sampson sent the e-mail four months after the 2004 elections, and after McKay decided not to bring charges against the Democratic Party, or people affiliated with it, in Washington State, in the wake of a narrow victory by Christine Gregoire, the Democratic candidate, in the governor’s race. The contest, which was resolved after two recounts, prompted a lawsuit by the state Republican Party alleging widespread voting irregularities.

Several of the fired U.S. Attorneys had declined to prosecute Democrats in electoral disputes. Many Democrats have suggested that the prosecutors were dismissed by Gonzales and the Bush White House in retaliation for failing to advance Republican political objectives.

California Council of Churches IMPACT endorses legalization of cannabis

Yes On Prop 19 Website

...The California Council of Churches IMPACT, which represents 21 different denominations and over 1.5 million members within the mainstream and progressive Protestant communities of faith, endorsed Proposition 19, the initiative to control and tax cannabis in California.

“Proposition 19 is the moral choice for California,” said Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser, Executive Director of the California Council of Churches IMPACT. “The prohibition of marijuana has failed. It’s created a culture of criminality around a substance that is less harmful than both alcohol and tobacco, which are both legal, controlled, and taxed. Let’s control marijuana like alcohol by passing Proposition 19 in November.”

The Council's endorsement joins a growing list of medical, religious, political, civic, law enforcement, labor, and academic voices who have spoken out in support of Proposition 19.

A list of endorsements is available at this link.

Former (Republican) Governor of New Mexico, Gary E. Johnson has also joined former Mexican Foreign minister, Jorge Castaneda, speaking out in favor of Prop. 19.

Gary E. Johnson:

Mexican drug cartels make at least 60 percent of their revenue from selling marijuana in the United States, according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. The FBI estimates that the cartels now control distribution in more than 230 American cities, from the Southwest to New England.

How are they able to do this? Because America’s policy for almost 70 years has been to keep marijuana—arguably no more harmful than alcohol and used by 15 million Americans every month—confined to the illicit market, meaning we’ve given criminals a virtual monopoly on something that U.S. researcher Jon Gettman estimates is a $36 billion a year industry, greater than corn and wheat combined. We have implemented laws that are not enforceable, which has thereby created a thriving black market. By denying reality and not regulating and taxing marijuana, we are fueling not only this massive illicit economy, but a war that we are clearly losing.

Castaneda:

A growing number of distinguished Mexicans from all walks of life have recently come out in favor of some form of drug legalization. Former presidents Ernesto Zedillo and Vicente Fox, novelists Carlos Fuentes and Angeles Mastretta, Nobel Prize-winning chemist Mario Molina, and movie star Gael García Bernal have all expressed support for this idea, and polls show that ordinary Mexicans are increasingly willing to contemplate the notion.

Via Raw Story

An interview with Ethan Nadelmann, exec. director of the Drug Policy Alliance

Alternet

Nadelmann talks about the concept of harm reduction as a paradigm shift.

(From drug policy)...in which criminal justice approaches are dominant to one in which health approaches are dominant. So much of drug policy takes place on the ground, and so much involves both governmental and non-governmental agencies and workers -- cops, prosecutors, housing, public welfare, health, you name it. We’re just trying to come up with pragmatic solutions.

These events push in a new direction: To reduce our reliance on a criminal justice and punitive approach in dealing with drugs, and to elevate the role of health in dealing with people who are addicted; To focus criminal justice resources on the harms that people do to one another, rather than simply arresting people for drugs; To move toward decriminalization of drug possession, both for those who are addicted and want help and for those who don’t have a drug problem and should essentially be left alone.

Nadelmann goes on to mention that Prop. 19, the ballot initiative to legalize cannabis, has an amazing 70% recognition rate - that's a phenomenal number of people who know what this issue is and why it is on the ballot. He compares this moment with past initiatives that involved reforms in the criminal justice system (Prop. 5) - which was torpedoed by a political maneuver by Jerry Brown (with help, Nadelmann notes, from the quarter million that Meg Whitman devoted to its demise), and Prop. 25, a move to treatment rather than punishment in drug sentencing that passed with 61% of the vote a decade ago, in spite of opposition from politicians and law enforcement. At this moment, depending on polls, Prop. 19 polls at 50/50 (tho electronic polls show a majority of Californians favor the initiative.) Nevertheless, in spite of recognition, Prop. 19 is not a sure thing and voter turn out will be essential to its passage.

He notes that:

There’s no simple easy way to jump from where we are today to a world in which marijuana is legally regulated and taxed in the US and Mexico and much of the rest of the world. It’s going to be a messy political process, with inconsistencies in laws and enforcement and different forms of decriminalization and people exploiting that, but it’s ultimately the only solution that can really reduce the violence and murder and mayhem. We really have no choice but to head down this road, negotiating the twists and bumps along the way, until both the US and Mexico, and other countries as well, are ready to embrace a more rational and orderly system of marijuana regulation.

Nadelmann credits the Obama administration for its stance and actions on three policy changes: raids on medical marijuana facilities, needle exchange and differential sentencing for types of cocaine (crack v. powder.) He also talks about the political reality of any attempt to create change with the current Republican mindset and the nasty political atmosphere that seeks to label any move away from Calvinist punishment drug policy to health-centered harm reduction as a "soft on crime" stance. Current federal funding reflects this political reality.

Nevertheless, Nadelmann observes: Obama made another commitment when he was running for office – that he would no longer allow science to be trumped by politics. But in the drug area, they continue to let it happen.

From Terrence McNally (the interviewer):

On July 27 the House unanimously passed HR5143, which, if enacted, creates a bipartisan commission to conduct a top to bottom review of the entire criminal justice system, and offer concrete recommendations for reform within 18 months. This is the companion bill to Senator Jim Webb’s S714, already approved by the Senate Judiciary committee. According to Senator Webb, legalization should be on the table for discussion.

These are bills to watch for anyone who supports sane drug policy. One issue the House can bring up for consideration is the rescheduling of cannabis. This one change can have major implications. It's not the only change we need, but it's a major move that needs to be made to bring current drug law in line with current medical research.

Hulu: High - The True Tale of American Marijuana

UK's Leading Pharmacological Expert on Cannabis To Call for Legalization

Financial Times

Roger Pertwee, professor of neuropharmacology at Aberdeen University, will on Tuesday tell the British Science Festival in Birmingham that making cannabis available from licensed outlets would reduce drug-related crime and cut the risk of users moving on to more dangerous drugs.

“At the moment cannabis is in the hands of criminals,” he will say. “We are allowed to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Cannabis, if it is handled properly, is not going to be more dangerous.”

Although research has shown cannabis may increase the risk of developing schizophrenia in particularly vulnerable individuals, this danger does not apply to the general population, he will say. The risk could be reduced by setting a minimum age of 21 for consuming cannabis or requiring individuals to obtain a licence to buy it.

The article is very short - but behind a free registration wall.

Pertwee was involved in the development of Sativex for MS patients - so he has a pretty good idea of the way in which cannabinoids function - and an understanding of the medical uses of cannabis extracts.

The First Post

Pertwee's recommendation to "license" cannabis users (does the UK "license" beer drinkers?)...

comes almost a year after the Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson fired Professor David Nutt, the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) and the government's top drugs advisor, after he suggested that drugs such as cannabis and LSD were less harmful than alcohol.

Prior to that, the Labour government had upgraded cannabis from a Class C to a Class B drug against the advice of the ACMD. So it was no surprise when another seven members of the ACMD resigned after Nutt's dismissal - either citing Nutt's shoddy treatment or the government's prohibitionist attitude towards drugs.

Edited to add Pertwee on the BBC

Personally, I find the idea of an individual "license" to be ridiculous - just another indication of how irrational people are about the issue of cannabis. Liquor stores require licenses. They are required to abide by the law and not sell to minors. They are not required to screen all customers for signs of mental illness - because the idea is ludicrous - just as it is for cannabis.

Gore Vidal, New York Times, 1970

New York Times, September 26, 1970

from Drugs, by Gore Vidal:

Along with exhortation and warning, it might be good for our citizens to recall (or learn for the first time) that the United States was the creation of men who believed that each man has the right to do what he wants with his own life as long as he does not interfere with his neighbor's pursuit of happiness (that his neighbor's idea of happiness is persecuting others does confuse matters a bit).

This is a startling notion to the current generation of Americans. They reflect a system of public education which has made the Bill of Rights, literally, unacceptable to a majority of high school graduates (see the annual Purdue reports) who now form the "silent majority" - a phrase which that underestimated wit Richard Nixon took from Homer who used it to describe the dead.

Is everyone reasonably sane? No. Some people will always become drug addicts just as some people will always become alcoholics, and it is just too bad. Every man, however, has the power (and should have the legal right) to kill himself if he chooses. But since most men don't, they won't be mainliners either. Nevertheless, forbidding people things they like or think they might enjoy only makes them want those things all the more. This psychological insight is, for some mysterious reason, perennially denied our governors.

It is a lucky thing for the American moralist that our country has always existed in a kind of time-vacuum: we have no public memory of anything that happened before last Tuesday. No one in Washington today recalls what happened during the years alcohol was forbidden to the people by a Congress that thought it had a divine mission to stamp out Demon Rum - launching, in the process, the greatest crime wave in the country's history, causing thousands of deaths from bad alcohol, and creating a general (and persisting) contempt among the citizenry for the laws of the United States.

This article was written before last Tuesday.

A Unique Chance to Rethink Drug(s) Policy

Guardian UK

If the purpose of drug policy is to make toxic substances available to anyone who wants them in a flourishing market economy controlled by murderous criminal gangs, the current arrangements are working well.

If, however, the goal is to reduce the amount of drugs being consumed and limit the harm associated with addiction, it is surely time to tear up the current policy. It has failed.

Few nations are untouched by what is, after all, a multibillion pound global industry. Importing countries, such as Britain, must cope with the social effects of addiction and end up squandering the state's resources on a Sisyphean policing task.

But that suffering is mild compared to the destructive forces unleashed on exporting countries.

The article goes on to note that the current and former Presidents of Mexico have called for a debate on current drug policies. Other former Latin American heads of state have called for legalization to stop the flow of money to drug cartels and to decrease violence.

Why did violence subside after the end of prohibition? People who were making and delivering alcohol illegally were able to do so without bribes. They could avail themselves of the legal system to settle disputes, rather than the rough justice of criminality. Makers of alcoholic beverages from other nations were allowed to export their product to formerly closed markets. Those who chose to be criminals, rather than beverage producers, found other areas of criminality to exploit and law enforcement officials were able to focus on other criminal activities.

...The unthinkable is creeping into the realm of the plausible. In the US, several states have relaxed cannabis law, a trend driven by a loose coalition of hard right libertarians and soft left baby-boomers. American society is slowly coming to terms with the fact that drugs are part of its everyday reality and that control might be more effective if use was allowed within the law, not forced outside it.

Politicians have generally shown little courage in confronting inconvenient truths about drugs. And the longer a government is in office, the more it feels bound to defend the status quo; to do otherwise would be admitting complicity in an expensive failure.

Prohibition entails a double dishonesty. First, there is the pretence that the supply and demand can be managed by force. But anyone who has experienced addiction knows that banning a substance restricts neither access nor desire. Usually, it makes matters worse, bringing otherwise law-abiding people into contact with professional criminals. Most addicts, meanwhile, say their problems start with the need to annihilate feelings of despair or memories of trauma. Prosecuting them for those problems solves nothing.

Vancouver, B.C. Concerns on the Impact of Prop. 19 on the Canadian Economy

Cannabis News via The Victoria Times-Colonist

In a column on the Guardian’s website this week, B.C. writer Douglas Haddow writes that a move to legalization would be “devastating to the Canadian economy, halting the flow of billions of dollars from the U.S. into Canada.”

B.C. marijuana activist Marc Emery – the selfstyled “Prince of Pot” who is awaiting sentencing in the U.S. for distributing cannabis seeds – - recently told a Vancouver website that “the homegrown market will evaporate.”

Marijuana production generates at least $3 billion to $4 billion in B.C. alone – due, in large part, to heavy demand from potheads south of the border, said Darryl Plecas a criminology professor at the University of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford.

Plecas said he estimates that about 70 per cent of all marijuana produced in B.C. is sent to the U.S. and much of it goes to California.

(I love the criminology professor's "judicious" use of language.)

Other observers, however, are more circumspect about how crippling legalization would be for Canadian producers, pointing out that “B.C. Bud” still enjoys a reputation in many circles as “the Rolls-Royce” of marijuana and that there are many other U.S. states – besides California – that covet Canadian-grown marijuana.

The article goes on to note various opinions about the the immediate impact (Mexican bud will fare worse, the illegal exchange of Canadian pot and cocaine will continue, the rise of the loon against the dollar hasn't hurt exports...)

How D.C. Is Implementing Its Medical Marijuana Law

NBC News

In D.C., there are just five qualifying conditions for medical marijuana: Cancer, HIV, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma. That's stricter than the list of admissible conditions for 13 of the other 14 states with legalized medical marijuana -- some of which are introducing new conditions.

Another condition included in the new law -- perhaps the most stringent of all -- prohibits patients in D.C. from using marijuana they grow themselves. Only dispensaries have the authority to grow and distribute marijuana under the law. So, a patient who has been self medicating using home-grown marijuana on the advice of a doctor could still be arrested even after the regulations come into effect in January 2011 -- if that marijuana did not come through a dispensary.

"D.C. falls in line with a trend of medical marijuana jurisdictions, especially on the East Coast," says Meno. He says that some jurisdictions, especially in California, failed to pass local regulations that clarified the law, leading to some limited abuse of the system. Jurisdictions that have passed medical marijuana legislation in the meantime -- including D.C. -- have "erred on the side of caution."

Washington Post

District liquor regulators will play a lead role in the city's new medical marijuana program when it debuts Jan. 1, according to draft rules issued Friday by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D).

Under the regulations, the city health department would be responsible for registering legal marijuana users. But the licensing and oversight of the facilities that will grow and distribute medical cannabis would be handled by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and its enforcement arm, the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration. The prospect of having the same regulators overseeing medical marijuana and liquor stores concerns advocates who have fought to have cannabis recognized as a medical treatment, not just as a drug for recreational use.

Congress has prevented D.C. from honoring the law its citizens voted to change for over 12 years by tying up the funds to implement the law. (The regulations and the 87 pages of administration rules to now implement the law are also available via the WP link.)

Much as the liquor board can immediately shutter a bar or nightclub, it would be able close a dispensary if it were causing "immediate danger to the health and safety of the public." The chief of police would be able to shut down a dispensary for 96 hours.

Nickles said the regulations were written with an eye toward avoiding the problems seen in other states -- especially California, where lawmakers are trying to rein in a medical marijuana industry estimated to generate about $2 billion a year in sales. Choosing the liquor board to oversee the industry, he said, was part of that.

Although it has tried to block its implementation for 12 years, the Federal Government can see that, all around it, people in this nation have stated that they recognize and accept legitimate uses for cannabis.

It is past time for the DEA to change the scheduling for cannabis to reflect the reality that exists. We no longer have a party in the majority that bragged it was no longer "reality-based."*

*The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." - Ron Suskind, New York Times Magazine

Overview of Current States re: Medical Marijuana

Detroit News

In some states, medical marijuana has become a sizable part of the economy -- even when the industry's expansion has largely fallen in the gray area of the law. In California, marijuana is considered among the state's leading cash crops. In Colorado, medical marijuana dispensaries outnumber Starbucks locations 3 to 1.

In other states, such as New Mexico and Oregon, heavier regulations have limited growth.

"It hasn't become a Wal-Mart type of business," said Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard University economist who studies the marijuana trade. "But it's gone beyond a mom-and-pop sort of activity."

California was the first state to legalize pot for medicinal use in 1996, spawning an industry that grew rapidly and remains among the nation's most loosely regulated.

The article goes on to note that states that have medical marijuana laws are recognizing that they have to regulate the industry because it's no longer in the realm of "mom and pop" stores.

It's interesting to watch this legislative process in action.


the link above via Cannabis News

Hulu: The Green Rush

A documentary that follows California growers through a season.

Medical Marijuana Patients: Montana Airports

Washington Post

Medical marijuana patients report no problems as they boarded with carry on luggage and cannabis plants. Under the new regulations, patients can fly with their cannabis. They can even change planes in states where it's illegal. One medical marijuana advocate explains why he thinks the new way some airports are handling it is better than their previous methods.

"People don't know where to get seeds. They don't know where to get clones. They are afraid to drive through states to go through California to Montana. To get a good strain from California, I would have to drive through Oregon and through Idaho which don't recognize medical marijuana. They'll take you to jail," says Jason Christ from Cannabiscare.

We talked to the TSA, and they told us it's not really up to them.

"State laws supersede what we would do in the aviation sector, and it would be up to the local law enforcement officials to determine the action they would take based on whatever the person was trying to bring on board an aircraft," says Dwayne Baird with TSA.

Some Montana cannabis flyers were told the restrictions are that both the initial and final destination must be medical marijuana friendly, and passengers in possession can't leave the terminal with cannabis in states that haven't legalized it.

Sounds sensible to me.

Texas and Medical Marijuana

Texas Tribune

(Stephen) Betzen is now the executive director of Texas Coalition for Compassionate Care, a Dallas-based nonprofit that, alongside Texas NORML and Medcan University, is lobbying legislators in hopes of reforming Texas’ marijuana laws. The organizations don't agree on strategy, however, with the TCCC pushing only for a limited law allowing medical use as a defense against criminal charges, and the others seeking broader legalization that would include permitting and regulating sales outlets.

...Though they are pursuing different strategies, Betzen, Picazo and Schimberg have similar goals and have been busily meeting with lawmakers for weeks. They won’t say which lawmakers, however, as some still view any connection to the legalization movement as a political liability. But they cite a poll that found a majority of Texans support legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes. A University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll conducted in May showed a similar finding, with the majority of Texans favoring one or more methods of legalization: 42 percent of Texans were open to the idea of legalizing marijuana, 28 percent say possession of small amounts should be legal, and 14 percent said any amount should be legal. Twenty-seven percent said it should be legal for medical purposes only, and another 27 percent said it should be illegal under any circumstances.

How the Federal Government Could Reschedule Cannabis

Drug Schedules are part of the Controlled Substances Act, passed by Congress in 1970, that defines federal drug policy. There are five schedules, or classifications for drugs, to determine federal policy on those substances.

Schedule I.—

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."

No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and such substances are subject to production quotas by the DEA.

The DEA and the FDA determine the scheduling of various substances, although Congress scheduled a substance via legislation in Feb. 2000. The Attorney General of the United States may also initiate a drug rescheduling hearing.

Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute

...Proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of such rules may be initiated by the Attorney General

(1) on his own motion,
(2) at the request of the Secretary, or
(3) on the petition of any interested party.

The Attorney General shall, before initiating proceedings under subsection (a) of this section to control a drug or other substance or to remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules, and after gathering the necessary data, request from the Secretary a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance.

...if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled [or be rescheduled], the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance. If the Attorney General determines that these facts and all other relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse such as to warrant control or substantial evidence that the drug or other substance should be removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings for control or removal, as the case may be, under subsection (a) of this section.

Factors determinative of control or removal from schedules

In making any finding under subsection (a) of this section or under subsection (b) of section 812 of this title, the Attorney General shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:

(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.

In 1992, DEA administrator Robert Bonner created 5 criteria for determining whether a substance has medicinal value.

The DEA claims that cannabis has no accepted medical use because it does not meet all of these criteria:

* The drug's chemistry is known and reproducible;
* There are adequate safety studies;
* There are adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;
* The drug is accepted by qualified experts; and
* The scientific evidence is widely available.

(Information on Drug Schedules and Information on attempts to reschedule cannabis via Wiki)

On October 18, 1985, the DEA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to transfer "Synthetic Dronabinol in Sesame Oil and Encapsulated in Soft Gelatin Capsules" — a pill form of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive component of cannabis, sold under the brand name Marinol — from Schedule I to Schedule II (DEA 50 FR 42186-87). The government issued its final rule rescheduling the drug on July 13, 1986 (DEA 51 FR 17476-78). The disparate treatment of cannabis and the expensive, patentable Marinol prompted reformers to question the DEA's consistency.

In the summer of 1986, the DEA administrator initiated public hearings on cannabis rescheduling. The hearings lasted two years, involving many witnesses and thousands of pages of documentation. On September 6, 1988, DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young ruled that cannabis did not meet the legal criteria of a Schedule I prohibited drug and should be reclassified. He declared that cannabis in its natural form is "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. (T)he provisions of the (Controlled Substances) Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II".

Then-DEA Administrator John Lawn overruled Young's determination. Lawn said he decided against re-scheduling cannabis based on testimony and comments from numerous medical doctors who had conducted detailed research and were widely considered experts in their respective fields. Later Administrators agreed. "Those who insist that marijuana has medical uses would serve society better by promoting or sponsoring more legitimate research," former DEA Administrator Robert Bonner opined in 1992.

So, what has medical research into the use of cannabis revealed since 1992? Because of the Federal Scheduling, much of the legitimate research has gone on outside of the United States.

Recent medical research on cannabis, via NORML

...There are now more than 17,000 published papers in the scientific literature analyzing marijuana and its constituents...Whereas researchers in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s primarily assessed cannabis' ability to temporarily alleviate various disease symptoms — such as the nausea associated with cancer chemotherapy — scientists today are exploring the potential role of cannabinoids to modify disease.

Of particular interest, scientists are investigating cannabinoids' capacity to moderate autoimmune disorders such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as their role in the treatment of neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (a.k.a. Lou Gehrig's disease.)

Investigators are also studying the anti-cancer activities of cannabis, as a growing body of preclinical and clinical data concludes that cannabinoids can reduce the spread of specific cancer cells via apoptosis (programmed cell death) and by the inhibition of angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels). Arguably, these latter trends represent far broader and more significant applications for cannabinoid therapeutics than researchers could have imagined some thirty or even twenty years ago.

This article includes links to information about cannabinoid research for 19 different health issues, with links to the studies relating to the medical condition.

I'm sure the executive branch will not step in front of a bill before a state to appear to take a position on this issue. However, in order to facilitate an end to the war on drugs if California does legalize cannabis, the Attorney General (or any citizen's group) could call for a rescheduling hearing to bring cannabis scheduling in line with legitimate, peer-reviewed research that has occurred over the last 18 years.

(h/t to beowulf in comments at Just Say Now)

The Flower

Interesting Excerpt From "Marijuana is Safer, So Why are We Driving People to Drink

I just recently read an interesting stat. from the book, Marijuana is Safer, So Why Are We Driving People to Drink. It's full of interesting info.

The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, part of Clinton's contribution to the War on Drugs - had a $195 MILLION PER YEAR budget for 5 years.

During this time, they made deals with television shows to provide "credit" toward lost revenues for anti-drug ads (that were priced lower than other ads) by placing anti-cannabis stories into tv shows - scripts for shows would be discussed with the govt officials. One more reason so much television sucks? who knows.

This was the time of "this is your brain on drugs" tv commercials. I had young kids back then and didn't say anything negative about these commercials out loud, but, under my breath, I just whispered, "Bullshit." It had been more than a decade since I had inhaled - and I knew this stuff was bullshit.

Apparently I wasn't the only one. A study from Texas State University found that the anti-marijuana ads INCREASED the likelihood that teens would use or want to use marijuana.

But here's the kicker...

do you know WHY that campaign was created and why all that money was wasted on a program that didn't work?

-- why the Clinton administration spent all this money on an ineffective anti- marijuana campaign?

In 1996, California and Arizona voted to support the medical use of marijuana in their states. The Clinton administration's response was to hold meetings and to create propaganda that would "stop the spread of legalization to the other 48 states."

More than 1.5 BILLION was spent from 1998 to 2008 on an effort to propagandize the American people and deny the medical benefits of marijuana.

We're now up to 14, I believe, states that allow medical marijuana and California is in a position to make history, yet again, by leading this nation to saner drug policies.

I hope the voters in CA will provide this kick in the pants to the constipated powers that be.

Cannabis Gave Her Back Her Life

Independent (UK)

Within minutes of taking a small amount of cannabis there was not an inch of my body in pain, and my tremors had stopped. My body felt at peace, and I don't think I can ever convey the enormity of that to anyone. Nothing hurt or felt wrong. I was still weak, but I could move with as much ease and grace as I used to. Yes, I was intoxicated, but it was not how I remembered it from my teenage years. Perhaps it was the smaller amount I used, just enough to free my body from its prison. I felt I was smiling more than usual, but this truly seemed to be because the mantle of agony I am normally covered in had been lifted. I certainly wasn't hearing or saying unusual things. Nevertheless, the "high" period was brief yet the health effects remained for a full 24 hours. It seemed to be a miracle. I tried to imagine the warning label if this was manufactured by a pharmaceutical company: "Will induce slight giddiness and loss of any concept of time for approximately two hours. Full beneficial effects will continue for 24 hours." An acceptable trade-off?

I had two weeks of this beautiful cure, and every day of those two weeks I became stronger. I was able to take up activities long abandoned and sorely missed. The excitement my husband and I felt was palpable. If I took it slowly, I was nearly normal and every minute my brain was taken out of its loop it was being allowed to recover. Personally, this is a joy, but in the bigger picture it could be an economic blessing. If the sick and disabled can benefit from cannabis the benefits would be felt by relieving the strain on the NHS and allowing some patients or carers to return to the workforce.

Sadly I don't know how reliably I'll be able to find cannabis. After years of searching I found something that can make my life bearable, even productive, but it's just out of reach. I have every intention of continuing to seek it out, but I don't know how achievable it will be. If you've been touched by cancer, HIV, MS, fibromyalgia or rheumatoid arthritis you are among many who could possibly benefit from cannabis, but I would advise each person to fully research for themselves and speak to a trusted medical professional.

...Of course medicinal cannabis doesn't have the same scope for making large pharmaceutical companies big profits that drugs such as Olanzapine or Lorazepam do. After all, how would you patent a daffodil? This would not be a deterrent for law-making in a civilised society, but in ours, perhaps. It's time that we collectively grew up, and realised that the longer this issue remains unresolved we are throwing lives, money and progress down the drain.

Democrats Want the Pro-Prop 19 Vote, but not the Legislation

Huffington Post (Russ Bellville)

Ryan Grim at Huffington Post reports on the notion going round political circles that California's Prop 19 (and, to a lesser extent, medical marijuana initiatives in Arizona and South Dakota, and dispensaries for medical marijuana in Oregon) will be for the Democrats what anti-Gay Marriage Equality amendments were for Republicans - the turn-out-the-base social wedge issue that helps their candidates on the ballot.

...Democrats are in for a surprise. See, Karl Rove and the Republicans really believed in the initiatives they were pushing. They had a frame for it - "one man one woman" - that resonated with their voters and the overall worldview espoused by most of their downticket candidates. So when that Religious Right base came out in 2004, energized to vote against dreaded homosexuals and for the continuation of all that was good, true, and Christian in America, they had George W. Bush and a whole slew of Republicans to vote for that echoed that sentiment.

What do Democrats have to offer the cannabis consumer who comes out for a 2010 election? Unlike Rove and the Republicans, the Democrats don't really believe in these initiatives (publicly). Sen. Boxer, Sen. Feinstein (a former mayor of San Francisco, c'mon now!), and former Gov. / current AG Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown all publicly oppose Prop 19...

...[In 2008, social liberals] "surged", in the real world and especially online, and got Obama elected. We even got him a massive majority in Congress. We were thrilled when he asked us online what items we'd like to see on the new administration's agenda and multiple times we responded with "legalize marijuana", topping almost every public survey and dominating with 16 of the top 50 questions in the largest survey. So what did we get in response? Something we in marijuana law reform simply call "The Chuckle"

...Republicans already have the frames of "small government", "personal responsibility", and "states rights" to work within. If marijuana legalization in California passes by a wide margin and sees support from the women, minorities, and young people the GOP desperately needs to rebuild their party, how long before they begin framing the War on Drugs as the "big government", "nanny state", and "federal overreach" that it is? ...They can easily point to the Democratic Congresses of the 1980s that created the mandatory minimums and the last three Democratic presidents who supported decriminalization and inhaled or didn't inhale yet arrests kept increasing (at the greatest rate under Clinton, they'll note).

...Just in time for 2012 when a vocally pro-marijuana legalization, anti-prohibition former governor of New Mexico named Gary Johnson will be fighting for the Republican nomination.

The Obama Administration has been incredibly tone deaf and outright offensive about the issues that brought out the base in 2010, from gay rights to cannabis-law modification to women's reproductive choice to overturning the abuses of power of the Bush administration in regard to FISA, for instance, while seemingly engaged in an effort to court the social/religious conservative Republican and Democratic Dixiecrat base that comprises a smaller number of voters than the liberal and libertarian free market one (based upon Pew polling from 2008 that divided voters into voting and economic sectors.)

This tact would appear to relate to the Democratic idea that social liberals have no other party to vote for and to Rahm Emmanuel's view of the liberal base as "fucking retards."

The Dixiecrats and their kissing cousins in states like Nebraska (Ben Nelson) threaten to alienate the Democratic base from the party - while offering little in return for this pandering if you look at Nelson's votes, for instance.

Democrats seem to be fighting the political wars of the 1980s and the 1990s while defining themselves in terms derived from the Republican attack machine, rather than creating a truly hopeful vision for an America in a new millennium.

Oakland's Post Drug War Marshall Plan

L.A. Times

This article is a profile of Jeff Wilcox, the person who has promised a a $20 million dollar investment in Oakland to create a large-scale growing operation.

Wilcox quote: In essence, you could say big business is here.

Comparing the economic potential of tetrahydrocannabinol to silicon chips may seem far-fetched. Some observers dismiss the notion as the fever dream of budget-traumatized politicians. But others think Oakland could be uniquely positioned to capitalize on the business opportunities created by the growing tolerance toward marijuana.

[City Council Member Rebecca] Kaplan said she believed that Oakland has two essential ingredients other California cities do not: political will and industrial space. "Oakland has been a major hub of the medical cannabis movement, so that's part of what I mean when I say political will," she said.

No other city has provided such red-carpet treatment. Oakland is essentially trying to set up legal sanctuaries for pot businesses, although the move may prove too brazen for federal narcotics agents who recently called city officials to request a copy of the [legal, large-scale cannabis growers] ordinance.

Oakland, like Silicon Valley, has been fertile ground for entrepreneurs and innovative thinkers, luring them from all over. Jones is from South Dakota. Richard Lee, who started the first trade school to train marijuana businessmen, moved from Texas. Steve DeAngelo, who came from Washington, D.C., runs Harborside Health Center, a $20-million-a-year dispensary that has become the largest and arguably the most professionally run marijuana retailer in the world.

Just as the repeal of prohibition became unavoidably attractive during the great depression, the approval and regulation of cannabis growing offers a way to create jobs within a legal framework (at the state and city level) for workers who have been decimated by two decades of the globalization of capitalism and its attendant frenzy for shareholder profits at the expense of America's working middle class.

A View of the War on Drugs From Music City

(Nashville) City Paper

In 2005, the Office of National Drug Control Policy labeled seven states — California, Hawaii, Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington and West Virginia — as the primary states for marijuana cultivation. They’re known as the “M7 states.” According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, which uses data from the TBI, Tennessee eradicated more than a half million indoor and outdoor marijuana plants in 2008. More than 350,000 of those came from one piece of terrain in Cocke County.

The intelligence center, citing 2008 data from the DEA, states “eradication of indoor and outdoor plants in Tennessee (539,370 plants) accounted for 7 percent of all plants eradicated in the United States (8,013,308).” That year only California (5,322,053 plants) and Washington (580,415) ranked higher.

The DEA Domestic Eradication/Suppression Program supplies $780,000 a year to Tennessee to pay for surveillance equipment and other operating expenses. The state pays for other operating expenses that are already part of their law enforcement budget.

In 2008, about 82 percent — or 442,351 plants — of Tennessee’s marijuana found and destroyed outdoors came from Cocke, Cumberland, Wayne, Lawrence and Hickman counties, according to TBI data provided to the federal government.

The same data showed that only about 100 indoor plants were rooted out in 2008.

Indoor eradication efforts come from law enforcement intelligence gathering and are much less frequent.

Law enforcement agents state the outdoor-grown plants net between $600 to $800 per pound.

The article further notes an effort to introduce the Safe Access to Medical Cannabis Act was introduced into the Tennessee House of Representatives during its last session but was withdrawn after a lack of support in the Senate. Advocates assume it will take them several years to pass the bill.

Will California Legalize Pot?

An excellent article from Alternet

The reality of the matter is that Prop. 19 has the deck stacked against it simply because there is no precedent for a voting public of a state to endorse removing all civil and criminal penalties associated with adult marijuana use. All preceding efforts have met sad ends: A 1972 measure also called Prop. 19 failed in California; more recently, attempts in Alaska, Colorado and Nevada were also rejected. In the face of decades of federal and state prohibition, it is still much easier to vote no than yes, even in the face of convincing arguments to do otherwise.

...Polls in April and May found support at 56 percent and 51 percent, respectively. A SurveyUSA poll released this month shows support at 50 percent, 10 points over those against it. A new Public Policy Polling poll found the divide to be even greater, with 52 percent supporting and 36 percent nixing it -- and the campaign says these results are more consistent with its internal polling. But another poll also released this month, the Field poll, showed that more people oppose the initiative than support it, at 48 to 44 percent. (This contrasts with the last Field poll, conducted over a year ago, which found support at 56 percent.) No matter which numbers you're looking at though, 50, 52 or even 56 percent isn't all that comforting. It's one thing to say yes to a pollster, it's quite another thing to get out and vote that way.

"Progressive drug reform on the California ballot needs to be polling in the high 50s or low 60s," says Stephen Gutwillig, the California director at the Drug Policy Alliance. "This is because they generally have nowhere to go but down because of the fear-mongering that usually occurs at the hands of the law enforcement lobby which tends to not need as much money to push their regressive fear-based messages."

Mauricio Garzon, the even-tempered campaign coordinator, admits polls could be better but is sure that something even more important is happening. "We're seeing a legitimization of this issue, politically. There was a time when this was impossible," he says. "You reflect on this and you see a shift in public sentiment and this is what this campaign has always been about. Making Americans understand how important this issue is. It's a real issue and the existing framework has been devastating to our society."

Indeed.