[The latest upgrade to WordPress 2.5.1 has wiped out my style sheets. So that’s why the Stash site looks funny today. I’m working hard on getting it fixed, please be patient.]
This is in response to yesterday’s story on Barack Obama, campaigning in Oregon, stating he would base medical marijuana policy on “sound science” and end the DEA raids in medical marijuana states.
“Barack Obama’s pledge to stop Executive agencies from implementing laws passed by Congress raises serious doubts about his understanding of what the job of the President of the United States actually is. His refusal to enforce the law reveals that Barack Obama doesn’t have the experience necessary to do the job of President, or that he fundamentally lacks the judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the Executive Branch. What other laws would Barack Obama direct federal agents not to enforce?”
Judging by public opinion, which overwhelmingly supports medical marijuana, trying to bash Senator Obama for his pledge to end DEA raids seems to me a political loser. While today’s Republican party may officially denounce medical marijuana, classic conservatives have always favored regulation of cannabis and many feel that a federal government that interferes in a doctor-patient relationship has overstepped its bounds. Fifteen Republicans voted for Hinchey-Rohrabacher in its last offering and Republican Ron Paul is sponsoring the latest incarnation of the bill to end DEA raids in medical marijuana states.
Senator Barack Obama is campaigning here in my home state of Oregon. Our primary is May 20th and he is expected to win handily and capture the majority of the pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Our local weekly paper caught up with him to ask some “Oregon specific” questions, like timber, liquified natural gas plants, and, of course, medical marijuana:
“I would because I think our federal agents have better things to do, like catching criminals and preventing terrorism. The way I want to approach the issue of medical marijuana is to base it on science. And if there is sound science that supports the use of medical marijuana and if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed, then it’s something we should consider.”
The Senate voted 33-2 yesterday to send the proposal back to committee. The bill would allow up to three nonprofit stores in the state to sell marijuana to patients enrolled in Rhode Island’s medical marijuana program.
The state allows patients to possess marijuana for pain relief, but the drug is still illegal under federal law.
Senator Rhoda Perry, the bill’s sponsor, asked the Senate to halt the bill after it was amended to ban patients from smoking marijuana in motor vehicles or in front of other people.
Perry says the amendment insults chronically ill patients who use marijuana for pain relief.
Perhaps there is an argument to be made for preventing the use of medical marijuana in a motor vehicle. NORML always cautions against smoking and driving, and even if the patient isn’t the person driving, I can see how it would be important from a law enforcement and public safety perspective to prevent any marijuana smoking in a car.
The offensive part is not being allowed to smoke “in front of other people”. That’s far too broad a wording; here in Oregon, patients aren’t allowed to medicate “in public view”. But “in front of other people” could be the patient’s own friends or family in their own private residence or a hospital or a hospice. It is an insult, because it treats marijuana smoking as if it is a shameful act that must be hidden from other. We don’t require people on Vicodin, Percocet, or OxyContin to swallow their pills without anyone present, why would we require the same of medical cannabis?
Times-News: Magicvalley.com, Twin Falls, ID
Several Hailey city officials sued their city Friday over three pro-marijuana voter initiatives, a course of action aimed at getting a judge to rule against the legality of the measures and bring and end to the controversy.
This lawsuit, which has been in the works for 3 1/2 months, has allowed council members to freeze any implementation pending a judge’s ruling.
Plaintiffs Mayor Rick Davis, councilmember Don Keirn and police chief Jeffrey Gunter, all say the initiatives passed by voters in November violate their freedom of speech, conflict with federal law, state law or are otherwise illegal.
Those allegations assembled into a complaint by attorney Keith Roark, have already been raised by city attorney Ned Williamson and the Idaho attorney general.
A judge’s ruling, however, carries the force of a final verdict.
The initiatives would legalize medicinal marijuana and industrial hemp, and make the enforcement of marijuana laws a lower police priority. Voters did not approve a fourth initiative to legalize marijuana.
According to the text of their complaint, the city officials allege their freedom of speech would be abridged because the initiatives “require the City of Hailey and its officers to advocate for changes in marijuana laws”. What I don’t understand is how a city official acting under direction of the majority of the voters is afforded any free speech rights in the first place. Nothing is requiring the mayor to say he personally favors changing marijuana laws, merely that as mayor his duty is to express the will of his constituents.
A devoted Stash listener forwarded me a response he received after contacting his congressman, Brad Ellsworth, of Indiana’s 8th District. What impresses me most is Ellsworth’s ability to fit so much reefer madness into so few sentences.
Thank you for contacting me to share your views on marijuana. I appreciate your comments, and I welcome this opportunity to share my thoughts.
According to a 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), marijuana remains the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States1. While marijuana use is generally unhealthy2 and has negative social repercussions3, it also serves as a gateway drug to more dangerous substance abuse4. For these reasons, I remain concerned by the prevalence of drug abuse5 in our culture and the harmful consequences that are the result of this behavior.
As a career law enforcement officer, I saw firsthand the devastating effects that illicit drug use can have on both individuals and communities6. While a member of the Vanderburgh County Sheriff’s Office, I initiated the Drug Abuse Resistance Effort (DARE)7 program to make children aware of the dangers posed by drug use. I made fighting drugs a top priority within the department and I will continue to do so in the United States Congress. Currently, no legislation regarding the legalization of non-medicinal marijuana has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives8. If such legislation is introduced, I will not support it.
Thanks again for taking the time to share your views with me. I need your input to make the best decisions possible, so please stay in touch!
Next president might be gentler on pot clubs
Ever since California voters became the first in the nation to legalize medical marijuana in 1996, the state has faced unyielding opposition from the federal government, which insists it has the power to prohibit a drug it considers useless and dangerous.
That could all change with the next presidential election.
As the candidates prepare for a May 20 primary in Oregon, one of 12 states with a California-style law, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has become an increasingly firm advocate of ending federal intervention and letting states make their own rules when it comes to medical marijuana.
His Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, is less explicit, recently softening a pledge she made early in the campaign to halt federal raids in states with medical marijuana laws. But she has expressed none of the hostility that marked the response of her husband’s administration to California’s initiative, Proposition 215.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee-in-waiting, has gone back and forth on the issue - promising a medical marijuana patient at one campaign stop that seriously ill patients would never face arrest under a McCain administration, but ultimately endorsing the Bush administration’s policy of federal raids and prosecutions.
Senator Obama seems to understand that there is legitimate medical use for marijuana, comparing doctor-prescribed morphine to doctor-recommended marijuana. Senator Clinton seems to have waffled a bit, saying first that the DEA raids in medical marijuana states should end, but later saying instead that DEA raids shouldn’t be a “high priority”, which leaves the possibility open that the DEA raids would be a priority to some lesser extent. She also seems unaware of marijuana’s proven medicinal benefits, calling for more research despite the dozens of studies that have confirmed marijuana as medicine. And Senator McCain has flip-flopped numerous times on this issue, telling one patient he’d never be arrested for using medical marijuana, but then stating that he would not end DEA raids in medical marijuana states.
Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed a measure into law Wednesday that bans the sale of “marijuana flavored products” to minors — anyone under 18 — and calls for a fine of up to $500 for each offense.
The measure takes effect July 1st.
It targets businesses that sell the candies with drug-inspired names such as “Kronic Kandy” and “Pot Suckers.”
The law says the candies promote drug use.
Vote Hemp, a national organization that promotes the use of hemp products and tracks legislation, says the measure would make Georgia the first state to ban the sale of the candy to minors.
The reefer madness has gone so far that now lawmakers feel they have to criminalize a taste? How exactly do you enforce a law like that? Taste is a subjective experience - a child and I may taste the same piece of black licorice, but she might like it and I think it’s the candy of Satan. There’s a flavor that should be illegal!
Will Georgia have a state-certified tastologist to verify the sticky-ickiness of the lollipops on a case-by-case basis? Have scientists in Atlanta come up with a Dynometric Tastometer? What if we call the lollipop “Ganja Grape”, “Bonghittin’ Banana”, or “Cinnamon Sativa”, but they actually taste like grape, banana, or cinnamon?
How ganja-like must a confection taste before it is criminal? Certainly the flavor of killer freshly-harvested BC Bud lollipops would be a crime, but can we lower the fine if it tastes like Mexican brick ditchweed overcooked in a poorly-made chocolate brownie? And is there some epidemic of kids craving the mere taste of weed? Last I checked, sour was really popular, as is chocolate.
I suppose Root Beer will still be legal, though. That doesn’t promote any drug use by kids, does it?
Seriously, this is a little like the thought police, isn’t it?
Congressman John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has responded to the requests of numerous citizens as well as the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco regarding the use of federal DEA resources in enforcement of marijuana laws against patients legally using medical marijuana under state law.
The Conyers letter, sent to Acting DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart, asks for the administration’s response to the complaints in advance of hearings to be held in front of the Judiciary Committee. Conyers’ questions include:
Is the use of civil asset forfeiture, which has typically been reserved for the worst drug traffickers and kingpins, an appropriate tactic to employ against individuals who suffer from severe or chronic illness and are authorized to use medical marijuana under California law?
Has the DEA conducted any analysis of the potential economic consequences of using civil asset forfeiture in an area that is experiencing some of the nation’s sharpest declines in property values?
Has the DEA considered the consequences of shutting down legally-operated public dispensaries, and whether that might drive the cannabis sales activity underground?
Given the increased level of trafficking and violence associated with international drug cartels across Mexico, South America and elsewhere, do you think the DEA’s limited resources are best utilized conducting enforcement raids on individuals and their caregivers who are conducting themselves legally under California law?
Have you considered that DEA activities against qualified individuals is negatively impacting the ability of state and local officials across California to collect tax revenue, which they are entitled to under California law?
Every month new science supporting the therapeutic value of cannabis is published. As a result, medical and scientific organizations, like the American College of Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, are urging reform of the laws that place in legal jeopardy physicians or their individual patients who may benefit from the use of cannabis. As the Administrator, you have the discretion to decide whether to continue heightened enforcement activities in California and in other states that have authorized the use of medical cannabis by qualified individuals. Please explain what role, if any, emerging scientific data plays in your decision-making process to conduct enforcement raids on individuals authorized to use or provide medical cannabis under state law.
Would you support the creation of an intergovernmental commission comprised of law enforcement, law makers and people affected by the laws, to review policy and provide recommendations that aim to bring harmony to federal and state laws?
While Conyers awaits the response from the DEA, let me play the psychic and predict what the DEA’s answers to those questions will be: no, no, no, no, none, and no.
Willamette Week | Tuesday, May 6th, 2008
Conservative ballot-measure supremo Kevin Mannix just told WWire he and his cohorts are dropping a proposed ballot initiative to kill the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program.
“That petition’s going to stop this week,” Mannix says. There was not enough time or money to gather the 82,769 valid signatures needed, he says.
“That’s the best news I’ve had all day,” says Paul Stanford, head of The Hemp and Cannabis Foundation, a Portland-based national chain of medical marijuana clinics.
Mannix says the decision to drop the petition drive had nothing to do with lack of public support, but rather lack of resources. But Stanford says he believes Mannix ran into trouble because the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, approved by voters in 1998, is still supported by a clear majority.
Stanford says it’s good news for medical-marijuana advocates that the petition has been dropped.
“We don’t have to waste our resources encouraging people not to sign that petition,” Stanford says. “We don’t have to mount a campaign against them in the fall. It just saves us a lot of time and effort.”
The so-called Oregon Crimefighting Act would have done three things:
•Given repeat “major felony” sex offenders a minimum 25-year sentence.
•Made third-strike DUII convictions a felony.
•Replaced medical marijuana with prescription THC pills.
Stanford has called the initiative a cynical effort to tear down medical marijuana by tagging it onto slam-drunk issues like opposing drunk drivers and sex predators. He says many marijuana patients oppose the change because THC pills are too expensive and not as effective.
Mannix told WWire that the ballot initiative, which he drafted, had financial support from the Florida-based nonprofit Save Our Society From Drugs. He says backers may return with another effort to gut medical marijuana in the 2010 election.
How about Save Our Society From Ignorance? This was the most shameful attempt to repeal medical marijuana in the second state to enact such protection for serious ill and disabled people. Mannix is a well-known conservative troublemaker in this state. He’s the man behind our ill-fated Measure 11, a state-level get-tough-on-crime mandatory minimum sentencing scheme that has helped overcrowd Oregon’s prisons and led us to spending more money on prisons than colleges. He’s lost a couple attempts to become governor and is now eyeing the federal Congressional seat of the retiring Representative Darlene Hooley.
Rep. William Lacy Clay is supporting a bill that would decriminalize small amounts of marijuana.
The Missouri Democrat has signed on as a co-sponsor of the measure to eliminate federal penalties for possessing up to 100 grams - or about 3.5 ounces - of marijuana for personal use.
The bill also would remove penalties for the not-for-profit transfer of up to one ounce of marijuana between adults.
Clay is only the third lawmaker to sign onto the bill introduced last month by Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat.
Frank says prosecuting people for smoking marijuana is an unwise use of law enforcement resources.
Clay joins Ron Paul (R-TX) as a cosponsor. I am thrilled to hear of a lawmaker in the Midwest who’s unafraid to stand up for marijuana decriminalization.
The legislation would make it a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison to own a house where marijuana is being cultivated, packaged and distributed.
The bill would also reduce the number of marijuana plants that would have to be in a home for a person to be convicted of a second-degree felony, which would be punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Right now, a person would have to have 300 plants in their home to be convicted of a second-degree felony, but the bill would reduce that number to 25.
In addition, if a child was living in the home, a person could spend up to 30 years in prison.
The Senate unanimously passed the bill today. It passed the House last month.
I think this is a bill they haven’t really put much thought into. Suppose you are a Florida landlord and you rent your property out to someone who then grows a single marijuana plant for personal uses. As the owner of the home, are you now headed to five years in prison? If your renter grows 25, are you sent up for 15 years? If your renter has kids, are you going to prison for 30 years?
Think about the consequences of this. The rental market is tight already and landlords are always having trouble finding good tenants. What will landlords do to protect themselves from the potential grower/renter? Will landlords, in addition to criminal background checks they already perform, now be insisting on pre-rental and random drug testing of their renters? Will they be forced to perform those 24-hour notice rental inspections?
And what of the people trying to rent? If you had made a mistake in your youth and got busted with marijuana, how likely are landlords going to want to rent to you? I believe this will create even more homeless people in Florida, as those people on the margins economically who have drug convictions in the past are rejected for rentals.
Brown says message must be sent on cannabis | UK | Reuters
LONDON (Reuters) - Gordon Brown said on Tuesday the government needs to send a message that cannabis is “unacceptable,” increasing speculation he will decide to tighten drug laws.
Brown has received a report from The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) on cannabis and will decide soon whether to upgrade it to Class B from a Class C, although a decision is not expected this week.
Newspapers have predicted that Brown will reclassify the drug even though the council has reportedly advised the government to keep cannabis in Class C.
“I don’t think that the previous studies took into account that so much of the cannabis on the streets is now of a lethal quality and we really have got to send out a message to young people — this is not acceptable,” Brown said.
Cannabis was downgraded to Class C — which includes substances such as anabolic steroids — in 2004. That means possession of the drug is treated largely as a non-arrestable offence.
But Brown launched a review by the advisory council, which comprises doctors, police, judges and counsellors, soon after he became prime minister.
And now he’s just about ready to completely ignore his advisory council, which is said to favor keeping cannabis decriminalized by a vote of 20-3.
But surely, when someone is quoted as calling cannabis “lethal”, you can’t expect them to accept pesky things like facts, logic, and science. Brown wants to change the cannabis laws in the UK for purely political reasons.
SPRINGFIELD, IL. – In a press conference today, Sen. John Cullerton (D-Chicago), lead sponsor of a bill to protect from arrest seriously ill Illinoisans who use medical marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation, announced significant changes to the legislation based on input from law enforcement.
Although members of the law enforcement community have been among the most vocal opponents of the bill, Cullerton said the recent amendments reflected specific objections law enforcement officers raised in good faith in a meeting with bill proponents last month.
Also at the press conference, medical marijuana activist and Chicago multiple sclerosis patient Julie Falco announced a new campaign to reach out to representatives by sending personal video appeals by seriously ill patients asking for support on the medical marijuana bill.
Despite opposition from some elements of the law enforcement community, medical marijuana enjoys great support among the medical community and among Illinois voters. In February, the American College of Physicians – the second largest physician organization in the country with 124,000 members – became the latest major medical association to endorse laws protecting patients and doctors from arrest for using medical marijuana.
Also in February, a Mason-Dixon telephone poll of 625 randomly selected Illinois voters – commissioned by the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. – found that 68 percent of respondents agreed that “seriously and terminally ill patients should be allowed to use and grow medical marijuana for personal use if their doctors recommended it.”
SB 2865 – the medical marijuana bill – is expected to reach the Senate floor within weeks.
It always seems odd when I hear about how law enforcement is involved in creating medical marijuana law. I can’t remember the last time anyone asked a panel of doctors how we should build our next prison.
Call your Congress today and tell your representative to support our two pro-marijuana bills in the House:
Washington, DC: US Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced legislation in Congress Friday to strip the federal government of its authority to arrest responsible adult cannabis consumers. The measure, H.R. 5843, known as an “Act to Remove Federal Penalties for Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults,” is the first federal decriminalization legislation introduced in 24 years. Frank’s pending bill, co-sponsored by presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), seeks to eliminate all federal penalties prohibiting the personal use and possession of up to 100 grams (3 1/2 ounces) of marijuana. Under this measure, adults who consume cannabis would no longer face arrest, prison, or even the threat of a civil fine. The bill also eliminates all penalties for the not-for-profit transfers of up to one ounce of pot. All are encouraged to write their representatives in support of this important legislation via NORML’s online advocacy system.
Washington, DC: Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced H.R. 5842, the “Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act,” earlier today. This bill would make federal authorities respect states’ current laws on medicinal cannabis and end DEA raids on facilities distributing medical marijuana legally under state law. Representative Paul, whose presidential campaign prominently featured the ending of the drug war as a platform plank, was joined by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) in sponsoring this bill. All NORML supporters are strongly encouraged to write their Representatives in favor of this important bill via NORML’s online advocacy system.
Congressman Also Files Bill Permitting Medical Use of Marijuana in States that Choose to Allow it with Doctor’s Recommendation
Congressman Barney Frank today introduced bi-partisan legislation aimed at removing federal restrictions on the individual use of marijuana (HR 5843). One bill would remove federal penalties for the personal use of marijuana, and the other (HR 5842) – versions of which Frank has filed in several preceding sessions of Congress – would allow the medical use of marijuana in states that have chosen to make its use for medical purposes legal with a doctor’s recommendation. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) joined Frank as a cosponsor of the federal penalties bill. The cosponsors of the medical marijuana bill are Rep. Paul, along with Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and Sam Farr (D-CA).
Federal Medical Marijuana Bill Introduced by Rep. Ron Paul - NORML
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced H.R. 5842, the “Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act,” earlier today. This bill would make federal authorities respect states’ current laws on medicinal cannabis and end DEA raids on facilities distributing medical marijuana legally under state law.
Representative Paul, whose presidential campaign prominently featured the ending of the drug war as a platform plank, was joined by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) in sponsoring this bill.
“I think marijuana is a helpful medical treatment for the people who have intractable nausea,” Paul said in a 2004 House debate regarding a similar measure. “I would like to point out this is not something strange that we are suggesting here. For the first 163 years of our history in this country, the federal government had total hands off, they never interfered with what the states were doing.”
Twelve states have approved the use of medical marijuana, beginning with California in 1996 with the passage of Proposition 215. The DEA continues to raid and harass medicinal cannabis dispensaries operating within these states’ laws. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both indicated they would end such raids should they be elected.
Michigan will vote on an initiative to adopt medical cannabis legislation this November. Minnesota and Rhode Island’s respective legislatures are also considering pro-reform legislation this year.
“It’s time for the politicians to catch up with the public on this [issue],” Frank said. “The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly.”
Frank’s pending bill, co-sponsored by presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), seeks to eliminate all federal penalties prohibiting the personal use and possession of up to 100 grams (3 1/2 ounces) of marijuana. Under this measure, adults who consume cannabis would no longer face arrest, prison, or even the threat of a civil fine. The bill also eliminates all penalties for the not-for-profit transfers of up to one ounce of pot.
NORML Legal Counsel Keith Stroup, who worked closely with Frank’s staff to draft this legislation, said, “If passed by Congress, this legislation would legalize the possession, use, and non-profit transfer of marijuana by adults for the first time since 1937.” The bill incorporates the basic recommendations of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse (also known as the Shafer Commission).
Currently, twelve states have enacted various versions of marijuana decriminalization, eliminating criminal penalties for minor pot violations. According to federal data, passage of these laws has not subsequently led to increased marijuana use.
“This newly introduced legislation seeks to bring the federal government into line with the over 100 million Americans who currently live in a state or municipality that has already decriminalized cannabis possession,” NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said today. “This year, the masses in the U.S. celebrating 4/20 really have something to rejoice, and to now lobby for.”
Similar statewide legislation is pending in New Hampshire and Vermont. Additionally, Massachusetts voters will decide on a statewide decriminalization measure this November.
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama recently toured Oregon with his campaign. In the southwestern Oregon town of Medford, he sat down with the Medford Mail-Tribune for an interview. (Cue video to 5:00 for the question of Oregon’s medical marijuana initiative.)
“When it comes to medical marijuana, I have more of a practical view than anything else,” the Senator explained. “My attitude is that if it’s an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or as a cancer treatment, I think that should be appropriate because there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine or anything else. I think there are legitimate concerns in not wanting to allow people to grow their own or start setting up mom and pop shops because at that point it becomes fairly difficult to regulate.”
I’m not familiar with all the details of the initiative that was passed [in Oregon] and what safeguards there were in place, but I think the basic concept that using medical marijuana in the same way, with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that’s entirely appropriate. I would not punish doctors if it’s prescribed in a way that is appropriate. That may require some changes in federal law.”
I will tell you that - I want to be honest with you - whether I want to use a whole lot of political capital on that [laughs] when we’re trying to get health care passed or end the war in Iraq is, yeah, the likelihood of that being real high on my list is not likely.
“What I’m not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism. We’ve got a lot of things for our law enforcement officers to deal with.”
Senator Obama, people in twelve medical marijuana states are already “growing their own”. At a time when you are trying to “get health care passed”, doesn’t it make sense to allow people to grow their own medicine as a method of reducing overall health care costs? The only concern anyone has about patients growing medicine is whether that medicine gets diverted to the black market, a condition you as president could alleviate by adding your support to Rep. Barney Franks’ bills to decriminalize personal marijuana possession at the federal level.
Presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton swung through Oregon this week. My local weekly newspaper interviewed her about many subjects, including Oregon’s successful medical marijuana program. It looks like she’s waffling a bit from her earlier statements that she’d end the DEA raids on medical marijuana states:
We’ve got to have a clear understanding of the workings of pain relief and the control of pain. And there needs to be greater research and openness to the research that’s already been done. I don’t think it’s a good use of federal law-enforcement resources to be going after people who are supplying marijuana for medicinal purposes.
So you’d stop the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s raids on medical marijuana grows?
What we would do is prioritize what the DEA should be doing, and that would not be a high priority. There’s a lot of other more important work that needs to be done.
So does that mean that when the DEA finishes up with its important work, then the DEA should be tackling the low-priority issue of raiding medical marijuana states?
Look, Senator Clinton, it’s not a fiscal issue, it’s a medical issue and it’s a states rights issue. It’s not a question of it being a poor use of federal resources; even if it were an efficient use of federal resources, it would be wrong, period. Medical marijuana raids do not need to be re-prioritized, they need to be eliminated.
Gordon Brown is facing a dilemma over whether to overrule his own panel of experts and increase the penalties for being caught in possession of cannabis.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is understood to have decided at a private meeting that it will not recommend tightening the law on the drug.
The decision presents a potential embarrassment for the Prime Minister, who earlier this week said that he regarded cannabis use as not just illegal but also unacceptable.
It is understood that 20 out of the panel’s 23 experts decided on Wednesday that there was not sufficient new scientific evidence to justify a change.
If Mr Brown decides to press ahead with reclassification, he will risk becoming only the second Prime Minister to over-rule the council, which is a statutory non-departmental public body dating from 1971.
The Government reclassified cannabis as a Class C substance - dropping the penalty for possession from five to two years in jail - in 2004.
Since then it has reviewed the decision twice, in 2005 and 2008.
Conservative leader David Cameron said: “There are all sorts of cannabis on the streets today. Skunk and super skunk are incredibly powerful and can lead to people having all sorts of mental health problems.”
The mental health charity Rethink, which gave evidence to the committee, said Mr Brown should heed the committee’s advice.
Paul Corry, a spokesman, said: “Gordon Brown should put aside his personal views on cannabis and accept the fact that it does not make sense to reclassify.
“Use of the drug has gone down since it was downgraded in 2004 and research by Rethink shows that only 3 per cent of users would consider stopping on the grounds of illegality.”
The committee is understood to have concluded there was no need re-classify after new research found no evidence that rising cannabis use in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s had led to increases in schizophrenia.
This is despite many reports pointing to a links between super-strength skunk cannabis, which accounts for 80 per cent of street cannabis, and mental illnesses such as schizoprenia and psychosis.
The prime minister and the conservatives are completely in the grips of reefer madness. The media in the UK flood the airwaves and newsstands with scare stories of the dreaded “super skunk” causing violent psychosis and schizophrenia, stories that would make American 20th century prohibitionists Harry J. Anslinger and William Randolph Hearst proud.
The reason 20 of 23 of the experts on Brown’s committee on misuse of drugs recommend against upgrading cannabis to a higher class of dangerous drugs is because they pay attention to the science, not the lurid British tabloids that want to peddle reefer madness stories to sell copy and suck up to the conservative government.
Next Wednesday, I’ll discuss this story with Dr. Mitch Earleywine, who has all of the science on these reports of “super skunk” in the UK. Meanwhile, if there are any tokin’ Tories, sinsemilla subjects, or bong-hittin Britons who want to weigh in on cannabis culture across the pond and the crazy reefer madness in the media, please email me at stash ‘at’ norml.org.
