Download Link: Secret Stash - Register to access
Standard Podcast Feed (27.5MB 64Kbps) | High-Def Podcast Feed (82.5MB 192Kbps)
Download audio file (NORML_SHOW_LIVE_2012-01-30.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

Brought to you by Cannabis Fantastic

1. I-502 makes the Washington ballot, would legalize marijuana
2. Mexican drought affecting marijuana crops
3. Hawaiian legislature may take chronic pain out of medical marijuana
4. New Hampshire legalization bill
5. Vermont may limit patients to 1,000 total

Daily Toker Tunes

Roots Monday: Brought to you by “Radical” Russ

• Bessie Smith – “Gimme a Pigfoot (And a Bottle of Beer)”

Grassroots Activism

• Glen Schwarz from Arkansas NORML

Radical Rant

• President Obama, “Legalize It” Times Nine – Stop Ignoring Us!

An Arkansas Court of Appeals decided to deny a workers compensation award to an employee because they say his marijuana use contributed to the explosion that burned him.

Greg Prock was working for Bull Shoals Landing Marina when he and a coworker were asked to remove the tops of two empty oil barrels. He had been told on a previous occasion to use an air chisel to open oil barrels to avoid creating sparks that could ignite the oil, according to the Marina’s co-owner. In this case, Mr. Prock used an acetylene torch to take the barrel top off, something that he routinely did according to co-workers, without instance. But this time, a spark ignited the oil in the barrel, creating a fireball that set both men on fire.

The men were drug tested after the accident, something that is routine in most workplace accidents all over the nation. Both men tested positive for marijuana. One of the Marina’s owners testified in court that Mr. Prock exhibited what he called “suspicious behavior the morning of the accident, and Mr. Prock testified in court that he did smoke marijuana three to four times a week after work, but never before. He also testified in court that he had not had any marijuana two full weeks before the accident because he was trying to pass a drug test for a potential new employer.

An administrative law judge ruled that the accident was caused by Mr. Prock attempting to finish a task quickly, and ruled he was credible when he said he did not smoke marijuana that morning. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed that ruling, saying that Mr. Prock’s credibility was in question because there were other inconsistencies in his testimony, as well as testimony about his behavior that morning from his boss and his co-worker that was also burned in the accident.

Yesterday, an appellate court upheld that workers compensation commission decision, adding that Arkansas law presumes that illegal substances caused a workplace accident when evidence of drug use is found. They said the burden of proof was not upon the employer in this situation to prove that Prock was impaired prior to the explosion that resulted in his injuries, but rather the burden was on the employee to prove that it wasn’t caused by the drug use, when drug use is found evident.

Out of the nine judges on the appellate court three of them disagreed with the opinion. One of those judges said that since he had used the torch in the past to open barrels, that proved that his use of marijuana may not have directly caused the accident. Judge Raymond Abramson noted that Mr. Prock method of opening barrels that way was dangerous, but said there was no direct causal link between the drug use and the explosion, and that Mr. Prock should be awarded full benefits.

External Links:

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20120111/NEWS08/120119962?tags=|68|75|305|340|304|92

Download Link: Secret Stash - Register to access
Download audio file (NORML_SHOW_LIVE_2011-08-24.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

Brought to you by Cannabis Fantastic

1. Arkansas Medical Marijuana proposal facing opposition from conservative Christian groups
2. Rhode Island doctors urging governor for establishment of dispensaries
3. Student drug testing has no impact on whether kids do drugs
4. NASCAR suspends driver who is registered medical marijuana patient
5. CASA touts study showing greater correlation of drug use among teens who use Facebook

Daily Toker Tunes

Brought to you by NorCalPurps in the California Bay Area

• Irie Wednesday: Rebelution – “Heart Like a Lion”

Cannabis Science with Dr. Mitch Earleywine

Government at Work

• Valerie Greene and Jeff Clark from the California Clemency Project on new Kern County ordinance to limit growers to twelve plants

This is the second time the Arkansas attorney general has rejected the proposed constitutional amendment submitted by University of Arkansas NORML’s Ryan Denham.  The problem, you see, is that its title says it would make medical marijuana legal in Arkansas, and the title doesn’t accurately summarize the intent of the legislation to voters.

(Arkansas News) In a letter to campaign director Ryan Denham, [Arkansas State Attorney General Dustin] McDaniel wrote that federal law bans marijuana and would supersede a state amendment.

“Your use of the word ‘legal’ fails to acknowledge that your proposed measure cannot completely legalize marijuana in Arkansas for medical purposes because the drug remains illegal under federal law,” the opinion said.

McDaniel wrote it’s difficult to fully summarize a document of nearly 8,700-words in a ballot title without being so long that it causes voters to violate voting-booth time limitations.

For your reference, here is the official ballot title that AG McDaniel rejected:

AN ACT MAKING THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA LEGAL AND ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM FOR THE CULTIVATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MARIJUANA FOR PATIENTS THROUGH NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES; PROVIDING THAT QUALIFYING MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS, THEIR CAREGIVERS AND NONPROFIT DISPENSARY OPERATORS SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PENALTIES OR OTHER FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION FOR ENGAGING IN OR ASSISTING WITH THE PATIENTS’ MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA; AUTHORIZING  LIMITED CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA BY PATIENTS OR CAREGIVERS IF A PATIENT LIVES MORE THAN FIVE MILES FROM THE NEAREST NONPROFIT DISPENSARY; DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO ESTABLISH RULES RELATED TO THE PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARDS AND TO THE OPERATIONS OF NONPROFIT DISPENSARIES; SETTING MAXIMUM REGISTRATION FEES FOR NONPROFIT DISPENSARIES; ESTABLISHING QUAIFICATIONS [SIC] FOR REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARDS; ESTABLISHING STANDARDS TO ENSURE THAT PATIENT AND CAREGIVER REGISTRATION INFORMATION IS TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL; DIRECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO PROVIDE THE LEGISLATURE ANNUAL QUANTITATIVE REPORTS ABOUT THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM; SETTING CERTAIN LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA BY PATIENTS; ESTABLISHING AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR THE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA; ESTABLISHING REGISTRATION AND OPERATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NONPROFIT DISPENSARIES; SETTING LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA A NONPROFIT DISPENSARY MAY CULTIVATE AND THE AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA A NONPROFIT DISPENSARY MAY DISPENSE TO A PATIENT; PROHIBITING CERTAIN CONDUCT BY PHYSICIANS; ALLOWING LOCALITIES TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF NONPROFIT DISPENSARIES AND TO ENACT REASONABLE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THEIR OPERATIONS.

On the one hand, AG McDaniel insists the law requires Denham to summarize every major portion of the act.  On the other hand, the summary can’t be so long or convoluted as to confuse voters or require them to stay in the voting booth too long.

In addition to telling Denham he can’t use the word “legal” in a constitutional amendment making medical marijuana legal in the state, Denham can’t in one section refer to someone who is registered as a “designated patient” or “designated caregiver” and in another section can’t refer to them as “registered designated patient” and “registered designated caregiver”, because that is misleading.

Section 2(10) defines “designated caregiver” as a person who, among other things, “has agreed to  assist with a qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana . . . .” Section 2(13) defines “registered designated caregiver” as a designated  caregiver “who is registered with the department . . . .” The registration aspect of the latter definition means that these two defined terms, unlike  the ones discussed in the previous paragraph, actually do have different meanings.

Section 2(11) defines “qualifying patient” as “a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition. Section 2(14) defines “registered  qualifying patient” as a qualifying patient who is registered with the department. Once again, the definitions make clear that these two defined terms denote different things. … [S]ection 9(2)(k) prohibits a dispensary from providing more than 2.5 ounces of marijuana to a “qualifying patient” in a 15-day period, possibly implying that a dispensary could provide 2.5 ounces or less to an (unregistered) qualifying patient.

There is also a problem with numbering and alphabetization.

Your proposal designates each section by two different numbers, a one-digit number like “8” and a three-digit number like “108.” It uses a section and subsection designation scheme in the form “108(2)(a)(ii)(B)” while the Arkansas Code Annotated uses a form that would designate the same subsection “-108(b)(i)(B)(2).” And the definitions in  sections 2(10) and 2(13) are not in alphabetical order as are the other definitions.

Denham’s amendment would protect medical marijuana patients from discrimination.  Attorney General McDaniel has a concern that patients whose cards expire could be discriminated against, which is encouraging.

It is my understanding that evidence of marijuana use is detectible for a number of days or weeks following a person’s last use of marijuana. If that understanding is correct, your proposal is ambiguous and unclear in apparently depriving of the protections of section 3(7) a person who used marijuana lawfully (at least insofar as the act is concerned) before her registration expired, and thereafter showed evidence of prior marijuana  use (as was completely foreseeable). The act’s apparent allowance of discrimination against (unregistered) qualifying patients does  not, in my view,  square with the act’s general approach, raising the possibility that the consequence is unintended and creating ambiguity.

The attorney general may be correct in some of his assessments.  I don’t agree with his assessment of the word “legal” as a problem because federal law would still define it as illegal.  This is an Arkansas constitutional amendment, not a federal constitutional amendment.  What this story should illustrate is that it is not an easy battle to get any sort of marijuana legislation on the ballot.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The South Shall Wake'n'Bake Again!

I’m thrilled to announce two new college NORML Chapters in the Deep South!

• NORML at University of Arkansas
• Georgia NORML at University of West Georgia

If you’re interested in starting a NORML Chapter at your college or university, learn how.

Thank you for contacting me regarding legislation aimed at the legalization of marijuana.  I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

As you may know there are several pieces of legislation that would eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use.

There has been continuous debate regarding marijuana, and its proposed medical use in treatment in the United States.  Congress has voted on several bills to legalize the medical use of marijuana; however none of those bills passed the House of Representatives.  The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has five criteria for reclassifying marijuana’s schedule, and it believes that marijuana has not met those criteria.  In June 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that federal laws against marijuana, including its medical use, are valid.

Please know that I understand your concerns and that your input on this issue is important to me.  Drugs are not approved for medicine until there is a consensus of the national community of experts. At this time, there is no consensus on this issue.  Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this issue and will keep your views in mind if I am asked to vote on any related legislative initiatives.

Thank you again for contacting me.  If I can ever be of any assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me in my Washington, D.C. office, or district office most convenient to you.

Sincerely,

Mike Ross

Download Link: Secret Stash - Register to access

Download audio file (norml-show-live-1.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

1. Arkansas Attorney General claims medical marijuana initiative is “flawed”
2. Michael Martin fighting marijuana manufacturing and conspiracy charges
3. Update on move to make Dutch coffeeshops “members only” near Belgian border

Daily Toker Tunes

Brought to you by Sahra Kant Photography and Girls4Ganja.com

• Music – Electric Tuesday: A.M. – “Preskription”

Behind the Headlines with NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano

• NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano and MPP California Policy Director Aaron Smith on California AB 390 Committee vote coming soon.

Thank you for contacting me regarding legislation aimed at the legalization of marijuana. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue. As you may know there are several pieces of legislation that would eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use.

There has been continuous debate regarding marijuana, and its proposed medical use in treatment in the United States. Congress has voted on several bills to legalize the medical use of marijuana; however none of those bills passed the House of Representatives. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has five criteria for reclassifying marijuana’s schedule, and it believes that marijuana has not met those criteria. In June 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that federal
laws against marijuana, including its medical use, are valid.

Please know that I understand your concerns and that your input on this issue is important to me. Drugs are not approved for medicine until there is a consensus of the national community of experts. At this time, there is no consensus on this issue. Please be assured that I will continue to monitor this issue and will keep your views in mind if I am asked to vote on any related legislative initiatives.

Thank you again for contacting me. If I can ever be of any assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me in my Washington, D.C. office, or district office most convenient to you.

Sincerely,

Mike Ross

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the legalization of marijuana. It was good to hear from you.

Like you, I am concerned about the strains placed on our criminal justice system by current efforts to reduce the harmful effects of illicit drug abuse. In fact, I have been a strong supporter of using drug courts as an alternative to incarceration for many nonviolent offenders, and I have led efforts in the House of Representatives to increase funding for our drug court programs. However, while I understand your reasons for supporting the legalization of marijuana, I respectfully disagree. Illegal drugs are the number one cause for crime and violence in our nation, and drug abuse has harmed many families. I feel legalization would reduce many people’s perception of the risks and costs of drug abuse and have many negative consequences.

No, prohibition of drugs is the number one cause of crime and violence.  Heard of any “beer gangs” lately?

You also mentioned concerns that federal financial aid is cut off for some students due to “minor marijuana possession offenses”. We need to consider how current law affects hardworking students who have paid their debts to society and are trying to get back on the right track. Under current law, a student may reestablish eligibility depending on several factors, including: 1) length of time since the conviction, 2) the number of prior convictions, and 3) whether the conviction was for selling or possessing a controlled substance. Like you, I believe that we should help students who have completed their sentences find the path to success by providing them an equal opportunity to education.

In other words, punish the student for smoking a joint by making it impossible for them to attend school for a certain period of time.  If they want to approach coma and death by power chugging a beer bong at a frat party, they’re welcome to come in hungover to class the next day, but smoke a joint and they need to be kicked out of school and work a menial job in the hopes of scraping up enough money to pay for school on their own.  Hmm, maybe they can sell weed to make their tuition money!

Finally, I understand many people believe that marijuana should be legalized in order to relieve suffering. As a member of the medical community, I am aware that leading healthcare groups, such as the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) have strong concerns about the “medicinal” use of marijuana. Many health experts argue that people who smoke marijuana frequently are exposing themselves to a rather crude and potentially harmful drug delivery system. The smoke from a burning marijuana cigarette contains a variety of toxic chemicals that could be harmful, especially to users whose medical condition might be compromised further by choosing to smoke the drug for self-treatment.

How many toxic chemicals are in a pot brownie, sir?  Or a vaporizer bag?

I do support research into the safety and effectiveness of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is believed to be the primary chemical component responsible for marijuana’s psychopharmacological effects. The National Institute on Drug Abuse has provided grants for such studies. As a result of such research, dronabinol, the synthetic form of THC, has been available as an oral prescription drug since 1986 under its brand name “Marinol.”

Here you go, puking chemo patient, swallow this pill and keep it down for 45 minutes.

By the way, how is it that 100% highly-psychoactive THC in a sesame-oil-base pill is safe and effective, but 10% THC balanced by psychoactivity-moderating CBD in raw plant form needs more research?

For these reasons, I do not support any reduction in our policies designed to discourage marijuana use. Although we do not see eye-to-eye on this issue, I really appreciate the time you took to contact me. I assure you that your opinion matters to me, and I hope to hear from you regarding any future concerns you may have.

Again, thank you for contacting me on this very important issue.

Sincerely,
John Boozman
Member of Congress