[Russ adds: Welcome Kaliko, our new intern, who will be handling our Politicians on Pot series.  If you didn't know, we collect the mail and email responses you get from your elected officials and catalog them by political party, state, and subject.  As a 501(c)(4) educational organization, we cannot directly tell you who you should vote for, but we can educate you about the candidate's stances on the issues.  If you have a politician's response, use stash@norml.org to send it to us.]

December 21, 2010

Dear Randall,

Thank you for contacting me about the nomination of Michele Leonhart for Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). I appreciate hearing from you on this important nomination.

The Senate is tasked with reviewing the President’s nominees for various federal offices, including the DEA. It is crucial to the functioning of our federal agencies that we confirm well-qualified nominees.

The DEA is responsible for enforcing controlled substances laws and supporting programs designed to decrease the availability of illegal drugs in the United States and around the world. Michele Leonhart has served as Acting Administrator of the DEA since 2007.

Ms. Leonhart was born and raised in Minnesota. After graduating from Bemidji State University, she became a police officer in Baltimore. She served as a career DEA Special Agent, at one point running all Los Angeles field operations, before becoming Deputy Administrator in 2004.

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the DEA, I was able to meet Ms. Leonhart and become familiar with her policies. I also had the opportunity to question Ms. Leonhart during her recent confirmation hearing. I believe she has proven her ability to head the DEA, and I plan to support her confirmation.

I will be sure to keep your thoughts on the DEA in mind during routine oversight hearings of the administration. I also look forward to working with my colleagues in continuing to review and confirm qualified Presidential nominees.

Thank you again for contacting me, and please do not hesitate to do so again in the future on this or any other matter of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Al Franken
United States Senator

Download Link: Secret Stash - Register to access
Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2011-03-01.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

1. Colorado edible ban hearing on HB 1250 by Rep. Cindy Acree
2. DEA officially bans “K2″ synthetic cannabinoids
3. Minnesota bill seeks to grow and export medical marijuana

Daily Toker Tunes

Brought to you by Cannabis Cure UK

• Electric Tuesday: D Double E – “Streetfighter Riddim”

Cannabis Community

• David Barnes, NJ medical marijuana patient, tells of court troubles, Gov. Christie’s false promises

Cannabis Conversations

• Comedian Ron Funches from Helium Comedy PDX live in studio

I’m not sure what Rep. Phyllis Kahn is thinking, but I like it.   The Legalization Train Rolls On.

(Washington Examiner) A Minnesota lawmaker sees an export market for medical marijuana — even though the state has never allowed its use.

Rep. Phyllis Kahn introduced the Medical Marijuana Production and Export Act in the House on Thursday.

The bill from the long-serving Minneapolis Democrat would authorize the cultivation and processing of marijuana for export to states and countries where its medical use is legal.

Kahn proposes a system regulated by the state agriculture commissioner, where growers would have to pass background checks and account each year for all the marijuana they cultivated.

The proposal says such an industry would strengthen Minnesota’s economy and agriculture.

The bill would shield authorized marijuana growers from penalties for possessing the drug, but there would be no legal protection for unauthorized possession or consumption of medical marijuana.

[Russ adds:  I don't know if I like it.  Minnesota would grow and export medical marijuana to Canada and fifteen US states, but Minnesotans with cancer could be arrested for possessing it?  That just sounds like a cruel taunt to me...]

I’m excited to announce the birth of our newest state affiliate, Minnesota NORML!

The chapter is headed by Randy Quast, a former transportation company CEO who built his family’s company from $700,000 to $50 million in annual revenues in just a decade.  I met Randy here in Portland where he joined me for dinner.  He told me his story of how his personal cannabis use led to misfortune with law enforcement and galvanized him into fighting this absurd prohibition.

Randy’s joined by a successful audio/video technician, an 30-year IT systems administrator, a top criminal defense attorney, and a Rastafarian with a B.A. in Religion to form the board of directors who will be working to bring medical marijuana, decriminalization, industrial hemp, and eventually, full legalization of cannabis to Minnesota.  You’ll be well-represented, cannabis consumers, by this board that represents the broad array of hard-working Americans who use cannabis responsibly.

A web site will be available soon – for now, contact Randy at randy ‘at’ quast.net (not a typo, it’s not “quest” or “qwest”) if you’d like more information.  Minnesota NORML’s listing will be updated as soon as it is available.

Dear Mr. Kalligher:

Thank you for your correspondence regarding marijuana. I appreciate hearing from you concerning this issue.

Experts say that marijuana remains a popular gateway drug that can lead to harder use, and various studies show that recent drug use is on the increase, particularly among young people. Studies show that legalization of drugs (including marijuana) would increase drug use in the public schools, lead to higher numbers of drug addicts and drug overdoses, and result in more drug-related crime.

I strongly oppose illegal drugs, including marijuana, and I have supported increases in federal funding for programs related to the prevention, enforcement, and treatment of drug usage.

There has been much debate over whether marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. I understand the perspective of those who oppose federal involvement in states that have passed referendums to legalize marijuana for therapeutic purposes. Many have expressed outrage that patients would be denied medical marijuana when a physician deems it to be the appropriate course of treatment or that people would serve jail time for attempting to assist HIV/AIDS or chemotherapy patients in pain.

Advocates for medical use of marijuana contend that there is already sufficient scientific evidence to justify rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, a change that would give it the necessary legal recognition to be used for medicinal purposes. A 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that the therapeutic effects of smoking marijuana were modest, but noted, however, that while marijuana’s active components are potentially effective in treating certain medical conditions, they should be tested rigorously in controlled clinical trials. I support efforts to ensure that proper research is done on the medical uses and benefits of marijuana.

With best wishes.

Sincerely,

James L. Oberstar
M.C.

Stephen Conlin

A city council candidate in southeastern Minnesota has been jailed after authorities say they discovered marijuana growing at his home and business. Stephen Conlin is one of four candidates running for two seats on the St.

The rest is here:
Minnesota Councilman Candidate Arrested before Election

Paul Armentano has posted the latest bill being heard in Rhode Island, HB 7275, which would repeal the current right of Rhode Island patients to grow their own medical marijuana and to freely exchange medical marijuana and plants between registered patients.

I’ve long argued that one of the dangers of putting cannabis in the “medical” frame is that once our opponents realize that they can’t fight the 75%-80% public support for medical use, they will embrace medical marijuana with “of course we support desperately sick people using marijuana!” language while making every effort to restrict that medical use as much as possible.  We continue to demand the sick be treated as “patients, not criminals”, so they will acquiesce, but make sure there are as few patients as possible.  They’ll work to see that those patients’ medicine be treated like other prescription pharmaceuticals: locked up in pharmacies, requiring strict doctor supervision and government oversight, severe limits on amount possessed, and bans on creating it yourself or buying, selling, or using it without prescription.

Since we’ve been demanding that the public see it as a medicine that helps the sickest of the sick (and no doubt it does), we create a cognitive dissonance when we ask the public to let us grow our own.  Nobody gets to grow their own Oxycontin!  We also support the outrageous price of cannabis that’s borne of prohibition by putting it in the same frame where other pharmaceuticals also cost way too much.  The beauty of medical marijuana is that it is a house plant you can cultivate for your own treatment at relatively low cost.  Why would we want it to be just another overpriced drug you can only get with a doctor’s permission through a pharmacy?

This Rhode Island bill is just the fifth attempt I’ve reported on that fits a pattern:

1. New Jersey (law) = Dispensaries and no home grow. (And the Wall St. Journal article’s headline, “New Jersey on Medical Marijuana: We’re Not California” sums up the political rationale succinctly.)
2. Arizona MPP Initiative (pending) = Dispensaries and no home grow if you’re within 25 miles of one.  (So the dispensaries can be viable, you see, because it’s so hard for someone to stay in business selling marijuana. Listen for yourself.)
3. Minnesota HF292 (vetoed) = Dispensaries and no home grow, limited to only terminal patients.  (Seriously, this medical law wouldn’t have allowed chemotherapy-using cancer patients to use cannabis!)
4. New Hampshire HB0648 (vetoed) = Dispensaries and no home grow.
5. Rhode Island HB7275 (heard yesterday) = Restrict all growing to the existing dispensaries, don’t even allow patients to exchange for no consideration.

Here in Oregon there is an effort to establish medical marijuana dispensaries in the state.  It’s a very contentious issue within our reform community.  NORML has always supported positive reforms in marijuana law, but we’ve also always stood for the importance of the right for individuals to be able to grow their own marijuana (emphasis mine):

The cultivation of cannabis for personal use is the single most important element of the NORML legalization proposal. Allowing for the legal, personal cultivation of cannabis provides consumers with the option to grow their own product should commercially available sources offer cannabis that fails to meet the consumers’ needs because it is excessively expensive, too heavily taxed, or of inferior quality. The mere threat of consumers exercising this option should be sufficient to assure that the legal market for cannabis will be responsive to the needs of consumers, and will not be exploitive.

So when any organization or any state or federal legislator proposes legalizing cannabis, either for medical use or for personal pleasure, but forbids the consumer from growing their own cannabis, those of us who lobby on this issue must insist on amendments to permit personal cultivation.

Otherwise we, cannabis law reformers, trade away our only leverage to keep the big corporations and the government honest and responsive to cannabis consumers.

(I’ve been in California, Northern and Southern, three times at different medical marijuana events last month.  The standard “special” I saw advertised from every dispensary attending was “$45 / 4 gram eighth”.  You tell me, is charging $11.25 per gram of medicine excessively expensive and exploitive?  Is $300 per ounce?)

Now it’s important to point out that the dispensary initiative proposed in Oregon maintains the current allowances for home growing or even growing by a certified grower outside the home.  But reformers better be ready to fight the legislative proposals to repeal the right to home grow should the dispensary initiative pass.  Taking away home grow would be politically impossible without the viable alternative method for acquiring medical marijuana that dispensaries would provide… and our opponents are already considering that political opportunity:

Mark McDonnell, senior deputy DA in Multnomah County (Portland) Oregon, one of the state’s most marijuana-friendly areas: “If you have dispensaries, there’s no reason to allow (individual) growers.”

Klamath County (Oregon) Sheriff Tim Evinger said the proposed expansion would be a step in the right direction.  “If, in fact, it is a needed drug, and it is providing a benefit to somebody who is ill, I frankly think it should be purchased by prescription at a pharmacy and produced by a commercial operation that is monitored, that is secured, and the quality, content and safety issues are addressed, just like any controlled substance that is prescribed,” he said.

None of this analysis should be interpreted as me saying dispensaries would be a bad thing, so long as Oregonians maintain the right to home grow.  I personally think $11.25 a gram is exploitive, but better a patient is exploited by a legal regulated fee-paying tax-paying dispensary than a black market source.  Dispensaries would provide the current growers an avenue for making a living legitimately and would provide patients (with income) a way to access medicine.  There would be fewer prosecutions of growers growing too much or accepting money (above expense reimbursement) for cannabis.  There’d be new jobs and new tax revenue, especially needed in the state with the second-highest unemployment and no sales tax.

Plus, support for outright legalization does seem to be greatest in states that have dispensaries, though that’s probably more correlation than a causal relationship (as in, supportive states have dispensaries, not that dispensaries make states more supportive.)  I’d hope that the money dispensaries generate would be plowed back into the movement to pass legalization (even for healthy people!)… though I’d note there are over 1,000 dispensaries between California and Colorado and it seems only a few are putting money into legalization efforts… and others are putting money into defeating California’s current legalization effort.

But I would be remiss not to point out the effects I anticipate and the reactions from the opposition that are sure to materialize.  Patient registration numbers would explode as they did in Montana and Colorado once dispensaries came along and opponents will add that to their growing cries of “abuse” of medical marijuana.  Some dispensary in an unfriendly county will eventually be raided and opponents will parade stacks of money and guns and cannabis all over the news.  And as I’ve mentioned, we’ll see a big push by opponents to eliminate home growing since the dispensaries can take care of all the patients.

So go forth, reformers, but carefully consider whether continuing to tinker with medical marijuana laws (in states that have them) is helping or distracting from passing legalization for the 95% of us who are still “criminals, not patients”.  In my opinion, the more “medical” marijuana becomes, the less “recreational” it becomes.  The 21st century calls for bolder reforms.  After fourteen years of letting patients in the front of the line, some of us are getting a little weary of standing and waiting back here.

If you smoked a joint last week, in eleven states you're as bad as a drunk driver.

From the Obama Administration’s recently released National Drug Control Strategy (hat tip to NORML reader Glen):

Encourage States To Adopt Per Se Drug Impairment Laws [ONDCP]
State laws regarding impaired driving are varied, but most State codes do not contain a separate offense for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). Therefore, few drivers are identified, prosecuted, or convicted for DUID. Law enforcement personnel usually cite individuals with the easier to prove driving while intoxicated (DWI) alcohol charges. Unclear laws provide vague signals both to drivers and to law enforcement, thereby minimizing the possible preventive benefit of DUID statutes. Fifteen states have passed laws clarifying that the presence of any illegal drug in a driver’s body is per se evidence of impaired driving. ONDCP will work to expand the use of this standard to other states and explore other ways to increase the enforcement of existing DUID laws.

Here are the states President Obama would like to emulate:

1. Arizona: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.
2. Delaware: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites.
3. Georgia: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 12 months upon conviction.
4. Illinois: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 12 months upon conviction.
5. Indiana: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 60 days upon conviction.
6. Michigan: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 93 days upon conviction, vehicle immobilization for up to 180 days.
7. Nevada: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites.
8. Ohio: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 72 hours in jail, up to 6 months upon conviction, 6 month to 3 year license suspension.
9. Pennsylvania: DUID for cannabis metabolites, amount unclear.
10. South Dakota: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites for persons under the age of 21.
11. Utah: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 48 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.

Nine of the fifteen states cited have “zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites”.  What this means is that if the inactive (read: non-impairing) THC metabolite (THC-COOH) is detected in the urine of a driver, that driver is impaired in the eyes of the law.  (There are actually 17 states that have per se DUID laws, but Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin exclude metabolites of cannabis.)  Nevada and Ohio have 15 ng/ml levels which are very low; most workplace pre-employment screenings set the initial screening limit at 50 ng/ml.  At the confirmation level of 15 ng/ml, the frequent cannabis user will be positive for perhaps as long as 15 weeks.

Of course, faithful NORML readers and most of the public know that cannabis metabolites can remain detectable in the urine for up to 100 days or longer for a regular cannabis consumer and up to fifteen days for the casual consumer, even after quitting cold turkey.  Metabolites in urine don’t tell you a driver is actually impaired, they tell you someone used cannabis, but not when.  Even the US Department of Transportation admits that a positive test for drug metabolites is “solid proof of drug use within the last few days, it cannot be used by itself to prove behavioral impairment during a focal event.”

Cannabis metabolites are funny things; they don’t eliminate from the body in any predictable fashion. In fact, when you think about it, a metabolite is produced when the body metabolizes, or breaks down, a substance.  The presence of metabolites for THC tells you the body has already broken down the THC!  You could actually call a urine screening for metabolites a non-impairment test!

Now some of these laws do have per se standards for actual THC in the blood and you could argue that is a more realistic determinant of current impairment, but do you think most cash-strapped city, county, and state police are going to use an expensive, invasive blood test when a cheap urine screen is available and more likely to get them a conviction for DUID?

These per se DUID “zero tolerance” laws are nothing but discrimination against cannabis users, plain and simple.  Metabolites for every other drug, legal and illegal, are eliminated from the body much quicker:

• PCP (“angel dust”) = up to 2 days detection.
• Cocaine (and “crack”) = up to 2-3 days detection.
• Opiates (heroin, oxycontin, etc.) = up to 1-2 days detection.
• Amphetamines (meth, speed) = up to 1-3 days detection.
• Barbiturates (Seconol, etc.) = up to 3 days detection.
• Benzodiazepenes (Xanax, Valium, Clonopin, etc.) = up to 2-3 days detection.
• Alcohol (Budweiser, Jim Beam, Reisling, etc.) = you can actually be considered unimpaired with current blood alcohol levels up to 0.08%, so long as you pass the roadside sobriety test!
• Cannabis (marijuana, hash, pot) = up to 7-100 days detection.

So you could smoke some dust, snort some coke, shoot some smack, and pop some pills at the party Friday night, and possibly be considered an unimpaired driver by Monday (you could even have a couple of drinks before you got pulled over), but if you smoked a joint last month, in eleven states you could be going to jail and losing your license for endangering the public on the roadways.

These “zero tolerance” laws are criminalizing an entire population – cannabis users – for molecules in their bodies that have nothing to do with impairment or driving ability.  Can you imagine the uproar if police harassed drivers based on the melanin content of their skin… whoops, never mind.

Marijuana Law Reform in 2010 (March Update)

With New Jersey recently becoming the 14th medical marijuana state, activists in marijuana law reform have been celebrating.  After all, over 82 million Americans now live in states where medical use of marijuana is legal – that’s 27% of the US population! Last election, Massachusetts became the 13th decriminalization state, which means over 107 million Americans live in a state where possession of small personal amounts of marijuana no longer merit an arrest – that’s 35% of the US population.

Population of States with Medical Marijuana Laws

However, after watching fourteen years of marijuana activism focused solely on those who use cannabis for medicine, I must warn activists that medical marijuana is not getting any better and the time for re-legalization of cannabis for all adults – even the healthy ones – is now.

Population of States that have Decriminalized Marijuana

Medical marijuana was a great 20th century strategy to get the sick and dying off the battlefield in the war on drugs.  It was the perfect vehicle to enlighten the public, who for so long have been indoctrinated into the reefer madness that classifies cannabis like LSD and heroin.  But in the 21st century the idea that marijuana is only a medicine is beginning to take hold and governments and voters are crafting ever-more-restrictive medical marijuana laws.  For the vast majority of cannabis consumers this threatens to move us from the category of “illegal drug users” to “possessors of medicine without a prescription” – a step up, perhaps, but still left facing criminal prosecution.

Comparison of five core rights found in existing medical marijuana law

California legalized medical marijuana in 1996.  That initiative, Prop-215, established what is clearly the most liberal medical marijuana statute to date:

• A doctor can recommend for any condition;
• You needn’t have a “bona fide” doctor/patient relationship;
• Dispensaries are allowed;
• Self cultivation is allowed;
• Patients are protected from arrest.

Comparison of plant and possession limits and qualifying conditions in medical marijuana law

If we consider these five attributes of the law the baseline, then in the past fourteen years, all thirteen medical marijuana states that have followed have failed to achieve all five.  Eight states only offer three or four of those liberties and the rest offer two or only one.  Most disturbingly, the right of patients to grow their own medicine (or have a caregiver do it for them), which has been a bedrock principle in medical marijuana law, was taken away from patients in the most recent medical marijuana state, New Jersey.  Bills that were considered but vetoed in 2009 in Minnesota and New Hampshire, and those moving forward in New York, Pennsylvania, as well as an initiative in Arizona, all sacrifice this core right.

New Jersey - The (No Medical Marijuana) Garden State

A comparison of plant and possession limits also shows the decline from the original starting point in California, where 12 plants and 8 ounces are allowed.  Oregon and Washington passed their laws next and have the highest statutory limits: 24 plants and 24 ounces in Oregon and 15 plants and 24 ounces in Washington.  (To be fair, all the West Coast states started with lower limits or more vague limits that were modified by the legislature.)  But since then, only one state has allowed more than 3 ounces (New Mexico with 6 ounces) and average number of plants allowed is a little less than ten.

The "Big 8" Conditions for which marijuana is recommended in the states

Another decline in medical marijuana freedom appears when we look at the conditions for which medical marijuana protection is afforded in the various states.  There are eight conditions which could be considered the “standard” ones: cancer; HIV/AIDS; seizure disorders, like epilepsy; spastic disorders, like multiple sclerosis; glaucoma; chronic nausea; cachexia; and chronic pain.  Most medical marijuana states recognize all eight conditions; a couple (Vermont and Rhode Island) recognize seven of eight.

Other conditions recognized in state medical marijuana laws (not a complete list)

The latest law in New Jersey, however, eliminated chronic pain, chronic nausea, and cachexia, making it the most restrictive list in the nation.  The bill proposed but vetoed in New Hampshire required one to try all other remedies for chronic pain before trying medical marijuana.  The vetoed Minnesota bill wouldn’t even allow cancer and HIV/AIDS patients to use medical marijuana unless they could show they were terminal (about to die).  The lists in the latest proposed bills continue to become more restricted.

Until we do have legalization for all, every medical marijuana law is going to fail to adequately serve all medical users and subject them to increasing restriction and scrutiny.  Additionally, medical marijuana laws make patients an attractive target for criminals because prohibition maintains huge profits for stolen medical cannabis, as well as becoming targets for overzealous anti-marijuana cops and prosecutors.

The reason the recent medical marijuana laws are losing ground is not a failure of the medical marijuana strategy, but rather due to its success.  Medical marijuana has portrayed the herb as “powerful and effective medicine”.  Well, what do we do with powerful and effective medicines?  We keep them under lock and key.  We require people to visit doctors.  We strictly monitor prescription pads.  We bust people who have them without proper papers.

Rather than justifying the prohibitionists’ shibboleth of medical marijuana as “the camel’s nose under the tent” for legalization, I’m arguing it’s the opposite: that continuing the medical marijuana strategy further cements the “powerful and effective medicine” frame and takes us farther away from treating cannabis as a personal choice of relaxant.  We’ll get to a point where the public accepts “powerful and effective cannabis medicine” and looks upon personal use like we look at someone getting fraudulent scrips for painkillers.

If one of the West Coast states doesn’t pull off legalization soon, the pendulum is going to swing back the other way on marijuana.  The economic incentives may fade if the economy recovers and then the tax & regulate argument fizzles.  And if we are going to continue working on medical marijuana, the bills and initiatives need to get better, not worse.  The way it’s looking now is that the Northeast and upper Midwest are going to institute chronic conditions-only, 2 oz limit, strict registry, only personal doctor, no home grow, state-run dispensary medical marijuana for $15/gram in the next six years.  How then do we approach those people and say, “Hey, you know that powerful and effective medical marijuana that you only let a few hundred really sick people use after jumping though a mile of hoops?  We think everybody should have it and jump through no hoops!”

Medical marijuana would never have passed in any state if it were not for the votes of non-medical users of marijuana.  I do believe it is time for medical marijuana patients in the states that have programs to “repay the favor” and fight as hard for legalization as social tokers fought for medical.  Only patients can best make the argument that while prohibition exists, they will always face job discrimination, loss of child custody, high black market prices, housing discrimination, and the sneers of the Bill O’Reillys who think 99% of medical marijuana patients are faking.  So long as the prohibition profit exists, there will always be these CBS Undercover investigations casting a pall on all legitimate medical marijuana because of the irresponsible acts of a few.

Maybe I’m just too much of a dreamer.  I imagine acres and acres of hemp fields, huge indoor hydroponic cannabis warehouses, thriving cafes and coffeehouses, some folks growing their own in a garage or closet, regular outdoor festivals and special indoor events where cannabis smoking is permitted, buying and selling all varieties of cannabis from ounces at a farmer’s market to bulk bales at CostCo… and none of that is done with “powerful and effective medicines”.

I don’t think that it is reformer’s job to pass medical marijuana in all fifty states first and then worry about legalization in one.  I think states that have medical should be moving forward on legalization, states without should focus on better medical laws by calling prohibitionists’ bluff on “marijuana outta control!” in the Western states with liberal medical laws.

Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2010-03-02.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

1. Minnesota activists look to 2011 for reform without roadblock Gov. Tim Pawlenty
2. Statewide Insurance now issuing insurance for medical marijuana dispensaries
3. International narcotics summit notes the rising cultivation stats for Mexico

Daily Toker Tunes

Brought to you by Sahra Kant Photography

• Electric Tuesday: Clajs – “Mescheeba”

California Marijuana Report with Eric Brenner

• Interview with Attorney Mara Felsen outside Eugene Davidovich’s trial in San Diego

Cannabis Community

• “Radical” Russ on the arc of medical marijuana as a strategy
• CBS News in LA goes undercover with hidden cam to investigate medical marijuana clinics issuing recommendations with no doctors present.