New Year’s Eve NORML SHOW LIVE from Cannabis Café

Join us for the last show of the 2000′s! It’s our New Year’s Eve Celebration of 2009, the best year ever in marijuana law reform!

TONIGHT ALL ACROSS AMERICA – SHOW BEGINS AT MIDNIGHT EASTERN AND RUNS TO MIDNIGHT PACIFIC

NORML Director: Amazing 2009! Awesome 2010 Ahead!

Help Support NORML’s End of Year Drive – Donate Now

Dear NORML Supporter:

It is not often that I feel compelled to write to NORML’s membership and supporters regarding the day-to-day operations of America’s leading marijuana lobby group. Then again, in my tenure as Executive Director of NORML and the NORML Foundation, there’s never been a time like right now.

Over the past several months NORML’s public prominence and political influence has grown by leaps and bounds. As I write you today I’m reflecting upon two of the most significant – and productive – weeks in NORML history.  As we close the year 2009 I am proud to say that NORML has galvanized its position as the leading marijuana law reform organization. Why do I say this?  Take a look at the events of these two weeks late this fall, and decide for yourself:

• Marijuana legalization in Massachusetts? NORML testifies ‘Yes!’
  On Wednesday, October 14, NORML’s Legal Counsel Keith Stroup and NORML Advisory Board Member Dr. Lester Grinspoon testified before the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Revenue in favor of House Bill 2929, ‘An Act to Regulate and Tax the Cannabis Industry.’ Members of NORML’s state affiliate, MassCann, also spoke on behalf of the measure, which was drafted by former NORML Board Member Richard Evans. The well-attended legislative hearing marked the first time that Massachusetts state legislators had ever publicly discussed legalizing marijuana, and the debate earned prominent media coverage throughout the state. 

• California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger requests marijuana legalization debate
  In May Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger publicly called for a debate on the merits of marijuana regulation. This October NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano and CalNORML Coordinator Dale Gieringer obliged the Governor’s request, and provided his office with a comprehensive action plan for regulating marijuana production and distribution in California.

• Obama to Justice Department: Back off on medi-pot prosecutions
  On Monday, October 19, U.S. Deputy Attorney General David Ogden issued a historic memorandum to federal prosecutors advising them to no longer "focus federal resources … [on those] whose actions are in … compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana." The directive upheld a campaign promise by President Obama, who had pledged that he would not use "Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws." Ever since the President took office NORML and other drug policy reform groups had lobbied the administration to follow through, in writing, with this sensible policy. Tellingly, the administration’s decision was hailed by the mainstream media as a major step toward the enactment of marijuana liberalization in America. Not surprisingly, NORML representatives spent the days immediately following the administration’s announcement speaking with dozens of mainstream media outlets, including CNN, MSNBC, The Associated Press, and The Christian Science Monitor, urging Congress to move expeditiously to make the administration’s policy changes into permanent law.

• Mainstream media just can’t get enough pot
  Over the past month NORML has fielded multiple requests from producers at mainstream media, radio, and television outlets throughout the nation and the world. Notably, NORML’s staff participated in the production of Fox Business News weeklong series on the cannabis industry (air date October 19-23), Newsweek‘s five-part series on present and past marijuana policy (published October 16), and the October 14 edition of PBS’ News Hour with Jim Leher.  NORML has also recently received prominent coverage in periodicals such as the BBC, The Wall Street Journal, and Fortune Magazine. Unlike in past years – or even past months – the overall tone of all of these high profile features was favorable to marijuana law reform.  The underlying media message: marijuana is a commodity, not a moral threat, and it’s about time for America’s laws to start treating it that way.

• The Drug Czar’s office comes calling
  On Monday, October 24 – at the request of the White House – I participated in a strategic conference call with Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske to discuss the drafting of the administration’s 2010 National Drug Control Strategy. You read that right: the Office of National Drug Control Policy reached out to NORML and requested NORML’s participation in crafting the administration’s future drug reform strategies. Yes, the same office that just one year ago inflicted the cannabis community with John Walters is now making house calls to NORML.

  My friends, the times are most definitely changing.

• NORML testifies at California Assembly hearings on legalization
  Finally, to conclude two of my busiest weeks ever as NORML and NORML Foundation Director, on Wednesday, October 28, NORML’s Paul Armentano and Dale Gieringer traveled to Sacramento to testify before the California Assembly on Public Safety to urge legislators to stop arresting responsible marijuana smokers.  "The criminal prohibition of marijuana has not dissuaded anyone from using marijuana or reduced its availability; however, the strict enforcement of this policy has adversely impacted the lives and careers of millions of people who simply elected to use a substance to relax that is objectively safer than alcohol," Armentano told the Committee. "NORML believes that the state of California ought to amend criminal prohibition and replace it with a system of legalization, taxation, regulation, and education." Like in Massachusetts two weeks earlier, the day-long hearing and was the first of its kind to take place before the California legislature.

So there you have it: two weeks in the life of NORML and the NORML Foundation.  Thank you for being there for us – so we can be there for you.

As we conclude this momentous year I rest assured knowing that with your continued financial contributions, NORML and the NORML Foundation will be able to maintain its position as the most trusted and respected marijuana law reform organizations in the United States.  That remains our commitment to you – the cannabis consumer – as we look ahead to the success and victories that await us in 2010.

With your generous support, we are ending marijuana prohibition. With your continued generous support, we’ll end marijuana prohibition once and for all.

Cannabem liberemus,

Allen St. Pierre
Executive Director

P.S. Please make your tax-deductible donation to the NORML Foundation in support of our national outreach and educational programs.

If you’d rather your donation be employed for state and federal lobbying purposes, please make sure that the donation is directed to ‘NORML‘, where donations are not tax deductible.

P.P.S. Donate $50 or more to either NORML Foundation (or NORML) and receive a copy of the new book ‘Marijuana is Safer, so why are we driving people to drink?‘ co-authored by NORML deputy director Paul Armentano.

Seattle To Brazil: Marijuana Law Reformers Support Victims Of Prohibition

Like the dutiful activists in Seattle protesting cannabis laws and supporting the victims of such outside of the local jail for nine straight years of Christmas days, Brazilian cannabis law reform supporters cheer the cultivator’s release from jail, celebrating, not condemning him.

A strong social indicator of governmental laws that do not enjoy mass public support–along with jury nullification–is when supposed ‘criminals’ are embraced and heralded as heroes.

NORML salutes the activists who not only slavishly work for cannabis law reforms but who also never forget about the tens of thousands of cannabis consumers, cultivators and sellers incarcerated in the United States.

Our brothers and sisters.

Christmas protest targets marijuana laws

SEATTLE – Protesters outside the King County Jail say non-violent drug offenders should be home this Christmas.

Vivian McPeak organized the pro-marijuana vigil.

“Hopefully it lets them know that they’re not languishing in there without attention,” said McPeak.

The past nine years on Christmas day, 5th Avenue and James Street in Seattle has been at the crossroads of marijuana legalization controversy.

Check out the video here.

Protestors held signs and waved down traffic. They say those staring down from county jail cells serving time for non-violent marijuana offenses should be with family.

“We just think that otherwise law abiding American should find alternatives to incarceration for marijuana use,” said McPeak.

****************

Inspired By American Citizen Activism To Reform Marijuana Laws, Brazilians Start Publicly Protesting Prohibition

I recently met William Lantelme at the Drug Policy Alliance’s conference in New Mexico and he has a popular cannabis-related webpage in Brazil (growroom.net) that he is starting to convert to a non-governmental organization to rally Brazilians to reform their American-like cannabis laws. He acknowledged being blown away at how organized, active and funded law cannabis advocates are in the US.

Inspired upon his return to Brazil, William organized the first of many planned pro-reform protests and public rallies where fans of Growroom.net recently came out to support a cannabis consumer who was busted for cultivating 10 cannabis plants.

“We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
-Ben Franklin, In the Continental Congress just before signing the Declaration of Independence, 1776

8th Circuit Court rules industrial hemp is still marijuana

(Courthouse News Service) – Two North Dakota farmers failed to convince the 8th Circuit that cannabis grown for industrial hemp is not technically marijuana and should not be regulated under federal law.

The court in St. Louis upheld dismissal of the farmers’ lawsuit seeking a declaration that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not apply to industrial-use cannabis.

The appeals court pointed out that the Act defines marijuana to include all cannabis plants, regardless of the THC concentration.

“The CSA likewise makes no distinction between cannabis grown for drug use and that grown for industrial use,” Judge Pasco Bowman wrote.

The three-judge panel rejected the notion that industrial hemp is not marijuana under the Act, or that Congress has no authority to regulate their state-sanctioned cultivation of cannabis.

Judge Bowman said Congress had a “rational basis” for regulating the cultivation of all cannabis plants in order to effectively regulate marijuana.

The “rational basis” here is that North Dakota farmers can’t grow tall, reedy hemp plants that could never ever get anyone high, because that will confuse the law enforcement officials who are working to eradicate short bushy cannabis plants that are grown to get people high. Somehow, in Australia, Canada, and China to name a few countries, police who are tasked with eradicating illegal cannabis in those countries that have legal hemp have no difficulty whatsoever distinguishing the two crops, but American police are just baffled by basic agriculture.

Silly as it sounds, that’s the court’s argument. We’d never be able to “effectively regulate marijuana” if farmers were growing hemp. Not that we’re actually “effectively regulating marijuana” now. Prohibition of marijuana is the absence of regulation — no regulations on who can buy it, who can sell it, where it can be sold, what age you must be to purchase it, where it can be used, what THC potency is allowed, whether the crop can be grown with certain pesticides and fertilizers, and what penalties should be leveled for failure to follow the regulations. Yes, there are laws against marijuana that makes all of those actions a crime, but by definition you can only regulate something that is legal.

Prohibition doesn’t make those actions go away, it just makes them crimes. Therefore, those actions are occurring in an unregulated manner. So how is it, again, that growing an industrial hemp plant is preventing the government from regulating something that prohibition made unregulated?

2009: The Year In Review – NORML’s Top 10 Events That Shaped Marijuana Policy

#1 Obama Administration: Don’t Focus On Medical Marijuana Prosecutions
United States Deputy Attorney General David Ogden issued a memorandum to federal prosecutors in October directing them to not “focus federal resources … on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.” The directive upheld a campaign promise by President Barack Obama, who had previously pledged that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.” Read the full story here.

#2 Public Support For Legalizing Pot Hits All-Time High
A majority of U.S. voters now support legalizing marijuana, according to a national poll of 1,004 likely voters published in December by Angus Reid. The Angus Reid Public Opinion poll results echo those of separate national polls conducted this year by Gallup, Zogby, ABC News, CBS News, Rasmussen Reports, and the California Field Poll, each of which reported greater public support for marijuana legalization than ever before. Read the full story here.

#3 Lifetime Marijuana Use Associated With Reduced Cancer Risk
The moderate long-term use of cannabis is associated with a reduced risk of head and neck cancer, according to the results of a population-based control study published in August by the journal Cancer Prevention Research. Authors reported, “After adjusting for potential confounders (including smoking and alcohol drinking), 10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.” Read the full story here.

#4 AMA Calls For Review Of Marijuana’s Prohibitive Status
In November, the American Medical Association resolved that marijuana should longer be classified as a Schedule I prohibited substance. Drugs classified in Schedule I are defined as possessing “no currently accepted use in treatment in the United States.” In a separate action, the AMA also determined, “Results of short term controlled trials indicate that smoked cannabis reduces neuropathic pain, improves appetite and caloric intake especially in patients with reduced muscle mass, and may relieve spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis.” Read the full story here.

#5 California: Lawmakers Hold Historic Hearing On Marijuana Legalization
State lawmakers heard testimony in October in support of taxing and regulating the commercial production and distribution of cannabis for adults age 21 and older. Additional hearings, as well as a vote on Assembly Bill 390: the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act, are scheduled for January 12, 2010. Read the full story here.

(more…)

‘Reefer Mad’ Mainstream Media Does It Again

UPDATE!!! In a 12/29 e-mail communication with the San Diego Union-Tribune‘s Newsroom Operations Manager (in reference to their coverage below), she pledges: “I will follow up with our online staff right now. We will get it corrected or taken down.” Yet, as of 11am pst today the story still appears online in its original form. Those who live in southern California may also wish to voice their opinion at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/contactus/.

For anyone who missed the worldwide corporate media’s hysterical anti-pot headlines last week, here’s a sampling:

Cannabis more damaging to adolescent brains than previously known
via Emax Health
“New research shows that teens who consume cannabis daily can suffer anxiety and depression. Smoking marijuana can have long-term irreversible effects on adolescent brains, and is more harmful to teens than previously known.”

Teen marijuana use affects brain permanently: study
via CBC News
“The findings suggest daily marijuana use by teens can cause depression and anxiety, and have an irreversible effect on the brain.”

Pot damage on teens worse than thought
via UPI wire services
“Daily consumption of marijuana in teens can cause depression and anxiety, and have irreversible long-term effect on the brain, Canadian researchers say.”

Cannabis brain damage worse in teens than thought: study
via The Canadian Press
“The effects of daily cannabis use on teenage brains is worse than originally thought, and the long-term effects appear to be irreversible, new research from McGill University suggests.”

Sounds scary, huh? It’s meant to. Only there’s three serious problems with the mainstream media’s alarmist coverage.

1) No adolescents — or for that matter, any human beings whatsoever — actually participated in the study.

2) No actual cannabis was consumed in the study.

3) No permanent brain damage was reported in the study.

Don’t believe me? Well then, check out the actual source of the headlines yourself.

Chronic exposure to cannabinoids during adolescence but not during adulthood impairs emotional behaviour and monoaminergic neurotransmission
via PubMed

“We tested this hypothesis by administering the CB(1) receptor agonist WIN55,212-2, once daily for 20 days to adolescent and adult rats. … Chronic adolescent exposure but not adult exposure to low (0.2 mg/kg) and high (1.0 mg/kg) doses led to depression-like behaviour in the forced swim and sucrose preference test, while the high dose also induced anxiety-like consequences in the novelty-suppressed feeding test. … These (findings) suggest that long-term exposure to cannabinoids during adolescence induces anxiety-like and depression-like behaviours in adulthood and that this may be instigated by serotonergic hypoactivity and noradrenergic hyperactivity.”

To summarize: Investigators administered daily doses of a highly potent synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist WIN,55,212-2 to both adolescent rats and adult rats for 20 days. Days following their exposure, researchers documented altered serotonin production in younger rats. (Why investigators presumed that the change in serotonin production would be permanent I have no idea. After the initial 20-day waiting period, researchers do not appear to have tested the rats’ serotonin levels ever again.) Researchers also documented supposed depression-like and anxiety-like behavior in certain rats, based on various elaborate animal models and preference tests.

Yet somehow based on this speculative preclinical evidence, the mainstream media — in unison — proclaimed:

Reefer badness
via San Diego Tribune

“A study of Canadian teenagers … found that smoking the illicit drug is harder on young brains than originally thought. Writing in the journal Neurobiology of Disease, researchers at McGill University in Montreal said daily consumption of cannabis in teens can cause significant depression and anxiety and have an irreversible long-term effect on the brain.”

In truth, the purported ‘study’ never said anything of the sort!

So why the does the MSM consistently get the story wrong when it comes to pot? You can check out my previous thoughts on the issue here.

Project CBD: Marijuana Specialists Plan To Study New Strains

By Fred Gardner, Editor, O’Shaughnessy’s, the journal of cannabis in clinical practice

“You have to start somewhere.” —Willy Notcutt, MD

Fifteen members of the Society of Cannabis Clinicians -the doctors’ group founded by Tod Mikuriya in 1999 and now led by Jeffrey Hergenrather- met in Oakland Dec. 11. UCSF professor Donald Abrams recounted the obstacles he faced in conducting clinical trials with government-issued cannabis and getting his results published in peer-reviewed medical journals. The ensuing discussion focused on how SCC doctors might go about evaluating the effectiveness of high-CBD strains as they become available to patients in the year ahead.

CBD (cannabidiol) is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid. For many generations (of people and plants), cannabis in California and elsewhere has been bred to maximize psychoactivity, which is mainly a function of THC content. (Some  “minor” cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids also affect a plant’s effect.)  Because CBD and THC are in an either/or relationship at the genetic level, breeding for high THC means breeding out CBD. So it was widely assumed that the Cannabis available nowadays in California contains only trace amounts of CBD.

Surprisingly, six strains with buds ranging from 5% to 7% CBD by weight have been detected in the year since Steep Hill analytic lab began testing samples from dispensaries and individual growers.  Only two of these high-CBD strains have been made available to patients -and only intermittently, as the pounds delivered by the growers sell out in a day or two. “Soma A-plus” has been dispensed at Harborside Health Center in Oakland, and “Pineapple Thai” at Herbal Solutions in Long Beach. The other four strains are being grown out as clones and should be available by spring 2010 to collectives wishing to dispense them.

The doctors want, eventually, to test the effectiveness of cannabis with consistent CBD/THC ratios in treating various conditions. One hoped-for advantage of high-CBD strains is reduced psychoactivity, which might enable patients to take larger doses while remaining functional. The California doctors are somewhat enviously and somewhat gratefully tracking the progress of G.W. Pharmaceuticals, the British company that has been growing cannabis and making and testing whole-plant extracts for medical use since 1998 —with government approval and backing from corporate partners Bayer, Almirall, and Otsuka.

G.W.’s flagship product is Sativex, an oral spray that contains about equal amounts of CBD and THC. The rationale for the combination was set forth in “A Tale of Two Cannabinoids,” a 2005 article by doctors Ethan Russo and Geoffrey Guy in the online journal Medical Hypotheses. Here’s a summary:

“CBD is demonstrated to antagonise some undesirable effects of THC including intoxication, sedation and tachycardia, while contributing analgesic, anti-emetic, and anti-carcinogenic properties in its own right. In modern clinical trials, this has permitted the administration of higher doses of THC, providing evidence for clinical efficacy and safety for cannabis based extracts in treatment of spasticity, central pain and lower urinary tract symptoms in multiple sclerosis, as well as sleep disturbances, peripheral neuropathic pain, brachial plexus avulsion symptoms, rheumatoid arthritis and intractable cancer pain. Prospects for future application of whole cannabis extracts in neuroprotection, drug dependency, and neoplastic disorders are further examined. The hypothesis that the combination of THC and CBD increases clinical efficacy while reducing adverse events is supported”

Sativex has been approved by Health Canada for treating neuropathic pain in multiple sclerosis and cancer. It is obtainable by prescription in 22 countries. GW has applied for and is awaiting approval of Sativex as a treatment for MS spasticity in the UK and Spain. The U.S. FDA has given GW approval to conduct a clinical trial in advanced cancer patients whose pain is not adequately controlled by opioids. (GW is close to finishing an extensive study to determine optimum dosages.) The company hopes recruitment of subjects won’t take more than a year. When the results are in, assuming they’re favorable, GW will apply for marketing approval from the FDA

Dr. Notcutt’s Encouraging Input

The researcher who conducted Phase 2 trials on Sativex (to determine basic efficacy and optimum dosage range) back in 1999-2000 is Willy Notcutt, MD, a pain specialist at James Paget Hospital in Great Yarmouth, England. O’Shaughnessy’s recently asked Notcutt whether his approach could be adapted by California physicians and patients seeking to evaluate the efficacy of high-CBD strains. The setting was the International Association of Cannabinoid Medicine in Koln, and Notcutt was speaking for himself, not GW Pharmaceuticals, which expresses official corporate disdain for smoking as a delivery system and “the crude plant” as medicine.

Notcutt:  Indeed… Those were “N of 1″ trials. [In N of 1 trials, data is collected from individuals as their use pattern changes. The number N of patients involved in each study is one, hence the name.]  The advantages of  N-of-1 trials were first described by a chap named Guyatt in Toronto. The fundamental thing is that the patient acts as his own control.

O’S: Is there a standard design?

Notcutt: It’s very flexible, you can design it any which way you want to. Presumably the patients are currently using a high-THC strain. First you establish the baseline: what’s the patient’s [self-reported score on a] pain scale or the sleep line, or whatever parameters you want to measure. Then you start them on the current drug for a week. Then you put them on the new one. Then you switch them back to the current one, and so forth. You can do it as many times as you like until you say…

[Stefan offers to buy beer, thread not picked up]

“It can be done as many times as you want and for any period -one week, two weeks, six weeks. You can leave it open, you can do it single-blinded [not letting the patient know what he's taking], you can do it double-blinded [neither doctor nor patient knowing which strain is being used].  But by far the easiest way to start out is to do a straight observational study: open observation and open label. The patients are going to tell you pretty quickly whether they prefer current drug or new drug. The advantage of going from current drug to new drug is, that is what a clnician actually does. That’s how medicine is practiced. I say ‘try this…’ ‘Not much help.’ ‘Now let’s try you on this new drug…’ ‘Yeah, well I think that drug has helped me…’

“I appreciate that you have a problem with standardization, but a lot of people [medical cannabis users] say, ‘I always get this type, I know how to work it, I fine tune it, if it’s a little weak or strong I smoke a little more or smoke a little less.’ Call that the current drug, which we assume is high-THC, and then compare it with high-CBD. That’s what you’re testing: the comparative efficicacy of high-THC and high-CBD cannabis.

“You’re using the patient as his own control and you plot it out: How many times do they smoke each day? What effects are they getting?  It’s close to what you normally would do as a clinician. That’s how I evaluate a drug anyway. If you define your parameters, and gets reports from 20 patients, you can then get a feel for whether it works.

“I would suggest that it be done completely open-label at first.

“Guyatt’s is not the only paper on N-of-1 trials. I have one from the BMJ [British Medical Journal] from a few years ago sayng that this is the way we should be studying chronic disease. It’s a well-recognized, acceptable clinical approach. But people have gotten so fixated in the last 20 years on the randomized, placebo-controlled trial- (sarcastically) ‘the only way you can do it,’ ‘the gold standard.’

“I think the N-of-1 trial is the only way you study this cohort at this time, because of your problems with standardization. You have people doing it different ways… But your individual patient becomes your study. And then you can aggregate your studies. You can do some simple statistics on it: of 20 patients that started, five found it didn’t work for them at all. Now let’s look at the 15 that reported effect…

“Then you can go on and blind your subjects and not tell them which is which. Or blind the physician. Guyatt wrote about building in a placebo, but you needn’t go to that extent. That’s not how we do medicine. The RCT [randomized, controlled trial] is furthest from normal clinical practice.

“The N-of-1 trial is a good way of generating some data where no data exists. The first two or three GW studies were all N-of-1, until we knew that it worked. If the first nine of ten patients had said, ‘This doesn’t work,’ then you don’t go further.

“You have to start somewhere. An observational study has the force of common sense. It may be best suited when you have a longterm chronic illness and you need some information about whether a drug works…

“Do we give an orthopedic surgeon and an eye surgeon the same tools? No. So should we statistically evaluate every medical problem by the same technique? If we’re evaluating a drug where the blood pressure goes up or down, or the sugar level goes up or down in diabetes, we use one technique. Why use the same technique for a drug that has a completely different spectrum of activity, in an area where you don’t get nice, number data, where you get much softer data, you get subjective opinion. There’s a whole difference in the quality of the data -why use the same statistical tools?

“People are now starting to say that evidence-based medicine is becoming a tyranny that’s killing off research. I’m very interested in this because I’m the lead for research in our district I’m also the lead for research in my own field.  If you start insisting on these big multi-center big studies, all randomized, and you don’t nurture the small studies -the little ones that come along, the N-of-1s that come along where the guy sits down and works on an idea, ‘try this out, try that out’ in a few patients, and generates a little bit more information that then leads to a bit of a better study…

“I still regard as one of the best studies ever, the guy who treated pain after shingles with amtriptyline or nortrypteline. All he did was he found out that when he used the amitriptyline, 60 percent of the patients hated it. When he used nortriptyline only about 30 percent of the patients hated it. A simple trial -but it changed our practice. We stopped using amitriptyline, we use nortriptyline. And now we know the reasons why. That was 10, 15 years ago. I’ve never seen that simple study replicated as a clinical trial of amitriptyline versus nortriptyline because there’s no money it for the drug companies.”

Notcutt offered to review any study design that the SCC docs come up with.

Fred Gardner edits O’Shaughnessy’s, the journal of cannabis in clinical practice, now online at www.pcmd4u.org

A Father’s Lament: Cannabis Prohibition, Race and My Son

Despite the bizarre claims of some prohibitionists and law enforcement representatives that ‘no one in America gets arrested or goes to jail for cannabis charges’, NORML receives hundreds of emails and letters a week from our fellow citizens who’ve been negatively impacted by cannabis prohibition laws–notably due to an encounter with law enforcement.

A few weeks ago I received a letter from a father of a young man arrested and incarcerated on minor cannabis-related charges in Arlington, Virginia. The father’s lament is deep and profound, beyond the standard pleas for help NORML so regularly receives. So much so that I asked him if he would send NORML the original letter for publication.

A few local points of interest to those outside of the Washington, DC area. Arlington county is by most measures one of the more ‘liberal’ and tolerant counties in the commonwealth, maybe the most liberal. Thousands of people who work for the federal government, political partisans, non profit organizations and trade associations reside in Arlington, which has an ever-shrinking native African American community. The writer clearly sets out to make it clear that supposedly progressive counties like Arlington still have a dark side regarding how disproportionately minorities are ensnared into the criminal justice system for cannabis, and how dramatic the impact is to them, their family members–and the taxpayer’s of Arlington.

The Barnes family’s experience in Arlington plays out across the nation every single day, where minorities are arrested at rates three to one, and higher, with even greater disparity regarding incarceration.

In fact the New York Times just reported on such last Wednesday in an apropos article entitled ‘White Smokes Pot, But Blacks Get Arrested‘.

Racial / Ethnic breakdown of only American adults who have used cannabis

While it is true that most cannabis consumers who get busted for possession do not go to jail or prison on the first offense (however,  tens of thousands of Americans are incarcerated annually on cannabis-related charges, including on mere possession charges, often for subsequent possession arrests), a positive drug test submitted whilst on probation can often land otherwise minor cannabis possession cases into jail or prison, most acutely to minorities and the poor.

The practice is called ‘shock incarceration’.

Many citizens–rich and poor, black and white–self-medicate with cannabis to try to work through any number of mental disorders, from bipolarity to attention deficit disorders to post-traumatic stress, however, a life-shattering introduction into the tax coffer-draining criminal justice system is hardly the proper prescription for their health struggles.

Arlington, VA

December 9, 2009

Re:  Joshua Barnes, incarceration for distribution of several ounces of marijuana and probation violation pertaining to same.

Dear Mr. St. Pierre:

On February 13, 2009 my son Joshua Barnes was incarcerated in Arlington County, Virginia for possession and distribution of four ounces or less of marijuana on three occasions in 2008 and for violation of probation pertaining to several possessions and distribution charges, also of four ounces or less of marijuana in 2005.  On September 19, 2009 Arlington County Circuit Judge Benjamin Kendrick sentenced Joshua on the former charge to five years with two and one-half years suspended plus three years of supervised probation effective immediately upon his release.  Then on October 2, 2009, fellow Circuit Court Judge James Almond sentenced him to an additional fourteen months of the 2006 four-year suspended sentence, to be served consecutively in the penitentiary.  The combined time will confine my son for roughly forty four months, minus fifteen percent plus an additional three years of probation immediately upon release, all totaling more than six years under law enforcement control and scrutiny.

In Arlington County, as in any predominately white enclave a black before the courts is likely to be the recipient of justice compromised.  Whether you perceive yourself as black, white or any of the other commonly used arbitrary colors to designate one’s racial/ethnic classification we must step up to the plate and be candid with ourselves in regard to “what is” in dealing with this reality.  We must be mindful that we are not dealing with mere machines but humans whose mental processes and emotions do play major roles in the composition of personality.  To put it another way, what we perceive by means of whatever medium molds our conscience, thus; our reactions are in response.  Invariably, for example, the average white’s response to black male’s presence in the immediate vicinity while stopped awaiting the signal light to change is to activate the door locks.   This common response fosters the criminal image of the black male held by whites and negatively impacts the mindset when the latter sits in judgment, be it the role of the judge, juror, or prosecutor on a black fate.  To put it blatantly, for whites one of the foremost traits of blacks is criminal.  When blacks behave accordingly, whites’ racist contention is fulfilled and appeasement is rewarded as a consequence.  For those in rejoice regarding the behavior it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy is achieved.  Any major newspaper of cities where blacks are in substantial numbers will have mug shots of black males in their daily crime sections.  This further fuels the mindset regarding and criminal black male and gives greater reinforcement and criminal nature of blacks, particularly the black male.

Therefore, it is illogical and ludicrous to assume (it is only an assumption) that the average white judge, juror prosecutor or any other role player involved will suddenly and miraculously be impartial and color-blind when acting in judgment on the fate of a black, especially black male.  Ideally, we wish human nature would allow us to vacate our personal prejudices, if only temporarily.

Justice, as many of us are aware of can be manipulated and often has a price tag.  Unlikely, elite corporates, powerful industrialists, politicians, select entertainment moguls and etc. would be subjected to the same criminal system and receive comparable sentences for distribution of small amounts of marijuana and probation involving the same charges.  It would be utterly unimaginable to witness a Kennedy, Bush, Gates, Bloomberg, Clinton, McCartney, Buffet, Oprah Winfrey or the likes who received the same fate as Joshua for the same non-violent violation.  This tactic of using power to influence justice is probably as old as prostitution and man’s enjoyment from his marijuana use.  Moreover, this reality is closely akin to the old adage, “might makes right”.  Unfortunately, in this regard we are not of the class referenced.  Thus, we are not able to mold justice to render it more human or even unethically circumvent it, as mentioned.

It is a given when it come to white/black matters, ingrained color, prejudice trumps reason.  In my view, most whites do not want to reside with blacks in the same community, desire to worship or dine with them, be buried in the same cemetery and certainly not engage in romantic relationships and etc.  Again it is far-fetched and insane to think that the courts or any segment of society is free of partiality predicated on color of skin.

Theoretically, we as a society do by reason utilize imprisonment as a plausible measure to remove those from the general populace who do harm or present imminent endangerment to society.  We, as the most civilized, technologically advanced with the most powerful military in history, should not make laws to take away human freedom because these are merely laws in-and-of themselves, minus moral judgment. Compare marijuana’s use and consequences to some other substances, legal or illegal.  Alcohol use, especially excessive consumption, produces grave consequences in that it contributes to deaths of tens of thousands and causes untold injuries to millions more.  Also, it is the leading cause of certain types of cancer.  In many alcohol related cases, if not most involving manslaughter the guilty is assessed a lighter sentence than Joshua.  For instance, doctors found guilty of medical malpractice resulting in the death of their patients often times are not more severely punished.  Moreover, many other crimes resulting in severe bodily harm receive less incarceration time.

Marijuana use has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years without producing known destruction to human welfare.  In the past few decades tens of millions of Americans have smoked marijuana and millions more still partake. Statistically, as much as forty-percent of all adult Americans (They have not moved on to harsher drugs as some contend) smoke or have smoked marijuana.  Many keep or would keep on occasion a few ounces for their own personal use (or “stash”).  “A Gallup Poll in October found forty-four percent of Americans favor full legalization of marijuana –a rise of 13 points since 2000, (“Support for legalizing of Marijuana Grows Rapidly U.S.”,  Karl Vick, The Washington Post. Monday, November 23, 2009).”

Joshua was a heavy smoker and also consumed substantial amounts of alcohol himself.  His addiction in-and-of itself caused him self-destruction and eventual doom, especially with the commonwealths legal system.  I reiterate the message that history does not provide real horror stories pertaining to consequences of marijuana use.

Conversely, the use of alcohol, heroin, crack, methamphetamine, cigarette, coffee, Tylenol and other contrabands have had devastating impacts on most, if not all of us at some time.  In regard, we do grave disservice to ourselves and society by denying the truth, thus avoidable destruction and pain are prolonged.  As appalling as it is we devote much valued time, energy, and resources to apprehend and imprison citizens for possession and sale of a few ounces of marijuana when we, as a nation, face far daunting tasks.  Violent crimes remain throughout this land.  Many of us cannot safely walk the streets of our neighborhood during daylight hours let alone at night.  Racial and religious hostilities are still prevalent in the land, just to name a few.  The polls show that there is a real movement to transform laws governing marijuana, but many are still staunchly oriented toward maintaining the ages-old practice of filling jail and prison cells with more and more predominately young black males who have no history of violent crimes.  As a result of these immoral practices they cause these families of black males to struggle and endure unwanted suffering.

Resources expended to take away the freedom of these blacks would be more wisely used to educate them and others, but; those in the prison/court complex are often opposed and they are the real beneficiaries.  The courts are not sentimental and are impervious to the harm and grief brought upon these individuals and their families as a result of the sentenced due to non-violent crimes.  In Joshua’s case the court also ignored the matter of Joshua’s Attention Deficit Disorder history.  Moreover, six days following his incarceration on February 13, 2009, his girlfriend gave birth to his first son, and our first grandchild.

As a final assessment, any harmful affect to any individual or society as a result of Joshua’s action is absent.  Conversely, racial animosity and backlash of the systematic imprisonment of black males is a major instrument in widening the wedge in black/white efforts to alleviate vestiges of centuries-old racial inequalities and strife.  In the final analysis, where is the human harm caused by Joshua’s action?  Do his actions warrant, in a moral sense the take-away of his freedom and, consequently the denial of a father for his new-born?

These marijuana laws are likened to the Poll Tax Laws of the Jim Crow Era in that they disenfranchise millions, particularly blacks.  In the near future, history will show that, again we allowed flawed government policies to damage the image, soul, and fabric of America.  In conclusion, we should all hope sincerely and pray, color-blind to a color-blind god that we be delivered from our heart-held prejudices, long entrenched in hatred to a humane state of consciousness where love dictates.

Sincerely,

Willie Barnes

American Farmers And Consumers Continue To Suffer Under Industrial Hemp Prohibition

It can now be said that Uruguay is more progressive and possesses a greater sense of entrepreneurialism than the United States–at least regarding industrial hemp!

After a decade-long political and legal battle with the federal government, the state of North Dakota and their farmers are still being denied the ability to cultivate–and prosper from- industrial hemp (i.e., cannabis that is under 1% THC in content and therefore is used for industrial purposes), unlike their brethren farmers in France, China, Great Britain, Canada and now…Uruguay.

ND farmers lose appeal to grow hemp; US appeals court affirms dismissal of federal lawsuit

By JAMES MacPHERSON
The Associated Press

December 22, 2009

(AP) BISMARCK, N.D. – A federal appeals court on Tuesday affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit by two North Dakota farmers who said they should be allowed to grow industrial hemp without fear of federal criminal prosecution.

Wayne Hauge and David Monson received North Dakota’s first state licenses to grow industrial hemp nearly three years ago, but they’ve never received approval from the Drug Enforcement Administration. The farmers sued the DEA, and their case has been before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for more than a year after U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland dismissed it.

Hemp, which is used to make paper, lotion and other products, is related to the illegal drug marijuana. Under federal law, parts of an industrial hemp plant are considered controlled substances.

Hovland told the farmers the best remedy might be to ask Congress to change the law to explicitly distinguish hemp from marijuana.

“I guess the next step is we’ll have to take it to Congress,” said Hauge, who grows garbanzo beans and other crops near the northwestern North Dakota town of Ray. “The fastest and easiest way to handle this would be for the president to order the Department of Justice to stand down on all actions against industrial hemp.”

Dawn Dearden, a DEA spokeswoman in Washington, D.C., said the agency could not comment on the case.

The farmers’ attorney, Tim Purdon of Bismarck, would not comment on the appeals court decision.

David Monson, a Republican state legislator and farmer from Osnabrock in northeastern North Dakota, said Congress likely has no time to deal with the hemp issue.

“With all the other things, hemp is not high on their priority list, and I can understand that,” Monson said.

“Somehow, we need to get enough states involved so Congress can take action on it,” Monson said.

North Dakota officials issued Monson and Hauge the nation’s first licenses to grow industrial hemp in 2007. But without permission from the DEA, the farmers could be arrested for growing the crop.

Hemp contains trace amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, a banned substance, and it falls under federal anti-drug rules, the DEA says. Hemp proponents say it is safe because it contains only trace amounts of THC, and not enough to produce a high.

Vote Hemp, the lobbying arm of the hemp industry, has helped fund the farmers’ legal battle. Spokesman Adam Eidinger said the group has spent about $60,000 to date. He said he was disappointed with Tuesday’s ruling.

“The 8th Circuit is kind of conservative, so I can’t say I’m totally surprised,” he said.

Eidinger said only a handful of states have passed pro-hemp farming laws. He said North Dakota is the first state to craft rules to license industrial hemp farmers.

Monson had planned to seed 10 acres of hemp on his farm the northeastern part of the state. He said hemp is grown 25 miles north of his farm in Canada, where production has been legal since 1998, after 60 years of prohibition.

Hauge said he hopes someday to seed 100 acres of hemp on his farm.

“My great-grand dad homesteaded here more than 100 years ago, with a sod house on the wide-open prairie,” Hauge said. “If he could do that, I can stand a small amount of adversity to grow industrial hemp.”

Then there is ‘progressive’ South America…

First in South America: Uruguay to Test Cultivation of Industrial Hemp

by Paula Alvarado, Buenos Aires on 12.22.09

Tree Huggers

Great news for TreeHuggers in South America: Uruguay could become the first country in the region to authorize the cultivation of industrial hemp, according to El Pais newspaper. The national Ministry of Cattle, Agriculture and Fishing has authorized an experimental cultivation of hemp to take place in october 2010. If the results are successful, the country could grant permits to producers to start growing.

The pilot cultivation will be carried away by the National Institute for Farming Technology and its place will remain secret. The goal is to get to know the productive capacities of the country and how the plants varieties respond to Uruguayan soil.

If the cultivation moves forward, however, producers will only be able to grow hemp with special permits so that the Ministry of Agriculture can control the production.

One of the companies behind the project is The Latin American Hemp Trading, which is fighting to make Uruguay the first country in the region to enter the industry of hemp since 2006.

Hemp and the South American soy frenzy

You probably know that hemp is a great crop: fast growing, needs few to no herbicides, and is incredible versatile, among other interesting characteristics. Problem is, its production is still banned in many countries for its association with the psychoactive variety used as drug (the industrial hemp has less than 0.3% THC, while marijuana contains anywhere from 6 or 7% to 20% or even more).

So far countries in South America make no distinction between industrial and psychoactive hemp, and neither does Uruguay. But that could begin to change if the results from this project are positive.

Apart from the amazing materials that can be produced with hemp, it would be interesting to know how the region reacts if Uruguay is successful growing hemp. Right now Argentina and Uruguay are major transgenic-soy producers, with heavy use of harmful herbicides and fertilizers. If the hemp industry takes off  and proves lucrative, could it provide some balance to soy production? Hopefully

——————————-

La otra cannabis en Uruguay
Emprendimiento. Autorizan plan piloto para desarrollar la agroindustria del cáñamo

Original reporting from El Pais.

Merrijuana Christmas From NORML!

From NORML’s staff, board of directors, chapters and lawyers:

Cannabem Liberemus!