Russ Belville to appear on CNN Radio’s “Cultural Distortion” this Sunday

CNN Radio, Sunday, January 31, 3:40 - 4:20pm Pacific... it just worked out that way!

I’m happy to let you all know that I will be on national radio this Sunday, which just happens to be my 42nd birthday!

I’ll be the guest of Kyle Allison and Shane Bell on the CNN Radio program “Cultural Distortion” which airs Sundays at 3pm Pacific.

I’ll be on from 3:40pm – 4:20pm talking about the War on (Certain American Citizens Using Non-Phamaceutical, Non-Alcoholic, Tobacco-Free) Drugs.

No, I didn’t request the interview to end by 4:20pm… it just worked out that way. Kyle and Shane are on Central Time.

CBS News: “Pot Measure One Step Closer To California Ballot”

As a general rule, NORML tends not to publicize or comment on ballot initiative drives — including campaigns we are involved in — until they have officially qualified for the ballot. But in this case, we (and the mainstream media) just couldn’t resist.

Pot Measure One Step Closer to California Ballot
via CBS.com

An initiative to make marijuana legal, and open to local taxation and regulation, is one step closer to getting on the California ballot this November.

Backers of the initiative on Thursday turned in nearly 700,000 signatures to state officials to place the measure on the state ballot, according to reports — far more than the 433,971 valid signatures required. California Secretary of State Debra Bowen has until June 24 to certify the initiative, the Sacramento Bee reports.

The measure, if approved by voters, would allow anyone over 21 years old to possess up to an ounce of marijuana or grow plants within a limited space for personal use. It would also allow local jurisdictions to tax and regulate it.

[Author's Note: There is a clause in the initiative that allows for municipalities, if they desire to do so, to establish regulations governing the retail distribution and sale of cannabis. Personal, non-commercial possess or cultivation of marijuana would not be subject to taxation under this initiative.]

… An April Field Poll found that 56 percent of California voters supported legalizing marijuana, and Mark DiCamillo, the poll’s director, said the initiative had a 50 percent chance of passing, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Next week, proponents of a statewide measure to legalize medical marijuana in South Dakota will also turn in signatures to the Secretary of State’s office to place the proposal on the November 2010 ballot. Petitioners claim that they possess nearly twice the number of signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot.

Separate ballot drives are under way in several other states, including Washington and Oregon.

Why Isn’t There More Medical Marijuana Research? Because The Feds Won’t Allow It, That’s Why!

It’s the ‘Catch-22’ that has plagued medical marijuana advocates and patients for decades. Lawmakers and health regulators demand clinical studies on the safety and efficacy of medical cannabis, but the federal agency in charge of such research bars these investigations from ever taking place.

But it took until now for the federal government to finally admit it.

A spokesperson for the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) told The New York Times last week that the agency does “not fund research focused on the potential medical benefits of marijuana.”

Why is this admission so significant? Here’s why.

Under federal law, NIDA (along with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration) must approve all clinical and preclinical research involving marijuana. NIDA strictly controls which investigators are allowed access to the federal government’s lone research supply of pot – which is authorized via a NIDA contract and cultivated and stored at the University of Mississippi.

In short, no NIDA approval = no marijuana = no scientific studies. And that is, and always has been, the problem.

But to the folks over at NIDA, there’s no problem at all.

Speaking to The New York Times in a January 19, 2010 article entitled, “Researchers Find Medical Study of Marijuana Discouraged,” NIDA spokeswoman Shirley Simson said: “As the National Institute on Drug Abuse, our focus is primarily on the negative consequences of marijuana use. We generally do not fund research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana.”

Since NIDA presently oversees an estimated 85 percent of the world’s research on controlled substances, the agency’s ban on medical marijuana research isn’t just limited to the United States’ borders; it extends throughout the planet.

Previous legal attempts to break NIDA’s bureaucratic logjam have failed to weaken the agency’s iron grip.

In 2007, U.S. DEA Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner ruled that NIDA’s monopolization of marijuana research is not “in the public interest,” and ordered the federal government to allow private manufacturers to produce the drug for research purposes. But in January of last year, DEA Deputy Administrator Michele Leonhart set aside Judge Bittner’s ruling – stating that NIDA possesses “adequate” quantities of cannabis to meet the needs of clinical investigators, and that the agency monopoly on the distribution of marijuana for research is compliant with America’s international treaty obligations. (Notably, on January 26, 2010 President Barack Obama selected Leonhart to be the DEA’s full time Director.)

Most recently, in November 2009 the American Medical Association’s (AMA) Council on Science and Public Health declared, “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.”

However, the Council lamented that despite these encouraging preliminary results, “[T]here is a contrast between the relatively small number of patients who have been studied over the past 30 years in controlled clinical trials involving smoked cannabis and survey data from patients with chronic pain, multiple sclerosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis that indicates a significant use of cannabis for self management.”

And just what is the precise reason for this “contrast?” The AMA failed to specify, but to anyone who has followed this issue, the answer is painfully obvious.

Nevertheless, the AMA still resolved, “[The] AMA urges that marijuana’s status as a federal Schedule I controlled substance be reviewed with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines.”

But since any future clinical trials would still require NIDA approval — approval that the agency admits won’t be coming any time soon — it remains unclear what effect, if any, the AMA’s declaration will have on facilitating medical marijuana research. If history is any guide, it’s unlikely that the AMA request — much like the cries of tens of thousands of patients before it — will have any effect on NIDA at all.

[FYI... You can also comment on this essay on Alternet.org's newly launched SpeakEasy blog here or on the Huffington Post here.]

NORML’s Weekly Legislative Round Up

It’s January 2010, and that means it is time once again for NORML’s Weekly Legislative Round Up — your one-stop guide to pending marijuana law reform legislation around the country, along with tips for influencing the policies of your state.

** A note to first time readers: NORML can not introduce legislation in your state. Nor can any other non-profit advocacy organization. Only your state representatives, or in some cases an individual constituent (by way of their representative; this is known as introducing legislation ‘by request’) can do so. NORML can — and does — work closely with like-minded politicians and citizens to reform marijuana laws, and lobbies on behalf of these efforts. But ultimately the most effective way — and the only way — to successfully achieve statewide marijuana law reform is for local stakeholders and citizens to become involved in the political process and make the changes they want to see. We can’t do it without you.

Virginia: Members of the Virginia House Courts of Justice, Criminal Subcommittee are scheduled to hear testimony on Wednesday in favor of House Bill 1134, which seeks to dramatically reduce the state’s marijuana possession and cultivation penalties. Representatives from NORML’s national staff and state affiliate will be in attendance and testifying in support of this measure. You can read NORML’s written testimony to the subcommittee here; NORML’s letter in yesterday’s Washington Post appears here.

Virginia residents are urged to contact their House delegates today. If your delegate is one of the members of the House Courts of Justice, Criminal Subcommittee, then it is especially important that he or she hears from you today. Phone and e-mail contact information for these members is available here. A pre-written letter will be e-mailed to your Virginia state House member when you go here. Finally, those seeking to attend Wednesday’s hearing in Richmond should contact Sabrina at Virginia NORML at: sabrina@norml.org for further information. You can also track the legislative progress of this effort on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/vanorml.

New Hampshire: Lawmakers on the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee held hearings last week on two pending proposals, HB 1652 (legalization) and HB 1653 (decriminalization). You can read NORML’s written testimony in favor of these measures here, and you can voice your support for these efforts here. You can also watch video highlights (and lowlights) from last week’s hearing, care of our friends at New Hampshire Common Sense, by clicking here.

Colorado: Members of the Colorado Senate, Health and Human Services Committee are scheduled to hear testimony Wednesday morning regarding proposed state regulations to Colorado’s medical marijuana law. You can read more about these controversial guidelines here, here and here, and you can contact members of the Committee here.

Washington: House Committee lawmakers rejected a pair of marijuana law reform proposals last week that sought to remove criminal penalties for the adult, personal use of marijuana. You can see how House members voted here. A Senate companion bill to decriminalize marijuana possession, SB 5615, still awaits floor action and can be supported by going here.

For information on additional state and federal marijuana law reform legislation, please visit NORML’s ‘Take Action Center’ here.

[UPDATE!!! For folks interested in the progress of New York's pending medical marijuana legislation, there's this report from today's New York Times.]

Beverly Hills NORML Director Cheryl Shuman testifies on the cruelty of banning medical marijuana patients from transplant lists

Recently the Los Angeles City Council held hearings on the thorny issue of medical marijuana dispensary regulation. For years city officials have abrogated their duty to create sensible regulations for the dispensaries that have proliferated across the Los Angeles basin. The number of dispensaries has ballooned to over 500 (not the 1,000+ often claimed) following an ineffective moratorium on the retail medical marijuana outlets.

As usual, the hearings were packed, with medical marijuana patients and activists flooding the chambers to add their testimony to the record.  One citizen petitioning her government for a redress of grievances was the Executive Director of the new Beverly Hills NORML 90210 (http://www.norml90210.org/become-a-member.php), Cheryl Shuman.  In sixty seconds of testimony, Cheryl recounts her own personal medical marijuana tragedy, one that has befallen many desperately ill patients who use cannabis — even legally — and require life-saving organ transplants:

Cheryl’s case is not unique.  All across America, hospitals are booting patients off of organ transplant lists because of their use of cannabis.  Being a legal user of cannabis for medicinal purposes in the now fourteen states that recognize that right is of no help; even legal medical marijuana patients are essentially given a death sentence by hospital and insurance bureaucracies for their use of a safe, non-toxic herbal remedy.

Timothy Garon was a Seattle musician who had contracted Hepatitis C.  Garon was on a waiting list for a life-saving liver transplant.  The state of Washington recognizes Hep C as a qualifying condition for the medical use of cannabis.  Garon’s physician, Dr. Brad Roter, authorized Garon to smoke pot to alleviate his nausea and abdominal pain and to stimulate his appetite while he awaited.  Garon had become dangerously thin and malnourished and the cannabis therapy helped bring him back from the brink of death.

But unbeknown to Dr. Roter, hospital transplant programs have strict rules that forbid “substance abusers” from qualifying for organ transplants.  Seattle’s University of Washington Medical Center told Garon that if he ceased his marijuana use and tested clean for 60 days, he could have his liver transplant.  Another medical center specified six months of marijuana abstinence before they’d save his life with surgery.

Doctors had told Garon he had about two weeks to live and he died on May 1, 2008.  The cruelest irony is that cannabis is one of the few therapies Garon could have taken for pain and nausea that is not hepatoxic (liver-killing) and laden with a list of other nasty side effects.

In Hawaii, Kimberley Reyes suffered from cirrhosis and hepatitis and was given thirty days to live.  She applied for and received approval for a life-saving liver transplant, only to have the rug pulled out from under her three days later when her insurance company, Hawaii Medical Service Association, discovered cannabis in her system, which she had used to relieve feelings of nausea, disorientation and pain.  Ten days later she, too, was dead.

In Washington, Jonathan Simchen suffers from kidney failure. Doctors at Virginia Mason and University of Washington medical centers deny him a life-saving kidney transplant because of his participation in the Washington State medical marijuana program.  According to Alisha Mark, a spokeswoman for Virginia Mason, “any patient who smokes any product — tobacco, cloves, medical marijuana — would be precluded from receiving a transplant here.”

In Georgia, a man named Walter emailed me after reading these transplant stories:

My name is Walter and my kidney transplant was denied by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia due to the fact I smoke marijuana.

In January I went to the University of Minnesota/Fairview Transplant Center for an evaluation. In order to be completely honest with all the doctors I made them aware of the fact that I smoke marijuana and have for quite some time. I also made them aware that the use of marijuana has helped me with the decline of my appetite due to end stage of renal disease. With the exception of the hospital shrink, no one seemed to have a problem with it and even commented that my smoking had nothing to do with my kidney.

Blue Cross Blue Shield approved the evaluation but [after] having received the paperwork from Minnesota has declined my transplant, stating “Kidney transplantation has not been shown to be more beneficial than other alternative treatments for patients with ongoing substance abuse. Thus, I recommended denial of kidney transplantation” (Ronald Hunt MD – Medical Director).

Jim Klahr is a well-known medical marijuana activist here in Oregon who also suffers from cirrhosis and hepatitis C.  In an ironic twist, he sits on the state’s advisory committee on medical marijuana, yet hasn’t used his most effective medicine for his pain and nausea since 2004 because he’s terrified of losing his chance for a liver transplant.  “I’ve capitulated because basically I don’t have much of a choice,” says Klahr.  Paul Stanford of The Hemp & Cannabis Foundation, the state’s largest medical marijuana clinic, estimates at least 30 Oregonians who use medical weed have died in the past 10 years after hospitals denied them new organs.

We understand why hospitals have strict qualifying criteria for transplant candidates.  Transplant organs are in high demand and doctors want every recipient to have the best chance at survival possible.  Hospitals screen their transplant lists for “substance abusers” because it really doesn’t make much sense to put a new liver into an alcoholic who will just go out and drink that organ into cirrhosis and failure as well.  It’s foolhardy to give a new kidney to a heroin addict who would then possibly share needles and come down with another life-threatening disease.

But in the case of cannabis users, the concern for the chance of post-transplant survival is misplaced.  According to new research at the University of Michigan, cannabis use has no impact on the long-term survival rates of liver transplant recipients.  After studying 1,489 liver transplant patients, 155 of whom were cannabis users, over a span of eight years, researchers concluded, “Patients who did and did not use marijuana had similar survival rates. Current substance abuse policies do not seem to systematically expose marijuana users to additional risk of mortality.”

The cases of Cheryl Shuman and all these victims of a cruel and needless discrimination against desperately ill cannabis consumers illustrate why existing medical marijuana laws, while commendable, do not go far enough.  Cheryl Shuman, Tim Garon, Jim Klahr and others are all legal medical marijuana patients in their state, yet powerless under the law to force hospitals to keep them on the transplant lists.  This discrimination exists because cannabis is considered an “illicit drug of abuse” in the same category as heroin and LSD.  This is why cannabis must be removed from Schedule I, legalized for prescription by any doctor in any state, so that it may truly be treated like other medicines, including the prohibition on discrimination against a transplant patient for the use of his or her doctor’s prescriptions.

US Senate Committee Passes The National Criminal Justice Act

Earlier this morning the United State’s Senate, Committee on Judiciary, unanimously approved Senate Bill 714, The National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009.

NORML first blogged about this federal legislation back in November, and encouraged NORML supporters to contact their U.S. Senators in favor of this long-needed reform. Fortunately, many of you did so, and today the Senate Judiciary responded accordingly.

As amended, Senate Bill 714 will establish a `National Criminal Justice Commission’ to hold public hearings and “undertake a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, including Federal, State, local, and tribal governments’ criminal justice costs, practices, and policies. … The Commission shall make findings regarding such review and recommendations for changes in oversight, policies, practices, and laws designed to prevent, deter, and reduce crime and violence, improve cost-effectiveness, and ensure the interests of justice at every step of the criminal justice system.”

It’s been many years since a federally appointed commission has taken an objective look at American criminal justice policies, and it’s been nearly 40 years since federal lawmakers have undertaken a critical examination of U.S. drug policy. As affirmed by the bill’s chief sponsor, Democrat Senator Jim Webb of Virginia:

“America’s criminal justice system has deteriorated to the point that it is a national disgrace. … The United States has by far the world’s highest incarceration rate. With 5% of the world’s population, our country now houses nearly 25% of the world’s reported prisoners.

… Drug offenders, most of them passive users or minor dealers, are swamping our prisons. … Justice statistics also show that 47.5% of all the drug arrests in our country in 2007 were for marijuana offenses. Additionally, nearly 60% of the people in state prisons serving time for a drug offense had no history of violence or of any significant selling activity. … African-Americans — who make up about 12% of the total U.S. population population — accounted for 37% of those arrested on drug charges, 59% of those convicted, and 74% of all drug offenders sentenced to prison.

… It is incumbent on our national leadership to find a way to fix our prison system.”

NORML supporters can play a role in this ‘fix’ by contacting their U.S. Senators and urging them to support Senate Bill 714, The National Criminal Justice Commission Act. (Note, the measure must still be approved by the full Senate, and then the House of Representatives, before it can become law.)

‘Change we can believe in?’ It’s about damn time.

California Assembly Candidate Paul Chabot “campaigning against cannabis”

The pure, unadulterated, distilled essence of Reefer Madness, courtesy of California Assembly Candidate, Republican Paul Chabot:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Let’s tear this thing up, shall we? (more…)

California Supreme Court: State’s Marijuana Possession Limits Are A Floor, Not A Ceiling

California’s Supreme Court issued its long awaited opinion today regarding the constitutionality of state-imposed limits regarding the amount of marijuana patients may legally possess and grow.

In it’s 53-page decision, the Court unanimously ruled that the state’s guidelines, enacted in 2004, should not preclude patients from receiving legal protections in court if they possess cannabis in quantities above those recommended under state law (six mature or twelve immature plants and/or eight ounces) or county law.

The People v. Patrick K. Kelly in the Supreme Court of California

[excerpt] “Whether or not a person entitled to register under the [2004 state law] elects to do so, that individual, so long as he or she meets the definition of a patient or primary caregiver under the CUA (Compassionate Use Act of 1996), retains all the rights afforded by the CUA. Thus, such a person may assert, as a defense in court, that he or she possessed or cultivated an amount of marijuana reasonably related to meet his or her current medical needs … without reference to the specific quantitative limitations specified by the [2004 state law.]“

In short, the Court affirmed that the state’s guidelines in no way override the sweeping legal protections provided under Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. As long as a patient possess quantities of cannabis that are “related to meet his or her current medical needs,” then they are legally protected under state law — regardless of whether or not these quantities are in accordance with state-imposed or locally-imposed guidelines.

In a separate legal issue before the Court, justices further ruled that provisions enacted by the Legislature allowing for counties to establish a voluntary identification system for legally recognized patients did not infringe upon the intent of the 1996 voter-approved initiative.

So precisely what does this decision mean for California patients and providers? Aaron Smith provides an excellent summation here. The bottom line: patients in California have a legal right to possess and use marijuana in the way that is in best accordance with their medical treatment, as decided by the patient and his or her doctor — not by state or local legislators.

Washington: Lawmakers Vote For “Continued Chaos”

They say that the will of politicians often lags behind the sentiment of the public. Nowhere is this adage more clear than when it comes to marijuana law reform.

It was business as usual today in Olympia, as lawmakers on the House Committee on Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness voted down a pair of bills aimed at reforming the state’s failed criminal marijuana laws.

House Bill 2401 sought to regulate the adult production, use, and distribution of marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. Here was the roll call vote:

Hurst (D) Chair — N
O’Brien (D) Vice Chair — N
Pearson (R) — N
Klippert (R) — N
Appleton (D) — Y
Goodman (D) — Y
Kirby (D) — N
Ross (R) — N

House Bill 1177 was much more limited in scope, seeking simply to reclassify minor marijuana possession offenses from a criminal misdemeanor to a fine-only civil infraction. (Note, its Senate companion bill, SB 5615, awaits floor action in the Senate.) This change, known as decriminalization, is already the law in over a dozen states.

Here was the roll call vote:

Hurst (D) Chair — N
O’Brien (D) Vice Chair — Y
Pearson (R) — N
Klippert (R) — N
Appleton (D) — Y
Goodman (D) — Y
Kirby (D) — N

The legislative defeats came despite nearly two hours of public testimony, nearly all of which was in support of one or both reform proposals.

So what reasons did lawmakers give for voting ‘no’ on these reforms? Here’s just a few excuses.

Committee Chair, democrat Christopher Hurst alleged that as a state lawmakers he is sworn to uphold both state and federal law, and claimed that both proposals would be in violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act. (For the record, neighboring Oregon first decriminalized marijuana possession offenses in 1973 and has never run afoul of federal law. Likewise, New Mexico’s government has licensed the production and distribution of marijuana for medical purposes without incident.)

Republican Brad Klippert stated, “As a law enforcement officer … on countless occasions I’ve seen the negative effects of marijuana on people’s lives.” (By that logic I suppose that the Representative would also vote to criminally prohibit alcohol, tobacco, and fatty foods.)

Fellow Republican Kirk Pearson claimed that just by lawmakers talking about the bills they were encouraging teens to try marijuana. (“I don’t want to do anything today that would make drug use seem safer to teenagers,” he said, even though by his own logic he was better off keeping his mouth shut.)

Finally, Democrat Rep. Steve Kirby alleged that he supported the reforms, in theory, but then inexplicably said that such changes in policy “require a vote of the public,” not action by the legislature. (Um, was marijuana prohibition enacted by a vote of the public?) Ultimately, however, Rep. Kirby may get his wish, as NORML Legal Committee member Douglas Hiatt has filed a petition to put the marijuana legalization issue on the November 2010 state ballot, and a recent statewide poll shows that if the election was held today it would win.

In the end, however, Democrat Rep. Roger Goodman stood as the minority voice of reason when he told his colleagues: “A ‘no’ vote … is a vote for prohibition and the illegal markets that it spawns. A ‘yes’ vote is a vote for control. … A ‘no’ is a vote for continued chaos.”

It’s a lesson that the public has already learned — even if a majority of their elected officials have not. Perhaps now is the time to teach them.

City Of Seattle Will No Longer Prosecute Marijuana Possession Offenses

Newly elected city attorney Peter Holmes will no longer prosecute minor marijuana possession offenses, according to a report published in The Seattle Times.

“[The city of Seattle] is no longer going to prosecute marijuana possession cases anymore,” said Holmes.  The Times reports that Holmes has already begun dismissing cases that were filed by the previous city attorney, Tom Carr.

Holmes defeated Carr in the November 2009 election.

In 2003, Seattle voters approved Initiative 75, which requires that “the Seattle Police Department and City Attorney’s Office shall make the investigation, arrest and prosecution of marijuana offenses, when the marijuana was intended for adult personal use, the city’s lowest law enforcement priority.”

A 2008 citywide review of the ordinance reported “no evidence of any adverse effects of the implementation of I-75, including specifically: 1. No evident increase in marijuana use among youth and young adults; 2. No evident increase in crime; and 3. No adverse impact on public health.”

Tomorrow, Washington state lawmakers on the House Committee on Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness will vote on two pending marijuana law reform proposals, House Bill 1177 and House Bill 2401. House Bill 1177 seeks to reclassify the possession of forty grams or less of marijuana from a criminal misdemeanor to a class 2 civil infraction punishable by a $100 fine. House Bill 2401 seeks to “remove all existing civil and criminal penalties for adults 21 years of age or older who cultivate, possess, transport, sell, or use marijuana.”

The Committee is scheduled to vote at 1:30pm pst. You can watch this vote live here.

[UPDATE!!! If you live in Washington and have not yet contacted the Committee, you may wish to do so now, while you still can.

House panel to snuff out marijuana bills
via The Herald

[Excerpt]

Rep. Chris Hurst, chairman of the public safety panel, told me there are not enough votes to move either bill out of committee.

There are five Democrats and three Republicans on the committee. The Republicans will unite against the bills. Hurst and Rep. Al O’Brien, D-Mountlake Terrace, both former cops, each said they will oppose the bills.]