Conventional wisdom dictates that if the people lead then our political leaders will follow. Of course, when it comes to marijuana law reform, conventional wisdom seldom applies.
In a result that should come as a surprise to nobody — except for perhaps certain members of law enforcement and state lawmakers — Maine voters today overwhelmingly approved Question 5, the Maine Marijuana Medical Act. The measure amends existing state law by: establishing a confidential patient registry, expanding the list of qualifying conditions for which a physician may recommend medicinal cannabis, and by allowing for the creation of non-profit state-licensed nonprofit dispensaries to assist in the distribution of medical cannabis to qualified patients.
Of course for anyone following this issue, the result should not come as a surprise. Voters at the polls overwhelmingly approve marijuana law reform — virtually every time they have the opportunity to do so. Yet, over and over again voters have this opportunity because their cowardly elected officials continue to inexplicably punt on the issue.
In Maine, for instance, lawmakers voted unanimously in April to put this issue before the voters rather than legislating it themselves. They did so even though state voters had previously (and by more than 60 percent) approved patients’ rights to use medical marijuana, and despite the fact that the current proposal had virtually no organized opposition aside from law enforcement.
It was the same story in Colorado, where over 70 percent of Breckenridge voters elected today to amend the town code to remove all criminal and civil penalties, including fines, on the private possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. Should anyone have been surprised? Not really. Over 70 percent of local voters said ‘yes’ to a similar statewide (but unsuccessful) measure in 2005. Nonetheless, this past August the Breckenridge Town Council elected to dodge the issue when it came up for a vote — opting instead to send it before the voters.
Elsewhere in Colorado today, state police and politicians were conspiring to halt the proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries. Law enforcement and local politicians are engaging in similar efforts in southern California.
Yes, you read that right: cops and politicians are trying to undermine the very same reforms that the public today just embraced.
As voters in several states head to the polls today to decide Governor and city council races it seems appropriate to ask: “Why are most politicians still inexplicably silent on marijuana law reform?”
The recent legislative hearings on cannabis regulation in Massachusetts and California notwithstanding, the fact remains that these debates are the exception, not the rule. In fact, voters in Maine and Coloradowill decide on marijuana law reform ballot proposals today (Note: Check back here tonight for the results.) precisely because their elected officials outright refused to vote on the issues when they were put before them.
In short, prominent politicians continue to run away from sensible marijuana law reforms at the same time that the public is demanding them. Two longtime NORML allies, former High Times editor Steve Wishnia and former NORML Board Member Richard Evans, recently explored this phenomenon and offer some insight and possible explanations:
Almost every voter under 65 in this country has either smoked cannabis or grew up with people who did. Among its erstwhile users are the last three presidents, one Supreme Court justice and the mayor of the nation’s largest city. The pot leaf’s image pervades popular culture, from Bob Marley T-shirts to billboards for Showtime’s Weeds.
So why is actually legalizing it still considered a fringe issue? Why haven’t more politicians — especially the ones who inhaled — come out and said, “Prohibition is absurd and criminal. Let’s treat cannabis like alcohol”?
… One reason for the lack of urgent political pressure, says Deborah Small of Break the Chains, is that the people most likely to get busted for pot are the ones who “don’t have a political voice” — young people of color from poor neighborhoods.
… Washington State Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles says that many legislators, particularly in the state’s more conservative rural areas, “buy into the cultural stereotypes about marijuana,” such as the idea that it’s a gateway to harder drugs. The Seattle Democrat, who is sponsoring a bill to reduce the penalty for less than 40 grams of pot from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction, says … that law enforcement has largely opposed her decriminalization bill.
Writing locally in the Massachusetts Daily News Tribune, Evans questions why none of the state’s major party candidates have reached out to the 65 percent of state voters who elected last year to decriminalize marijuana possession statewide.
Odd, isn’t it, that all the U.S. Senate candidates, and the people who ask them questions trying to elicit their positions on issues people care about, seem to have forgotten that in the last election, a whopping 65 percent of the voters went for marijuana decriminalization?
If that many voters care about the marijuana laws, why do these candidates, who claim to have their fingers on the public pulse, ignore the subject?
… Politicians report little “noise” on this issue, mistaking silence for indifference, not fear. People are justifiably fearful about writing a letter, showing up on a mailing list, even sending an email with the “m” word in it. They have to be very careful about their jobs, their drivers licenses and the kids in school whose parents will talk. But put them in the privacy of a voting booth, and stand back!
… No living person is responsible for the marijuana prohibition laws. They were conceived three generations ago in a cultural and racial climate far different from our own, and very different from that to which we aspire.
Are we ready for a serious, sober discussion about repeal, without the usual winks, smirks and puns? Can we handle it? Will someone lead it?
And finally, speaking of “serious discussions,” it doesn’t get much more serious — and mainstream — than the persuasive and well-articulated arguments from longtime NORML-ally Jessica Corry, who has an amazing ability to tongue-tie both probitionists and Fox News hosts within three minutes! I’m just glad that she’s on our side.
Supreme Court to Hold Special Outreach Session at UC Berkeley Law School
Live TV Broadcast of Oral Arguments on Nov. 3 in Cases Involving Medical
Marijuana, DNA Evidence, and Sex Offender Law
[UPDATE!!! UPDATE!!! California NORML Coordinator Dale Gieringer attended today's oral arguments and filed this report:
In a remarkable turn of events, both sides at today's California Supreme Court Hearing on the Kelly case agreed that the so-called SB 420 quantity limits in Health and Safety Code 11362.77 are unconstitutional when applied to limit patients' right to a compassionate use defense under Prop. 215.
Instead, they discussed how the Kelly decision could be recast so as not to invalidate 11362.77 when used for other purposes: for example, to protect card-holding patients from arrest when they are within the limits.
Michael Johnsen from the Attorney General's Office admitted that their "position had evolved" since the Kelly case was first argued, when they had tried to claim that the limits in 11362.77 were constitutional. Asked by the court why they should even be hearing the case in that event, Johnsen said that the court should narrow the Appellate Court decision so as to not throw out 11362.77 altogether.
"I have never had the pleasure of getting up in an appellate argument and saying I agree with everything my opponent said," remarked defense attorney Gerald Uelmen.
Patrick Kelly was originally charged with growing 7 plants and 12 ounces, an amount above the SB 420 limits. His defense argued that he could not be convicted for exceeding the limits, because Prop. 215 guarantees patients the right to have whatever amount is reasonably related to their medical needs. The Appellate Court agreed that the limits were an unconstitutional amendment to Prop. 215, and struck down the entirety of 11362.77 as unconstitutional.
Today, both sides agreed that 11362.77 was unconstitutional as applied to Kelly's case, but that it should be preserved in other situations, where it provides useful guidelines for arrest. The court's final decision will be forthcoming in 90 days.]
San Francisco—For the ninth year in a row, the California Supreme
Court will reach out to hundreds of students at a special oral argument
session from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 3, 2009, at the
University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, at Booth Auditorium,
2778 Bancroft Way, Berkeley.
The educational program is designed to improve public understanding of
state courts and is being held in collaboration with the School of Law.
Law students, university faculty and staff, and dozens of high school
and middle school students are expected to attend.
California Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Berkeley Law Dean
Christopher Edley, Jr., will make opening remarks, followed by a
question-and-answer session between law students and the justices.
LIVE TELEVISION BROADCAST
California Channel, a public affairs cable network, will broadcast oral
arguments in all five cases to be argued before the court. The network
reaches 6.5 million viewers across the state and will offer a satellite
link to facilitate coverage by other stations. There is no direct link to the webcast yet, but it will be available online at The California Channel under the ‘Live Web’ section, as well as on your local cable TV provider in CA.
11:00 a.m. (Pacific): People v. Kelly (Patrick K.) (and related habeas corpus matter), S164830 concerns the Legislature’s authority to impose quantity limitations on users of “medical marijuana.”
California state lawmakers are scheduled to hear testimony tomorrow in support of taxing and regulating the commercial production and distribution of marijuana for adults age 21 and older.
[Paul Armentano 10/29 update: Archived video of the entire hearing is now available online here. The hearing is three hours long and archived in three separate parts.]
[Paul Armentano updates: Just a quick update for folks. There is extensive media coverage of today's hearing. Go to Google News and type in "Ammiano marijuana." There are well over 100 news items, ranging from the New York Times to UPI to Bloomberg to AP, etc. The hearings were also carried live on The California Channel, but the video has not yet been archived. (Check back to the Cal Channel website tomorrow or Friday, but here's a five minute clip care of youtube.) NORML's testimony from today is available here and here. Following the hearing, many of us met with numerous key lawmakers (and their staff) on the Public Safety and Health Committees to discuss the issue further. (I had four meetings myself.)
As for "what's next?" First off, this was an INFORMATIONAL HEARING only. There will be NO Committee vote at this time. There will likely be a second informational hearing scheduled before the Assembly Committee on Health. After that, the Public Safety Committee is anticipated to hold a separate hearing specific to AB 390, the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act in January 2010. IF we have the votes at that time to pass the bill out of Committee, the Chair (who is the bill's sponsor) will call it for a vote sometime this spring. If we don't have the votes on the Committee, then the bill will languish in Committee. It's that simple.]
Members of the California Assembly Committee on Public Safety have called for the hearing, entitled “Examining the Fiscal and Legal Implication of the Legalization and Regulation of Marijuana.” The hearing will be chaired by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), sponsor of Assembly Bill 390, the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act. It will take place at 10am in room 126 of the State Capitol.
A press conference will take place prior to the hearing at 9 am in Capitol Room 317.
California NORML Coordinator Dale Gieringer is scheduled to testify before the Committee at noon. [Editor's note:Read Dale's written testimony here.] NORML has also submitted prepared testimony to the Committee, which is available online here.
Several representatives from law enforcement, including the California Police Chiefs Association and the Office of the Attorney General’s Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, are scheduled to testify in opposition to the bill.
“The criminal prohibition of marijuana provides law enforcement and state regulators with no legitimate market controls,” states NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano in prepared testimony. “This absence of state and local government controls jeopardizes rather than promotes public safety. I urge this Committee to move forward with the enactment of sensible regulations for legalizing marijuana.”
Tomorrow’s hearing marks one of the first times since 1913 that the California legislature has debated ending criminal prohibition.
If you live in California you can contact your member of the Assembly in advance of tomorrow’s historic hearing here.
Why? Well, for starters, women are now voicing their support for sensible marijuana law reform in record numbers.
According to this week’s Gallup poll, support for marijuana legalization has jumped 12 percent among women since 2005. By comparison, support among men rose just four percent over this same time.
In short, if we are to succeed to pushing public support for marijuana regulation to majority levels in this country then we — unquestionably — need the greater support of women.
Fortunately, NORML has its own core group of female activists who are unabashedly speaking out publicly in favor of cannabis law reform. Their efforts are changing public opinion and garnering mainstream media attention.
[Note: Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist. Her most recent commentary, spotlighting NORML-ally Jessica Corry, ran in newspapers across the country under various headlines.]
Today’s activist, more likely, doesn’t have facial hair, but she does have kids.
Lately to the smallish conservative crowd, notably once led by anti-prohibitionist William F. Buckley, is Jessica Corry of Colorado, a married, pro-life Republican mom, soon to be “freedom fighter of the month” in High Times magazine.
Recent partakers undoubtedly will have to rub their eyes for a double take when they spot Corry, who spoke last month at a NORML conference (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) in San Francisco, wearing an American flag lapel pin, a triple strand of pearls and a gold marijuana leaf pin.
Another day, another stereotype in the dust bin.
… Corry is hardly alone and, in fact, may be part of a “toking point.” (Is there a drug yet for “Tipping Point Fatigue”?) In its October issue, Marie Claire magazine featured “Stiletto Stoners” about accomplished career women who prefer to relax with pot. A September Fortune cover story, “Is Pot Already Legal?” examined the issue. In April, former (2006) Miss New Jersey, Georgine DiMaria, [Editor's Note: Georgine is an active member of NJ NORML.] outed herself as a stealth marijuana user to treat her asthma.
The real crux of Parker’s article, another idea she picks up from Corry, is the prediction that it will be women who lead the charge for legalization. It was the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform, both point out, who in 1929 spearheaded the movement to get rid of the ban on alcohol. (Thanks, ladies!) Parker also cites a Marie Claire article on “Stiletto Stoners,” high-achieving women who smoke weed, and the recent revelation that Miss New Jersey 2006 uses medical marijuana to calm her asthma. I would add the example of Marie Myung-Ok Lee, a mother who wrote in Double X about feeding her autistic nine-year-old son pot (in cookie form).
[excerpt] Whatever the perverse reasons motivating the district attorney’s position, the issue is not why but how to stop this alarming waste of resources. The media has focused on the fact that the amount of dispensaries in L.A. has mushroomed over the past year and on the ease with which marijuana users are obtaining recommendations. No one has focused on the fact that the war against dispensaries is another chapter in the escalation of the drug war, another excuse to send people to state prison, another mechanism to disenfranchise people whose medicine is not respected by law enforcement as legitimate.
This has to stop. In the wake of prison overcrowding and budget crisis, sending more people away and depriving the state of taxes they are currently reaping from dispensaries is not the answer.
This week, the LAPD is expected to crack down on medical marijuana dispensaries across Los Angeles. The time for action is now – before more people are caught up in the system, before more resources are wasted and before more lives are ruined.
Normal women, NORML women — fighting to end prohibition.
PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup’s October Crime poll finds 44% of Americans in favor of making marijuana legal and 54% opposed. U.S. public support for legalizing marijuana was fixed in the 25% range from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, but acceptance jumped to 31% in 2000 and has continued to grow throughout this decade.
The highest level of support for decriminalizing the use of marijuana today is seen with self-described liberals, among whom 78% are in favor. In contrast, 72% of conservatives are opposed. Moderates are about evenly divided on whether the use of marijuana should be legal, although they tilt against it (51% vs. 46%).
Gallup also finds a generational rift on the issue, as 50% of those under 50 and 45% of those 50 to 64 say it should be legal, compared with 28% of seniors.
Public mores on legalization of marijuana have been changing this decade, and are now at their most tolerant in at least 40 years. If public support were to continue growing at a rate of 1% to 2% per year, as it has since 2000, the majority of Americans could favor legalization of the drug in as little as four years.
Americans are no more — and no less — in favor of legalizing marijuana when the issue is framed as a revenue-enhancement tool for state governments. Regardless of how the question is asked, 53% of Americans living in the West — encompassing California, where the issue could be on the ballot in 2010 — support legalization.
It’s not a question of if cannabis will be re-legalized; it is a question of when, where, and how. Stats guru Nate Silver has opined that overall support for re-legalization should top 60% by 2022/2023 independent of any other factors but the continuing movement of Baby Boomers into retirement age. However, we here at NORML don’t really want to see another 11 million arrests between now and then, so we urge all of you to contact your elected officials to help us prove Mr. Silver to be too pessimistic.
In what can only be described as major departure in the so-called ‘war on drugs’, the Obama Administration is issuing a new three page memo this morning [Paul Armentano updates: You can now read the memorandum, signed by Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden, here. You can also share your thoughts with the White House on the administration's decision via NORML's Take Action Center here.] mapping out the federal government’s new guidelines for states that have laws protecting medical cannabis patients.
In February Attorney General Eric Holder indicated in a press conference that the Obama Administration–which favors physician-recommended access to medical cannabis–would abate from what had been an aggressive law enforcement (and propaganda) campaign against medical access to cannabis.
Today’s memo from the Department of Justice formalizes these changes and is a MAJOR victory for citizens who support cannabis law reform!
Report: New DOJ guidelines to back medical marijuana laws
By Bridget Johnson – 10/18/09 11:40 PM ET
The Obama administration is set to make a sharp turn from the Bush administration when it comes to state laws regarding medical marijuana usage, the Associated Press reported late Sunday.
The guidelines to be issued to federal prosecutors Monday will suggest that it’s not a good use of time to go after users and distributors of medical marijuana in the 14 states that allow such usage, while encouraging that illegal pot operations involving violence, firearms and sale to minors still be pursued.
Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington currently have state laws allowing at least limited use of marijuana for medical purposes. The AP reported that federal prosecutors in these states, as well as top officials at the FBI and DEA, would being receiving the three-page Justice Department memo outlining the new policy.
Under the George W. Bush administration, medical marijuana dispensaries were still targeted for violating federal law despite state laws allowing pot for medical use. Attorney General Eric Holder signaled a shift in this policy in March, stating that federal enforcement would concentrate on illegal marijuana operations that use medical pot allowances as a cover.
The move doesn’t come as a surprise, as Obama the candidate had expressed support for states that allowed medical marijuana.
“I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users,” then-Sen. Barack Obama said on the campaign trail in New Hampshire.
The state law under which Rick and I were prosecuted has since been modified by a voter initiative last fall removing all criminal penalties, and setting a $100 civil fine, for the possession of up to one ounce of pot in Massachusetts. Nonetheless, it would be great if we could convince the court of appeals that the private use of marijuana in Massachusetts, as it is in Alaska, is constitutionally protected conduct.
[Editor's note: A version of this post was previously list-served to NORML's membership in Massachusetts. To receive updates about pending legislation in your state, sign up for NORML's free list-serv service here.]
REMINDER — On Wednesday, October 14, Massachusetts state lawmakers will hear testimony in support of taxing and regulating the commercial production and distribution of marijuana for adults age 21 and older.
NORML founder and Legal Counsel Keith Stroup will testify in favor of the measures [Editor's note: Read Keith's written testimony here.] — along with NORML Advisory Board member Dr. Lester Grinspoon (Harvard Medical School emeritus) and members of NORML’s state affiliate, the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition.
This hearing is historic because it is the first time the state legislature has ever debated legalizing the adult use of marijuana.
If you live in Massachusetts, please show your support for these measures by contacting your state elected officials and urging them to support these common sense proposals. If your elected officials are members of the Joint Committee on Revenue or the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, then it is especially important that they hear from you. For your convenience, a pre-written letter will be e-mailed to your state senator and representative when you enter you go here. The Joint Committee on Revenue may also be contacted at:
House Staff Telephone: (617) 722-2320
Senate Staff Telephone: (617) 722-1625
Paypal, the well-known internet payment company has told California NORML that it will no longer accept payments to our “type of business” because we accept listing payments from cannabis-recommending physicians.
After years of offering free listings to physicians and collectives at our website http://www.canorml.org, CaNORML began charging a yearly listing fee to cover our costs last year.
PayPal froze CaNORML’s account in June, saying that by accepting listing fees fromcollectives, we were violating their Acceptable Use policy, which says, “you may not use PayPal in the purchase or sale of narcotics.” Although narcotics were not being sold over the CaNORML site, we reluctantly agreed to stop accepting listings fees from collectives that dispense medical marijuana, recognizing that even though they are legal under state law, they are illegal under federal law. However, we continued to accept payments online from doctors, attorneys, and members.
Now PayPal has stopped accepting payments from the CaNORML site because we continued to accept listing payments from physicians.
Under a ruling upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (Conant v. Walters, 2003), physicians have the first amendment right to discuss and recommend medical marijuana for their patients, although they may not distribute it or help patients in finding it. PayPal was informed of this and wrote back, “We are not arguing the legality of this issue; we are simply stating that we have made the business decision to not be involved with this type of business.”
Because of its discriminatory policy and disregard of physicians’ first amendment rights, CaNORML submits that PayPal is not the “type of business” to be used by those who advocate for human rights. We will file a complaint with the federal banking committee over their practices.
Located in San Jose, California, PayPal was founded in 1998 and was acquired by eBay (California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s former company) in 2002.
Complain to: PayPal, 2211 N 1st St, San Jose 95131 (408) 376-7400
We appreciate the fact that you chose PayPal to send and receive payments for your transactions.
Under the Acceptable Use Policy, you may not use PayPal in the purchase or sale of narcotics, steroids, certain controlled substances, products that present a risk to consumer safety or drug paraphernalia. PayPal makes such decisions after reviewing laws, regulations and other actions by governmental agencies, other available evidence, and marketing content related to the product.
To learn more about the Acceptable Use Policy, please refer to our Help Center page here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/helpweb?cmd=_help
We are hereby notifying you that, after a recent review of your account activity, it has been determined that you are in violation of PayPal’s Acceptable Use Policy regarding your sales at http://www.canorml.org/prop/collectivetips.html. PayPal cannot be used to accept fees for listing information related to marijuana dispensaries, delivery services and cannabis physicians.
Conventional wisdom dictates that if the people lead then our political leaders will follow. Of course, when it comes to marijuana law reform, conventional wisdom seldom applies.
As voters in several states head to the polls today to decide Governor and city council races it seems appropriate to ask: “Why are most politicians still inexplicably silent on marijuana law reform?”
[excerpt] Whatever the perverse reasons motivating the district attorney’s position, the issue is not why but how to stop this alarming waste of resources. The media has focused on the fact that the amount of dispensaries in L.A. has mushroomed over the past year and on the ease with which marijuana users are obtaining recommendations. No one has focused on the fact that the war against dispensaries is another chapter in the escalation of the drug war, another excuse to send people to state prison, another mechanism to disenfranchise people whose medicine is not respected by law enforcement as legitimate.
