[Editor's note: The reason why the editor of Foreign Policy magazine Moises Naim's recent column is significant is because for far too long the foreign policy community has been a willing conduit for exporting America's wrongheaded and failed cannabis prohibition around the globe. But, the American dominance of the drug policy debate has started to wane over the last 8-10 years in quarters like the United Nations, and columns like Mr. Naim's underscore the myriad reasons why America's elected policymakers need to adopt a reform mindset--notably under an Obama administration--not status quo retrenchment into an unyielding, prohibition-centric cannabis policy.]
The Washington consensus on drugs rests on two widely shared beliefs. The first is that the war on drugs is a failure. The second is that it cannot be changed.
Americans are a can-do people. They tend to believe that if something does not work, it needs to be fixed. Unless, that is, they are talking about the war on drugs. On this politically fraught issue, Washington’s elites and, indeed, the majority of the population, believe two contradictory things. First, 76 percent of Americans think the war on drugs launched in 1971 by President Richard Nixon has failed. Yet only 19 percent believe the central focus of antidrug efforts should be shifted from interdiction and incarceration to treatment and education. A full 73 percent of Americans are against legalizing any kind of drugs, and 60 percent oppose legalizing marijuana.
This “it doesn’t work, but don’t change it” incongruity is not just a quirk of the U.S. public. It is a manifestation of how the prohibition on drugs has led to a prohibition on rational thought. “Most of my colleagues know that the war on drugs is bankrupt,” a U.S. senator told me, “but for many of us, supporting any form of decriminalization of drugs has long been politically suicidal.”
As a result of this utter failure to think, the United States today is both the world’s largest importer of illicit drugs and the world’s largest exporter of bad drug policy. The U.S. government expects, indeed demands, that its allies adopt its goals and methods and actively collaborate with U.S. drug-fighting agencies. This expectation is one of the few areas of rigorous continuity in U.S. foreign policy over the last three decades.
A second, and more damaging, effect comes from the U.S. emphasis on curtailing the supply abroad rather than lowering the demand at home. The consequence: a transfer of power from governments to criminals in a growing number of countries. In many places, narcotraffickers are the major source of jobs, economic opportunity, and money for elections.
The global economic crisis will only intensify these trends as battered economies shrink and illicit trade becomes the only way for millions of people to make a living. Mexico’s attorney general reckons that U.S. consumers buy $10 billion worth of drugs from his country’s cartels each year, a business that propelled Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán Loera, the leader of the Sinaloa cartel, to Forbes magazine’s latest list of the world’s billionaires. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, all that money allows the two main cartels to train, equip, and pay for a highly motivated army of 100,000 that almost equals Mexico’s armed forces in size and often outguns them. And this ascendancy of the drug cartels is a global problem. The opium trade is equal to 30 percent of Afghanistan’s legal economy, and from Burma to Bolivia, Moldova to Guinea-Bissau, drug kingpins have become influential economic and political actors.
Fortunately, there are some signs that the blind support for prohibition is beginning to wane among key Washington elites. One surprising new convert? The Pentagon. Senior U.S. military officers know both that the war on drugs is bankrupt and that it is undermining their ability to succeed in other important missions, such as winning the war in Afghanistan. When Gen. James L. Jones, a former Marine Corps commandant and supreme allied commander in Europe, was asked last November why the United States was losing in Afghanistan, he answered: “The top of my list is the drugs and narcotics, which are, without question, the economic engine that fuels the resurgent Taliban, and the crime and corruption in the country. . . . We couldn’t even talk about that in 2006 when I was there. That was not a topic that anybody wanted to talk about, including the U.S.” Jones is now U.S. President Barack Obama’s national security advisor.
But such views have set off fierce clashes between military commanders newly focused on creating peaceful economic opportunities for Afghan families and the U.S. drug warriors set on eradicating Afghanistan’s major cash crop at any cost. What’s more, inertia alone almost guarantees strong support for drug eradication from the massive bureaucracy that lives off the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars that have funded the war on drugs for decades. The opinions of these drug warriors are immune to data: After decades of eradication efforts around the world, neither the acreage of land used to grow drugs nor the tonnage produced has shrunk.
But prohibition at any cost is becoming increasingly hard to defend. As the drug-fueled escalation of violence in Mexico spills across the border into the United States, the American public’s willingness to ignore or tolerate policies that don’t work is bound to decline. And the consequences of failure are already on mounting display: According to the U.S. National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican drug cartels have established operations in 195 American cities. It is much harder to ignore the collateral damage of the war on drugs when it happens in your neighborhood.
That is the case in many other countries where the nefarious side effects of U.S. drug policies have long been felt. Three of Latin America’s most respected former presidents, Brazil’s Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Colombia’s César Gaviria, and Mexico’s Ernesto Zedillo, recently chaired a commission that came out in favor of drastic changes in the war on drugs—including decriminalization of marijuana for personal use. The commission, on which I sat, spent more than a year reviewing the best available evidence from experts in public health, medicine, law enforcement, the military, and the economics of drug trafficking. One of the commission’s main conclusions is that governments urgently need options beyond eradication, interdiction, criminalization, and incarceration to limit the social consequences of drugs. But though smart thinkers increasingly propose confronting the drug curse as a public health crisis—more options are in the commission’s report at www.drugsanddemocracy.org—real alternatives have found no space in a policy debate stalemated between absolute prohibition and wholesale legalization.
The addiction to a failed policy has long been fueled by the self-interest of a relatively small prohibitionist community—and enabled by the distraction of the American public. But as the costs of the drug war spread from remote countries and U.S. inner cities to the rest of society, spending more to cure and prevent than to eradicate and incarcerate will become a much more obvious idea. Smarter thinking on drugs? That should be the real no-brainer.
Moisés Naím is editor in chief of Foreign Policy. [Editor's note: emphasis in column added]
Originally published, July 1, 2009, by University of Pittsburgh Law School publication, The Jurist.
Despite the glamorization on the hit Showtime series ‘Weeds’, flashy documentaries on CNBC delving into the business side of California’s multi-billion dollar annual cannabis industry derived from Californian’s unprecedented 13-year old legal access to medical cannabis products—qualifying patients in the state (and there are hundreds of thousands of them currently) can access high-quality medical cannabis via 24/7 vending machines in cities like Los Angeles—is Rhode Island the little state that is saying ‘yes we cannabis’ the loudest via their legislature?
‘Californication’ Of Cannabis
While California is clearly at the vanguard of implementing major legal and policy changes in seeming conflict with the federal government’s 72-year old cannabis prohibition laws, in fact little ol’ Rhode Island is on the precipice of effectively breaking the federal government’s ban on the cultivation and sale of cannabis by joining New Mexico as the only states favoring medical cannabis laws to have state-sanctioned medical cannabis cultivators and retail outlets for qualifying medical patients.
While there are an estimated 1,800-2,000 medical cannabis dispensaries (or in the new post Mentch parlance, cannabis wellness centers) in California alone, few of them are genuinely, legally sanctioned under state laws to sell cannabis in a retail environment. However, this blooming of cannabis wellness centers in California has happened under the full view of law enforcement, state policy makers and the public health community. Californians have ‘Main Street’ access to cannabis in many parts of the Golden State, which has evolved entirely organically—in other words, the mores and values of most Californians largely accept cannabis use, whether for recreational or medicinal purposes.
A recent Field poll of California voters affirms this with 56% support for outright legalization.
In Rhode Island, there is no highly refined ‘cannabis culture’, or longstanding public cannabis law reform efforts to speak of—unlike Californians that have publicly debated ‘legalizing’ cannabis on numerous statewide ballot initiatives and legislative proposals going back to the early 1970s—yet, Rhode Island’s legislators, from both parties and chambers, in opposition to the Governor and numerous federal government’s anti-drug bureaucracies (i.e., DEA, ONDCP, NIDA, DOJ, FBI, etc…) first passed a ‘self-preservation’ medical cannabis law two years ago [a ‘self-preservation’ medical cannabis model is defined as a qualified patient, for which a severely limited number of medical ailments qualify for cannabis use (i.e., Cancer, AIDS, Glaucoma, Epilepsy and MS), can legally possess or grow a small amount of cannabis; there is no legal retail access to cannabis, seeds or plant cuttings (clones)].
The Little State That Says To Washington: ‘Yes We Cannabis!’
However, Rhode Island legislators, only two years after passage of the original medical cannabis laws, recognized that a self-preservation model is inadequate to serve the needs of sick, dying or sense-threatened patients who need whole-smoked cannabis and edibles. Again, in full opposition to the Governor and federal agencies, overrode their second veto to establish Rhode Island as the first bona fide state to legally sanction and license third parties to cultivate and sell cannabis (in the case of Rhode Island, the recent medical cannabis legislation has provided initial approval to three medical cannabis wellness centers for the entire state).
For nearly 40 years, NORML has provided a voice in the public policy debate for the tens of millions of Americans who enjoy cannabis responsibly. NORML is and has always been the ‘marijuana’ consumers’ lobby.
In the short run, NORML favors the elimination of all criminal and/or civil penalties prohibiting the possession of cannabis for personal use, regardless of whether one is using it for medical purposes or for personal pleasure. Further, NORML opposes sanctions that presently prohibit the not-for-profit transfer of small amounts of cannabis between adults. This policy, called “decriminalization”, was the recommendation of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse in their groundbreaking 1972 report, Marijuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding. Versions of cannabis decriminalization have now been adopted in 13 states.
Cannabis consumers are ordinary Americans who work hard, raise families, pay taxes and contribute in a positive way to their communities. We are not criminals. Just as millions of Americans enjoy a beer or a glass of wine at the end of the day, we enjoy sharing a joint (or, for that matter, a vapor bag) when we relax in the evening. Of the nearly 900,000 marijuana arrests in America each year, about 90% are for possession of small amounts for personal use. Continuing with this Draconian policy makes no sense. That is why three out of four Americans now support decriminalizing the personal possession and use of cannabis.
NORML’s ultimate political goal is the establishment of a legally regulated market where consumers can obtain their cannabis in a safe and secure environment. This policy is generally called “legalization”. As our country discovered when we experimented with alcohol prohibition, it is only by providing a legally regulated market that we can significantly reduce the crime, corruption and violence associated with a criminal black market.
NORML supports the imposition of state and/or federal age and quality controls governing the commercial production, sale, and use of cannabis to assure public safety and to advise the consumer of the strength of the variety of cannabis being purchased.
And, importantly, we support the imposition of a reasonable tax on commercial cannabis sales that could raise substantial revenue for the various states, to be used for drug education and other programs to encourage responsible use and to discourage abuse. But as we work toward these goals, it is crucial that we underscore the importance of permitting consumers the option to grow their own cannabis.
Alcohol consumers possess the legal right to create their own home brew, free from government interference. Although the vast majority of alcohol drinkers never utilizes this freedom, and prefers the convenience of purchasing alcohol at a retail outlet, that option remains available to those who wish to use it. We believe that similar regulations should govern the non-retail production of cannabis.
The cultivation of cannabis for personal use is the single most important element of the NORML legalization proposal. Allowing for the legal, personal cultivation of cannabis provides consumers with the option to grow their own product should commercially available sources offer cannabis that fails to meet the consumers’ needs because it is excessively expensive, too heavily taxed, or of inferior quality. The mere threat of consumers exercising this option should be sufficient to assure that the legal market for cannabis will be responsive to the needs of consumers, and will not be exploitive.
So when any organization or any state or federal legislator proposes legalizing cannabis, either for medical use or for personal pleasure, but forbids the consumer from growing their own cannabis, those of us who lobby on this issue must insist on amendments to permit personal cultivation.
Otherwise we, cannabis law reformers, trade away our only leverage to keep the big corporations and the government honest and responsive to cannabis consumers.
A note from one of America’s military contractors (and a NORML member) serving in Iraq, along with some comments I saw over the weekend on NORML’s blogs, sharply reminded me of the need to post the final results from the NORML Foundation’s ‘4/20′ nationwide TV ad campaign, as well as the fundraising results notably centered around the ever-increasing popularity of April 20 as ‘Cannabis Consumers’ Day’ around the world.
Please find below a brief report about the number of ads, geographical dispersion of the ads, networks and costs; number of new NORML members, amount of donations received, webpage traffic and media interviews.
Hello Tyler,
Thanks for supporting NORML and having a keen interest in NORML’s longstanding pro-reform advocacy efforts. Since 1970, NORML (and later, the NORML Foundation) assists the victims of cannabis prohibition as well as representing the interests and concerns of the tens of millions of Americans who responsibly consume cannabis.
THANK YOU, thank you very much for serving the US’ armed forces, especially serving in Iraq!
NORML Foundation’s TV ad campaign (and the donation meter that went with it) ended after April 20th, after nearly 8,000 TV ads were purchased with the $16,000 donated from NORML supporters such as yourself. Thanks again!
Approximately $2,000 in donations earmarked for ‘NORML TV ad campaign’ are escrowed for the next promotional ad campaign.
Your email and suggestion remind me of the need to send the membership/blog post about NORML’s ‘4/20’ ad campaign, its cost, reach and results. Please look for the report to be posted this week to NORML’s frontpage blog.
Tyler, education, legislation and litigation, none of it in support of reform is made possible without the support of stakeholders like you.
Kind regards and be safe in Iraq,
Allen St. Pierre
Executive Director
NORML/NORML Foundation
1600 K St., NW
Suite 501
Washington, D.C. 20006
www.norml.org
director@norml.org
My name is Tyler D., and I support NORML and what it stands for. I’m from Louisiana, the land of constriction, and I’m currently in Iraq. I’m sending money to NORML, and buying things like my hemp daypack, tee shirts, and others. I send emails to the folks back home to be active, as well as the Governor, senators, and representatives. I want to know how far away we are from our goal of hitting mainstream commercials for NORML? I mean, it sounds all good and well, but give me an idea… Can you put a temperature bulb on the site somewhere that shows how close we actually are to seeing sense on television? I’d love to see advertisements go mainstream, as would a lot of others, but if there’s a large void, it would give me more incentive to give. If there wasn’t much left, then I would be excited to be that close. It’s a win/win. Just a thought…
Peace sir,
Tyler D.
Over 500 NORML supporters donated slightly more than $16,000 (avg. donation was $32) in support of running the winning 60 second ad from NORML’s 2008 online ad contest.
The advertising media used by the campaign combined low cost national cable and Ohio News Network. For added exposure element a PR bonus blitz was distributed via PRweb.com.
Initially, it was difficult t get approval to run NORML’s PSA/Commercial. Ohio News Network was quick to be first but other media outlets passed. Finally, a national media vendor with homes in every market in the country, gave the go ahead.
The National Cable Homes buy (April 20-April 22, 2009) reached homes with ’smart cableboxes’, which tracks the precise networks and advertising spots watched. NORML only paid for the audience reached and who stayed tuned to the ads.
-97.5% of people who watched the stay tuned in.
-Average length of time they viewed was 59.2 seconds
NORML’s ad buyers viewed the PSA as being very effective, and for the very high percentage of the public who watched the ad, they apparently could not turn away.
The Numbers
7,700 spots ran across 210 markets over three days, in each market, 38 spots ran on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, CNN-Headline News, FX, Spike and Fuse.
-A total of 2,428,858 total viewing households were reached
-A total of 2,394,690 actual viewers watched the commercials live
-34, 168 additional viewers recorded the networks and watched the commercials within 7 days
-75 spots ran in 1.5 million homes on the Ohio News Network from April 23-April 28.
NORML’s PR package reached 30,000 journalists, 30,000 websites and 225,000 RSS subscribers, resulting in over 136,313 viewed packages, and 2,118 media outlets tracked the story.
Because of the popularity of ‘4/20′ in general, the fact that theNew York Times covered the event (via the University of Colorado NORML chapter’s National Conference on Cannabis Law Reform); Spike, G4 and Comedy Central all aired ‘4/20′ specials; and pro-cannabis law reform rallies around the United States, made for NORML’s launch of the first ever nationwide TV ad campaign in support of ending cannabis prohibition a fortuitous one!
To wit, the largest number of citizens to step up and be counted as bona fide supporters of cannabis law reform (and NORML), over the course a 24-48 hour period, ever happened this ‘4/20′ with over 1,765 new supporters joining the organization; and these newly-minted NORML members donated over $11,500.
Additionally, but to no surprise to NORML’s staff (or ISP provider), NORML’s already popular webpage received a substantial spike in webpage and podcast traffic during ‘4/20′.
Notice NORML and High Time webpages spike, while other cannabis-oriented webpages remained flat (Data by Alexa.com)
NORML and NORML Foundation plan on running more TV, Internet and Radio advertisement campaigns in the second half of 2009.
Stay tune to learn more and how you and your like-minded friends & family can help bring these needed public service advertisements in support of re-legalizing cannabis to the public.
There has never been a greater cultural, media or political zeitgeist to re-legalize cannabis than right now. Indeed, even more so than the 1970s era of decriminalization.
Indicative of such momentum, last Thursday U.S. Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) have re-introduced the cannabis decriminalization bill that NORML help to write and champion for introduction in the 111th Congress.
Take Advantage Of Great Early Bird Registration and Reduced Room Rates At a Four-Star Tower Hotel in San Francisco
For this and other numerous reasons, if possible, please take advantage of NORML’s early bird discounts resulting in 35% off the conference registration and socials by registering ASAP.
Washington, DC: Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, along with co-sponsors Ron Paul (R-TX); Maurice Hinchey (D-NY); Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA); and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), will reintroduce legislation today to limit the federal government’s authority to arrest and prosecute minor marijuana offenders.
The measure, entitled an “Act to Remove Federal Penalties for Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults,” would eliminate federal penalties for the personal possession of up to 100 grams (over three and one-half ounces) of cannabis and for the not-for-profit transfer of up to one ounce of pot – making the prosecutions of these offenses strictly a state matter.
Under federal law, defendants found guilty of possessing small amounts of cannabis for their own personal use face up to one year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.
Passage of this act would provide state lawmakers the choice to maintain their current penalties for minor marijuana offenses or eliminate them completely. Lawmakers would also have the option to explore legal alternatives to tax and regulate the adult use and distribution of cannabis free from federal interference.
To date, thirteen states have enacted laws ‘decriminalizing’ the possession of marijuana by adults. Minor marijuana offenders face a citation and small fine in lieu of a criminal arrest or time in jail.
“The federal government has much more important business to attend to than targeting, arresting and prosecuting adults who use marijuana responsibly,” NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said. “This is an issue that ought to be handled by the states, not the Feds.”
According to nationwide polls, three out of four voters believe that adults who possess marijuana should not face arrest or jail, and one out of two now say that cannabis should be regulated like alcohol.
“The US Congress has a definite choice,” said St. Pierre. “They can choose the path of compassion, fiscal responsibility, and common sense by supporting Barney Frank’s and Ron Paul’s efforts, or they can continue down America’s failed drug war path by endorsing Rep. Kirk’s draconian legislation. It is abundantly clear which direction the voters wish to go; will their elected officials follow?”
Additional information about the ‘Act to Remove Federal Penalties for Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults’ is available at NORML’s Take Action Center.
14 May 2009
——- Kerlikowske Says Analogy Is Counterproductive; Shift Aligns With Administration Preference for Treatment Over Incarceration
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting “a war on drugs,” a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.
In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation’s drug issues.
“Regardless of how you try to explain to people it’s a ‘war on drugs’ or a ‘war on a product,’ people see a war as a war on them,” he said. “We’re not at war with people in this country.”
View Full Image Gil Kerlikowske, the new White House drug czar, signaled Wednesday his openness to rethinking the government’s approach to fighting drug use.
Mr. Kerlikowske’s comments are a signal that the Obama administration is set to follow a more moderate — and likely more controversial — stance on the nation’s drug problems. Prior administrations talked about pushing treatment and reducing demand while continuing to focus primarily on a tough criminal-justice approach.
The Obama administration is likely to deal with drugs as a matter of public health rather than criminal justice alone, with treatment’s role growing relative to incarceration, Mr. Kerlikowske said.
Already, the administration has called for an end to the disparity in how crimes involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine are dealt with. Critics of the law say it unfairly targeted African-American communities, where crack is more prevalent.
The administration also said federal authorities would no longer raid medical-marijuana dispensaries in the 13 states where voters have made medical marijuana legal. Agents had previously done so under federal law, which doesn’t provide for any exceptions to its marijuana prohibition.
During the presidential campaign, President Barack Obama also talked about ending the federal ban on funding for needle-exchange programs, which are used to stem the spread of HIV among intravenous-drug users.
The drug czar doesn’t have the power to enforce any of these changes himself, but Mr. Kerlikowske plans to work with Congress and other agencies to alter current policies. He said he hasn’t yet focused on U.S. policy toward fighting drug-related crime in other countries.
Mr. Kerlikowske was most recently the police chief in Seattle, a city known for experimenting with drug programs. In 2003, voters there passed an initiative making the enforcement of simple marijuana violations a low priority. The city has long had a needle-exchange program and hosts Hempfest, which draws tens of thousands of hemp and marijuana advocates.
Seattle currently is considering setting up a project that would divert drug defendants to treatment programs.
Mr. Kerlikowske said he opposed the city’s 2003 initiative on police priorities. His officers, however, say drug enforcement — especially for pot crimes — took a back seat, according to Sgt. Richard O’Neill, president of the Seattle Police Officers Guild. One result was an open-air drug market in the downtown business district, Mr. O’Neill said.
“The average rank-and-file officer is saying, ‘He can’t control two blocks of Seattle, how is he going to control the nation?’ ” Mr. O’Neill said.
Sen. Tom Coburn, the lone senator to vote against Mr. Kerlikowske, was concerned about the permissive attitude toward marijuana enforcement, a spokesman for the conservative Oklahoma Republican said. [drug war]
Others said they are pleased by the way Seattle police balanced the available options. “I think he believes there is a place for using the criminal sanctions to address the drug-abuse problem, but he’s more open to giving a hard look to solutions that look at the demand side of the equation,” said Alison Holcomb, drug-policy director with the Washington state American Civil Liberties Union.
Mr. Kerlikowske said the issue was one of limited police resources, adding that he doesn’t support efforts to legalize drugs. He also said he supports needle-exchange programs, calling them “part of a complete public-health model for dealing with addiction.”
Mr. Kerlikowske’s career began in St. Petersburg, Fla. He recalled one incident as a Florida undercover officer during the 1970s that spurred his thinking that arrests alone wouldn’t fix matters.
“While we were sitting there, the guy we’re buying from is smoking pot and his toddler comes over and he blows smoke in the toddler’s face,” Mr. Kerlikowske said. “You go home at night, and you think of your own kids and your own family and you realize” the depth of the problem.
Since then, he has run four police departments, as well as the Justice Department’s Office of Community Policing during the Clinton administration.
Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that supports legalization of medical marijuana, said he is “cautiously optimistic” about Mr. Kerlikowske. “The analogy we have is this is like turning around an ocean liner,” he said. “What’s important is the damn thing is beginning to turn.”
James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest law-enforcement labor organization, said that while he holds Mr. Kerlikowske in high regard, police officers are wary.
“While I don’t necessarily disagree with Gil’s focus on treatment and demand reduction, I don’t want to see it at the expense of law enforcement. People need to understand that when they violate the law there are consequences.”
While 4/20 has become an national phenomenon of sorts, and is the launch date these days for numerous commercial products and services directed at America’s cannabis consumers, this remarkable day in my view has lacked a certain degree of needed gravitas– with ‘4/20′ looking more like a ‘party in the park’ than genuinely organic socio-political events that elected policymakers and the media should take seriously.
However, I’d like to highlight the Colorado University chapter of NORML for not only holding the largest organized annual ‘4/20′ event in the world–but for recognizing this year, a year marked so far by an ever-growing voter sentiment about the need to legalize cannabis–that ‘4/20′ provides cannabis law reform advocates a prime annual opportunity to do far more than just protest in the park by convening a day-long, substantive conference in advance of ‘celebrating cannabis’ the next day by exploring logical and effective alternatives to cannabis prohibition.
NORML encourages college chapters of NORML and SSDP to follow CU NORML’s lead by organizing ‘marijuana forums’ on their campuses next week, as college students are disproportionately arrested at higher rates than most other subgroups of Americans for cannabis possession charges and can be denied access to federal loans for college if convicted of a single cannabis possession offense.
Despite President Obama’s unfortunate inability to take Americans’ current calls for cannabis law reforms seriously, there is nothing funny about cannabis prohibition in America. Next weekend at The University of Colorado at Boulder, students, activists, professors, lawyers and doctors, as well as proponents of cannabis prohibition will engage in serious-minded discussion and symposiums about how to move forward into the near future by crafting functional cannabis policies at the state and federal level.
National Marijuana Forum
April 18-20, 2009
University of Colorado, Boulder
Colorado NORML is pleased to announce the second annual Hunter S. Thompson Scholarship to attend the NORML Aspen Legal Seminar!
The NORML Legal Committee’s Annual Aspen Conference (which is a continuing legal education seminar for practicing lawyers) is scheduled for June 4th and 5th, 2009, at The Gant. Colorado NORML, is presenting the scholarship, which covers three nights lodging and the conference registration fee, to an attorney or cannabis law reform activist who, by written submission, demonstrates 1) a desire to improve public advocacy and/or trial skills related to representing cannabis consumers in the courts (criminal, medical, and more), 2) a demonstrated need for financial assistance to attend this year’s Aspen Legal Seminar.
The value of the scholarship is approximately $1000.00.
Some of the finest defense attorneys (and cannabis law reform activists) in the United States have been coming to NORML’s Aspen seminar for many years to learn, enjoy the inspired environs of beautiful Aspen in early summer–and to do so at VERY reasonable rates. This year’s seminar focuses on state and federal medical marijuana laws, and is a MUST educational opportunity for medical marijuana patients, providers, cultivators, as well as for criminal defense attorneys (and public defenders, who receive a discount to attend).
Check out this year’s informative and interesting schedule here. The social events, including a great, private dinner catered by Cache Cache’s Chris Lanter, are included with the scholarship.
Criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, cannabis law reform activists, medical marijuana patients and their providers from the 13 states with medical cannabis laws are strongly encouraged to attend (HI, AK, WA, OR, CA, NV, NM, CO, MT, MI, RI, VT and ME).
Submission for this year’s Hunter Thompson Scholarship is by fax, mail or email. The scholarship is awarded by the CONORML board of directors, please direct your submissions ‘Attn: Steve Wells’ at: swells@conorml.org, (303) 725-0774 (f) by April 15, midnight Rocky Mountain High time–and we hope to announce the recipient of the scholarship on April 20th, 2009.
Colorado NORML
PO Box 492
Longmont, CO 80502
The submission word count rule will be strictly enforced. Submissions may be of any length…
I received a late Friday afternoon call from one of Larry King’s producers in Los Angeles seeking some cannabis-related factoids and related information for an apparent debate tonight on CNN’s Larry King between libertarian Congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul, M.D. and, well, actor Steven Baldwin.
The submission word count rule will be strictly enforced. Submissions may be of any length…
