It would set limits on how much cannabis people can have: an ounce of dried bud, 16 ounces of marijuana-infused foods in solid form, and 72 ounces of marijuana-infused liquids, or all three, Holcomb said. Limits are necessary to help ensure that people don’t buy large amounts for resale in other states, she said.

The Seattle Times breaks the news below and highlights some of the proposed initiative’s early and key supporters–including the former US Attorney, the current Seattle prosecutor and NORML Advisory board member Rick Steves.

NORML Advisory Board Member and Best-Selling Travel Author Rick Steves Addresses Hempfest's 100,000 @ 4:20

The 20th annual Seattle Hempfest will have two important reform projects for the hundreds of thousands to truly rally around this year: a state legalization initiative (the ACLU’s or Sensible Washington’s) and the first ever federal legalization bill expected to be introduced at any moment here in the decidedly less hip and green Washington, D.C.

Will 2012 be the year of mass marijuana legalization initiatives in America? It appears that way now with Washington, California and Colorado on track for such; Oregon, Massachusetts and Ohio may follow suit.

A coalition that includes former U.S. Attorney John McKay, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes and travel guide Rick Steves is launching an initiative that would legalize marijuana in Washington state.

The group, led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, decided to push the initiative this spring after Gov. Chris Gregoire vetoed most of a medical-marijuana bill that had passed the state Legislature.

“We did some more public-opinion research, looked at the numbers and said, ‘Yeah, this is the time,’ ” said Alison Holcomb, campaign manager for the initiative and drug-policy director of the ACLU of Washington.

The initiative would regulate the recreational use of marijuana in a way similar to how the state regulates alcohol..

It would legalize marijuana for people older than 21, authorize the state Liquor Control Board to regulate and tax marijuana for sale in “stand-alone stores” and extend drunken-driving laws to marijuana, with blood tests to determine how much of the substance’s active ingredient is present in a driver’s blood.

Taxing sales would bring the state $215 million a year, conservatively estimated, Holmes said.

McKay, who spent five years enforcing federal drug laws as the U.S. attorney in Seattle before he was fired by the Bush administration in early 2007, said he hopes the initiative will help “shame Congress” into ending pot prohibition.

He said laws criminalizing marijuana are wrongheaded because they create an enormous black market exploited by international cartels and crime rings.

“That’s what drives my concern: The black market fuels the cartels, and that’s what allows them to buy the guns they use to kill people,” McKay said. “A lot of Americans smoke pot, and they’re willing to pay for it. I think prohibition is a dumb policy, and there are a lot of line federal prosecutors who share the view that the policy is suspect.”

Supporters would have until the end of this year to gather more than 240,000 signatures to get the initiative before the Legislature. Lawmakers could approve or allow it to go to the ballot next year.

Read the rest of the article here.

Hawaii: House and Senate lawmakers could not come to agreement on Senate Bill 1458 before Friday’s legislative deadline, killing the measure for this year. As amended, the measure sought to restrict patients’ access to medical marijuana and would have imposed an exorbitant tax on the sale of medical cannabis via a single, state-licensed dispensary. As a result, NORML and our local allies The Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii had withdrawn its support for the measure. NORML and DPFHI will continue to partner in our efforts to work with legislators to enact sensible marijuana law reform in 2012.

Maine: Members of the Joint Standing Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety will hear public testimony on Tuesday, May 10, in support of LD 1453, which seeks to regulate the commercial production and distribution of marijuana for adults over 21 years of age. You can support this effort via NORML’s ‘Take Action Center’ here, and you can watch a recent press conference in support of the measure here.

Montana: On Friday, April 29, Gov. Brian Schwietzer announced that he intends to allow SB 423 to become law absent his signature. Senate Bill 423 repeals the state’s six-year-old medical marijuana law on July 1, 2011 and replaces it with entirely new provisions created by the legislature. The stated intent of this measure is to reduce the number of state-licensed medical cannabis patients from an estimated 28,000 today to less than 2,000.

Among the most serious changes in law:

* Chronic pain patients will face more stringent requirements to qualify under the law, and in some cases may require a recommendation from two separate physicians;

* Patients found guilty of marijuana DUI will have their medical marijuana privileges revoked; Advising physicians will be reported to the Board of Medical Examiners if they recommend for more than 25 patients per year.

* Physician will be responsible for the costs of this investigation;

*Caregivers may accept no monetary compensation for providing cannabis to qualified patients.

A full summary of SB 423’s provisions is available here.

Montana NORML is still encouraging advocates to pressure the Governor to change his mind and veto SB 423. You can contact the Governor’s office and leave a message at: 406-444-3111. Montana NORML is also contemplating the possibility of taking legal action and/or initiating a citizens’ referendum to delay or block the implementation of this law. For more information on these efforts, please contact Montana NORML here (or on Facebook here or contact Patients and Families United here.

Washington: Democrat Gov. Chris Gregoire on Friday vetoed sections of Senate Bill 5073, which sought to license and regulate the dispensing of medical cannabis to qualified persons, and would have enacted additional legal protections for patients who voluntarily participated in a statewide registry. In her veto statement, Gov. Gregoire alleged that the licensing and registry provisions “would open public employees to federal prosecution.”

Governor Gregoire did sign into law provisions in the measure reaffirming that qualified patients and their caregivers possess an ‘affirmative defense’ against state prosecution (Section 402 and 406). She also codified provisions of the measure that extend legal protections to patients or caregivers who participate in a ‘collective garden.’ A summary of the sections of SB 5073 that were approved, as well as a summary of sections that were vetoed, is available here and here. Additional information is available from the Washington state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) here or via Washington NORML here.

[The following blog post was submitted to the NORML Women's Alliance by Anna Diaz.  NORML's commentary appears in italics below.]

Urinalysis, the most common form of non-impairment drug testing, unfairly targets marijuana consumers because it screens for the presence of inert byproducts that may be detectable for days, weeks, or even months in former users. This is a discriminatory policy that sanctions individuals who may have consumed cannabis at some previous, unspecified point in time, while most other forms of illicit substance use to go undetected. Further, most marijuana consumers are responsible, hard-working Americans.  NORML believes that it is arbitrary and counterproductive to single these people out for punishment simply because they fail a urine screen.

By: Anna Diaz

NORML Women’s Alliance Steering Committee

Oregon NORML, Co-Founder

I am a Latina, a forty-year cannabis consumer, a medical cannabis patient and a single mother who has had to use public assistance more than once.  In 2011, Oregon and three other states have introduced bills that would require drug testing for people receiving public assistance.  I am writing to present my unique perspective on this issue, and why individuals should oppose any type of legislation that would require drug testing for all applicants looking to receive state services such as food stamps or unemployment benefits.

Many groups oppose this type of legislation including the ACLU, various associations of health professionals and, not surprisingly, organizations that assist women and children in need.  One in five Oregonians receive state services.  Currently, 79% of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits – formerly food stamps — in Oregon are awarded to households with minor children.  65% of the children receiving those benefits live in single parent households.  Most of these single parents are women.

The ACLU position states, “Drug testing welfare recipients as a condition of eligibility is a policy that is scientifically, fiscally, and constitutionally unsound.”

Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug-testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional.

Further, studies show that welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.  70% of illicit drug users are employed.  The ACLU also cites research showing that drug testing is an expensive and ineffective way to uncover drug abuse.

OR NORML's Madeline Martinez (with award) and Anna Diaz with NORML founder Keith Stroup, Esq.

This is an expense our state cannot afford under any circumstances.  The average cost for drug testing in Oregon is $44.00 a person.  According to the Oregon Department of Human Services, there were 361,300 households (682,000 people) receiving SNAP benefits in February 2010.   The caseload is expected to increase until it peaks at 398,000 cases (760,000 people) in April 2011.  That is a 10 percent increase from February 2010.  Even if only one test were administered per household, the cost of drug testing would be roughly $17 million dollars.

While there are several reasons to oppose this type of legislation in all four states, there is one reason that is very unique to Oregon. Oregon is the only state that has a medical marijuana program.  The problem is that the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act does not protect patients who also receive public assistance.  Should this bill pass, many of us would be ineligible for services just because we are legally using our medicine.

The ACLU is right. Drug testing welfare recipients as a condition of eligibility is unsound on all levels for everyone, including taxpayers.  It discriminates against medical cannabis patients, is a waste of money, and will hurt single parent households, which in turn, hurts our children.

Please send a message to the Oregon Legislature and ask them to oppose any type of drug testing legislation.  It only takes a few minutes, and you can do it right now.  Here is an example of what you can say to get you started:

“Please oppose any legislation that incorporates drug testing as a part of the law.  Our state cannot afford the expense, and these bills discriminate against disabled medical marijuana patients.”

]]> http://blog.norml.org/2011/02/03/drug-testing-state-services-applicants-%e2%80%93-it%e2%80%99s-just-wrong/feed/ 56 http://blog.norml.org/2010/11/01/we-are-less-than-48-hours-from-marijuana-becoming-legal-in-california/ http://blog.norml.org/2010/11/01/we-are-less-than-48-hours-from-marijuana-becoming-legal-in-california/#comments Mon, 01 Nov 2010 21:38:04 +0000 Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director http://blog.norml.org/?p=4562 Californians are less than 24 hours away from making history.

On November 2, tens of millions of voters will enter the voting booth and decide ‘yes’ on Proposition 19 — which re-legalizes the adult, non-medical possession, use, and cultivation of cannabis in California. For the first time in 97 years, marijuana will be legal under state law to possess, use, and grow in California. This will be the vote heard around the world.

If you live in California, imagine waking up Wednesday morning and knowing, for the first time since 1913, that marijuana (when possessed or grown within limited quantities) is legal under state law.

That is why it is so important that you and your like-minded friends take to the polls tomorrow. According to the latest Survey USA poll, which sampled voter’s sentiment through Sunday, October 31, Proposition 19 is in a statistical dead heat: 44 percent ‘for’ versus 46 percent ‘opposed’, with ten percent of voters undecided! In short, we are within striking distance, and victory is achievable — but only if you act on Tuesday.

I realize that some of you may still have lingering questions regarding Proposition 19 — how it will, and how it won’t change the marijuana laws in California. That is why NORML has posted a word-by-word analysis of Prop. 19 here. Or you can read specific sections of the measure here, along with detailed replies to frequently asked questions here. Finally, you can watch the latest ad in support of Prop. 19 here.

Proposition 19 is endorsed by an unparalleled coalition of social justice, law enforcement, civil rights, and drug policy reform organizations, including: NORML, The Drug Policy Alliance, The Marijuana Policy Project, DrugSense, StoptheDrugWar.org, the ACLU of Northern and Southern California, the California Libertarian Party, the California Green Party, the National Black Police Association, the National Latino Officers Association, the California Council of Churches IMPACT, the California National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the California League of United Latin American Citizens, the Latino Voters League, the Progressive Jewish Alliance, and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), Western States Council. These organizations, and many others, believe that November 3 will mark a new beginning in California — and around the globe.

Help make history on November 2 — support Proposition 19.

The California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, ruled yesterday that the state law requiring counties to issue identification cards to authorized medical marijuana patients is constitutional and must be implemented by the counties.

The suit had been brought by the County of San Diego against San Diego NORML and the state of California, alleging the provisions included in SB 420, adopted by the legislature in 2003, were preempted by federal law and were therefore unconstitutional. San Diego NORML had been named as a defendant, because they had publicly threatened to sue the county if they refused to implement the patient identification cards.

In a unanimous 39-page decision issued by Justice Alex McDonald, the three-judge panel undertook a thorough analysis of the legal doctrine of federal preemption, finding SB 420 was not in direct conflict with federal law, and rejected the county’s challenge.

The court found that a local government entity “charged with the ministerial duty of enforcing a statute generally does not have the authority, in the absence of a judicial determination of unconstitutionality, to refuse to enforce the statute on the basis of the (entity’s) view that it is unconstitutional.”

The court continued, “We conclude the identification card laws do not pose a significant impediment to specific federal objectives embodied in the CSA. The purpose of the CSA is to combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state’s medical practices. The identification card laws merely provide a mechanism allowing qualified California citizens, if they so elect, to obtain a form of identification that informs state law enforcement officers and others that they are medically exempted from the state’s criminal sanctions for marijuana possession and use. ”

The court further ruled, “Congress does not have the authority to compel the states to direct their law enforcement personnel to enforce federal laws.”

San Diego NORML is represented in this matter by Adam B. Wolfe, Esq., staff counsel with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project out of Santa Cruz, CA.

San Diego NORML had been named in the lawsuit because the group had publicly threatened to sue the county for failing to implement the state’s medical marijuana law, Proposition 215 and SB 420. San Diego NORML was represented in this matter by Adam Wolfe, Esq., staff attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project based in Santa Cruz, CA.

At the trial court level, Superior Court Judge William Nevitt, Jr., dismissed the challenge brought by the two counties, finding the state had the authority to legalize the medical use of marijuana despite federal law.

“California has the sovereign authority to not criminalize sick and dying patients,” said ACLU attorney Wolfe. “This case is really a matter of life and death for patients around the country.”

“What is important is that the patients who need medical marijuana have legal protection to use it, and they do under state law,” said NORML Legal Counsel Keith Stroup. “It is incredible that these two California counties would attempt to disrupt this important state program. Fortunately it appears the state courts will not allow this to happen.”

No decision is expected in this matter for a few months.

Compare that to the United States where a consumer is arrested every 38 seconds on cannabis-related charges (830,000 cannabis arrests in 2006), and, as of 2004, there were over 69,000 ‘offenders’ in jail or prison.

Update: Continued kudos in the New York Times today for Steves’ honesty and foresight regarding the urgent need for America to re-evaluate federal cannabis policies.

ACLU Washington head Kathleen Taylor kicks off this new campaign with a heartfelt plea in today’s Seattle Times.

Let’s Talk About Marijuana
by Kathleen Taylor

As parents, we want to shield our children from harm and reserve certain choices for when they are old enough to understand the risks and repercussions. Certainly, this is as true of marijuana as it is of alcohol and tobacco. But just as certainly, and as most teenagers will tell you, it is easier for them to buy marijuana than beer or cigarettes. Our marijuana laws don’t work. I know it. You know it. Scores of our neighbors know it.

But no one is talking. Most of us have our own ideas about what should be done, but this has to be a decision that we make as a community. Too much is riding on this issue not to have an honest, candid discussion. Please join us in the conversation.

Read the full story here.