Ask any seasoned drug policy reformer about one of the biggest hurdles to overcome in reforming cannabis laws and they’ll quickly acknowledge that to be the lack of both outreach to and participation from minorities (and women). This is why the recent announcement below by the American Bar Association (ABA) to hold a seminar in New York City this August heartens me.

If drug policy reform is to make the large strides that its important mission and sense of purpose aspires, it can’t achieve such without the participation of both minorities and women in substantially larger numbers.

This important seminar is free to the public and provides continuing legal education (CLE) credits for lawyers.

The Council on Racial and Ethnic Justice is comprised of eleven members appointed by the ABA President and is committed to:

-eliminate racial/ethnic bias in the justice system by educating and involving lawyers and their bar associations

-engage lawyers and their bar associations in programs designed to eliminate racial/ethnic bias in their communities.

Alternative Solutions to the Impact of Drugs on Communities of Color

Saturday, August 9, 2:00-3:30pm, Marriott Marquis, Music Box, Majestic Complex, 6th Floor

Conclave with the leaders of color from the medical, dental, legal and other pertinent professions to discuss the impact of drugs and drug policies on communities of color. Crucial issues that confront communities of color that are combating these issues will be addressed, and an in-depth discussion on how to obtain the necessary resources, networks and tools will be discussed. This will be a complimentary CLE program.

In the seminal legal case challenging the US government’s mis-scheduling of cannabis under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act (CSA), NORML vs. DEA, at a crucial junction in 1988, which would have readily ended most administrative law challenges, NORML, et al (Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics, Drug Policy Foundation, etc…) won the re-scheduling argument before Drug Enforcement Administration Law Judge Francis Young.

This past week the Federal Communications Commission ruled in the infamous Janet Jackson ‘wardrobe malfunction’ that the $550,000 fine levied by the FCC against CBS was excessive and “arbitrary and capricious”.

Hmmm…“arbitrary and capricious”…where have I heard that phrase before regarding the actions of over-reaching government agencies?

On September 8, 1988, after 16 years of legal challenges from NORML and company, Judge Young ruled:

“…the marijuana plant considered as a whole has currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, that there is no lack of accepted safety for use of it under medical supervision and that it may lawfully be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II.”

“The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record.”

The DEA ignored their own administrative law judge’s ruling, appealed the decision to the US Appeals Court in Washington, DC, and ultimately won their only phase of the case—the final phase of the case—in 1994 in a 2-1 decision, which in effect permits the DEA to in fact be ‘arbitrary and capricious’, and I’d throw in malevolent for good measure, in respects to cannabis.

Thanks to Ellen Komp at veryimportantpotheads.com for alerting folks to this interesting juxtaposition of the recent FCC decision and the DEA’s long tortured position on medicinal cannabis.

Lastly, Ellen points out that the ‘Lectric Law Library’ provides the definition of ‘arbitrary and capricious’ to mean: Absence of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

A few months ago it was Iowa’s Democratic Senator Tom Harkin that was replying to his constituents claiming cannabis “use often has fatal consequences” and that cannabis users may actually sell their children for ‘drug’ money.

Now, Senator Charles Grassley (R) in a letter to constituents, oddly equates cannabis use to genocide, murder and child rape.

After several thousand years, civilized societies have failed to eliminate murder, rape, or child abuse. Nor have they eliminated organized crime, the manufacture of counterfeit money, or genocide. But no one seriously sees these failures as justification for surrender. Illegal drug use costs society at least as much as any of these social ills. Yet we do not hear any calls to legalize these abuses. Why then should we give up? Should we surrender to the criminals, and legalize marijuana? No. Instead, we should do whatever we can to prevent criminals from gaining the upper hand, do what needs to be done to give our families, our friends, and our neighbors a safe and secure place to live.

However, his major problem with this premise, and presumably his underlying rationale for supporting cannabis prohibition, is that few in the United States (even in Iowa) agree with such absurd assertions as most citizens perceive cannabis use closer to alcohol consumption—and since the mid-1990s, as a valuable, non-toxic, affordable and effective medicine.

Also, similar to the Harkin letter, Senator Grassley equates cannabis law reform with “surrender”, which helps one understand how hard it is to lobby these gents when they cast the debate as ‘winning’ or ‘surrendering’ (but, what else is new in DC?).

There are many reasons why America’s 70-year old cannabis prohibition, a failed public policy many times worse in scope and cost than alcohol’s short-lived prohibition, still prevails. Regrettably, because of the way the US Senate works regarding seniority, committee assignments and a senator’s individual ability to place a hold on legislation, cannabis reform is always against the eight ball in the Senate in a way not possible in the House of Representatives.

Senator Grassley is too smart and sophisticated a man to really believe that cannabis use equates to murder, child rape and genocide. Please join NORML in contacting Senator Grassley and asking him to stop replying to his constituents in Iowa with non-sense, and to support the decriminalization of cannabis and to allow sick, dying and sense-threatened Iowans (and citizens nationwide) to legally access and use medicinal cannabis.

Thanks to Ames Progressive’s Gavin Aronsen for the tip and Grassley’s letter to constituents who contact him about cannabis law reform is read here.

And How It Informs About Who Supports Cannabis Prohibition…

“Supporting marijuana use is an example of domestic terrorism—it puts the public at great risk and threatens the very fabric of our society.” -Ron Brooks, President of National Narcotics Officers’ Association, 4/11/08

In my many annual public appearances and media interviews advocating for cannabis law reforms, the question will often arise ‘if NORML and the other drug policy reform groups are right that there are safe and viable alternatives to cannabis prohibition laws, who then opposes you in trying to amend current state and federal laws?’

The recent political endorsement given to former Republican congressman and ardent drug warrior Doug Ose by the National Narcotics Officers’ Association (NNOA) provides a handy opportunity that helps reveal exactly who are America’s prohibitionists and what are their motivations against ending cannabis prohibition.

Who Actually Supports (Or Profits From) Cannabis Prohibition?
At this juncture having worked over 17 years at NORML/NORML Foundation, my standard reply, without achieving doctoral dissertation length is 1.) There are five basic subgroups of Americans who strongly oppose any reforms in cannabis laws, and 2.) These subgroups constantly seek to deepen and enhance prohibition laws, i.e., politically and culturally oppose citizens and organizations who don’t favor prohibition laws; advocate for greater criminal sanctions and fewer civil liberties (more penalties, longer prison sentences, higher fines, and more of the ‘Big Three Ps’: police/prosecutors/prisons) and civil penalties (forfeiture, drivers license suspension, loss of child custody for parents who consume cannabis, denial of college loans to students busted for pot, removal from public-assisted living housing, etc…).

The Five Pillars Of Pot Prohibition
For all intent and purposes, in my opinion, educators, religious leaders, health organizations, military leadership, business and insurance institutions, and economists are not rabid supporters of cannabis prohibition per se. However, the five subgroups of Americans who do support rigorous cannabis prohibition laws and penalties are:

Full Story

One’s very first impressions of Steve Bloom’s and Shirley Halperin’s Pot Culture, An A to Z Guide to Stoner Language and Life are of extremely high quality publishing, immense and comprehensive review of pot culture and a passion for cannabis.

Said with a degree of cocksureness, there are not too many people in the world the director of NORML would fear in a ‘pot culture’ quiz, however, I quiver at the prospect of facing Bloom and Halperin in such a contest! I’d be hard pressed to identify a better written and published pro-cannabis polemical, especially its ability to chronicle pot culture through the lens of pop culture, notably the entertainment industry.

The expansive photos, nifty graphics, along with Steve Marcus’ eye-catching cartoon art are of immense high quality, reflect the authors’ mastery of subject matter and demonstrate genuinely hard publishing work (the photo credit work alone appeared to be a full time job). Abrams Image, the book’s publisher, has produced a publication equal to the authors’ passions.

One of the book’s features I particularly like are the numerous celebrity guest contributions and commentaries, among the many:
-Adrianne Curry writes about ‘How to hide the smell’
-Kal Penn opines on ‘Playing a movie stoner’
-Melissa Etheridge on ‘Medical Marijuana’
-Tommy Chong writes the book’s introduction
-Jonah Hall demonstrates ‘How to make apple pipe’
-Redman teaches ‘How to roll a blunt’
-Matthew McConaughey ‘Talking Dazed’

Written in an easy to read A to Z format, there are virtually no ‘stoner’ questions left unanswered, from ‘when did 4:20 start?’ to ‘what are the most stoner-friendly movies and TV shows?’ Pot Culture ably melds pop culture, politics and activism into a very informative and entertaining mix—not usually an easy task for a polemical, but Bloom and Halperin pull it off well.

Steve is a lifetime member of NORML and a frequent contributor to NORML’s daily podcast, Daily AudioStash.

Upon completing Pot Culture I came to a familiar affirmation regarding cannabis prohibition: The more the government prohibits cannabis, rejects law reform efforts, spends tax dollars on enforcement and tries to suppress pot culture, the more the pot subculture (and economy) flourishes, expands effectively unabated and is ever-increasingly being embraced by mainstream media and culture.

Along with a pleasant, informative and comprehensive tour de force of the intersection of cannabis and commerce, Bloom & Halperin’s Pot Culture profoundly demonstrates the resiliency of cannabis consumers in the face of a historically alcohol-dominant culture and so-called stoners’ abilities to create a nurturing and sustained pot culture.

Interested in reading Pot Culture? You can do so and join NORML’s law reform advocacy efforts at the same time. Nice twofer!

Happy Birthday Lester from everyone at NORML!

For the past 7 years the Louisville Late Night TV Show has been celebrating the past, present and ongoing profound contributions of Harvard Medical School Professor Dr. Lester Grinspoon, M.D, (retired) to stop the arrest of responsible marijuana smokers and advance the use of marijuana as a medicine with their annual Louisville “Lester Grinspoon Day.”

Full Story

By George Rohrbacher, NORML Board Member

George and Ann Rohrbacher with family in 1988. This photo captures the mid-point in George’s 40 years of cannabis use.

Fatherhood.

It was the fall of 1969, about six weeks after Woodstock, my senior year at the University of Denver. I had just moved into an apartment two blocks off campus. Tuesday, my first day in the new apartment, I’d borrowed a frying pan from the next-door neighbor, a young woman, tall and shapely with long honey-brown hair. She was the most beautiful woman I’d ever seen. I’d stood out on her porch for several minutes with the borrowed frying pan in hand, stunned.

The next day, on Wednesday evening, I looked up to see someone knocking on my un-curtained living room window—a short guy with wild eyes and a goatee. There was a big, big smile on his face. He held up a nice fat joint pinched between his thumb and forefinger. With the other forefinger he pointed next door. My gorgeous new next-door neighbor had sent him. She wanted to meet me! Did I go? Hell yes!! No one need ask me twice after such inducements.

Minutes later, in her apartment, we fired up that doobie. We had an unbelievably fun time together. Ann, my new neighbor, was not only good looking, but she was smart, interesting, and friendly, too—as beautiful on the inside as she was on the outside. To my eyes, Ann glowed like a homing beacon. I walked her to class on Thursday and wrote her a poem. On Friday, we flew to Seattle to meet her parents. A little over a week later, I asked her to marry me—that was 38 years and many pounds of pot ago.

Full Story

A three-judge panel of the California appeals court in San Diego heard oral arguments on Tuesday, June 10, on the suit earlier filed by the counties of San Diego and San Bernardino against the state of California and San Diego NORML, claiming the state medical marijuana law was in conflict with federal law and therefore unenforceable. San Diego and San Bernardino Counties are appealing the earlier dismissal of their suit by a San Diego Superior Court judge, finding the state had acted properly.

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.

Full Story

One of the only things that makes me madder than seeing the day in, day out waste of public resources and abuse of citizens’ rights associated with pot prohibition are some of the absurd stepchildren born of the government’s zeal in trying to enforce cannabis prohibition laws, quash popular culture and stymie entrepreneurialism.

Case in hand, a federal bureaucracy, the US Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is harassing a family-owned microbrewery in Northern California for some creative marketing, while looking the other way regarding the advertising practices of a huge, politically powerful beer company.

Treasury technocrats are taking umbrage with the Mt. Shasta Brewing Company’s use of bottle caps imprinted with ‘Try Legal Weed’, claiming that beer (AKA a drug) can’t have a drug reference, even when the reference is the name of the brewery’s hometown and last name of the city’s (Weed, California) 1880s wood baron founder (Abner Weed).

Mt. Shasta Brewing Company’s already sold 400,000 brews with names like Shastafarian Porter and Mountain High IPA (an additional catchy slogan on these notable craft beers: ‘A Friend in Weed is a Friend Indeed’), and had started printing up an additional 400,000 bottle caps in February when the feds put the kibosh on these funny and effective marketing double entendre.

Vaune Dillmann, Mt. Shasta Brewing Company’s 61-year-old owner and a former cop, irked by the government’s heavy handedness and lack of a sense of humor, is vexed by the obvious double standard that the feds don’t harass Budweiser for their now ubiquitous slogan ‘This Bud’s for you’.

Dillmann tells the LA Times’ Eric Bailey, “They Sell Bud. We Sell Weed”.

The ‘Weed’ beer debacle reminds me of a another recent and equally absurd government effort to ‘protect’ citizens from marketing imagery prohibitionists and well intending public health officials don’t like…

The Tallahassee Police Have Much To Answer For Regarding The Murder Of Rachael Hoffman

For the last few days I’ve receive email from the Tallahassee area from NORML supporters claiming to either know or be friends with Rachael Hoffman, that she was busted a few weeks ago and accused by police for selling a small amount of cannabis and possessing MDMA was squeezed by local police to become a snitch, and that, disturbingly to them all, she had been missing for a few days. They were genuinely in fear of her life.

In the last 48 hours, police arrested two suspects in Rachael’s disappearance, and early yesterday she was confirmed murdered.

Today, as the general public around Tallahassee and Florida learn more about how the police used this young woman for controlled drug buys, the public comments found online and on local radio talk shows demonstrate terrific outrage directed towards the police.

Thankfully.

I spoke with Rachael’s mother Margie Weifs late yesterday afternoon. Talk about a difficult conversation. What do you say to a mother who has just found out that her only daughter is dead? A beautiful daughter dead not at the hands of cannabis, but the police agency that chose to bust her for pot (or, as Tallahassee law enforcement are calling pot in this case, narcotics), wire her and send her towards men who were reportedly buying and selling hard drugs, actual narcotics, to ensnare them for future arrest and prosecution?

To say that Rachael’s mom is not confused, angry and wanting answers to this terrible tragedy in Tallahassee would be a woeful understatement. After the answers, she tells me she wants justice in this case.

Watch the video of Tallahassee’s Chief of Police here trying to explain why getting murdered was Rachael’s fault, not the police’s. Further, watch here the Police Department’s Public Information Officer get grilled by Florida media about police procedures.

Did the police follow proper procedure in using Rachael for controlled buys? See the Tallahassee Police’s ‘rules and procedures’ for using snitches here and here.

There is an outpouring in Tallahassee from Rachael’s friends and family to try to heal, and then to organize against both the recruitment of young girls by police to be wired confidential informants and the general prohibition of cannabis.

In Margie’s view, her daughter would be alive today, going into a Mother’s Day weekend, but for a country that does not tax and control cannabis.

Ms. Hoffman is hardly the first young person induced by police to set up other possible illicit drug users who has been killed because they’d hoped their cooperation with police was going to lead to some modicum of deferential treatment from the prosecutor’s office.

PBS’ Frontline examined the disturbing and increased use of confidential informants by federal and local law enforcement in the award-winning SNITCH. But, unfortunately from my biased viewpoint, few in the mainstream media have cast light on police tactics in their daily and futile efforts to enforce prohibition laws (an exception here is the reporting of Reason Foundation fellow and Cato Institute researcher Radley Balko).

Health and Self-Preservation Tip: If law enforcement ever approach you (or a loved one) regarding a cannabis-related offense, and then seek to recruit you to became a confidential informant or a snitch, ‘just say no’ as your life (or that of a loved one) may be in danger.