NORML's Chart of Legalization Polls - data compiled by Russ Belville from various organizations asking a form of the question "Should marijuana be legalized in America?" (click graphic for full-sized version)

The successes of Prop 215 are well documented.  Two years following its passage, the rest of the West Coast and Alaska passed their own medical marijuana initiatives, with close to equal (OR 55%) or greater (WA 59% & AK 58%) support than California voters gave Prop 215.

The next decade saw twelve more states and the District of Columbia passing medical marijuana laws, with seven of those states doing so through the legislature.  Five of the citizen initiatives topped 60% support.  As states passed medical marijuana, some added more conditions for qualification, some legislated dispensary operations, and the most recent have instituted protections for the rights of patients to drive, work, have a home, get an organ transplant, and raise their kids.  In some ways, medical marijuana has improved in fifteen years.

In the 21st Century, medical marijuana support has flatlined and support for legalization of marijuana has almost doubled.

But a closer examination reveals a reform strategy that has stalled out and may even be in decline.  The last election saw Oregon fail to pass a dispensary measure for the second time with about the same support after six years.  South Dakota defeated medical marijuana with only 36% support, a drop of 12 points since they tried in 2006.  Arizona only barely passed medical marijuana with 50.13% support, when they had previously seen 65% in 1996 and 64% in a 1998 referendum (both 1990′s Arizona Acts were invalidated.)

Indeed, the national polls show a stalling on the medical marijuana issue as well.  When Gallup asked about support for medical marijuana and legalized marijuana in 1999, support was 73% and 29%, respectively.  We assume that someone who supports legalization for healthy people probably supports legalization for sick people, too, so that means 44% of those polled only support medical marijuana, not legalization.  But in the latest 2011 poll, legalization support has hit 50% while in the 2010 poll, medical support had dropped to 70%, down 8 points since 2005.  How has the support for legalization doubled (25% to 50%) since Prop 215 while support for making a medical exception to criminal marijuana has flatlined?

Your Bill of Rights does not fully apply in the shaded states

We’ve seen how courts, legislatures, and law enforcement have supported medical exceptions – by trying to make those exceptions as narrow and costly as possible.  No state followed California’s lead in making marijuana available by doctor’s recommendation for “any other illness for which marijuana provides relief”, instead crafting strict condition lists and patient registries.  The West Coast standard of a dozen or more home-grown plants became 3-6 plants or no home growing at all.  The precedent of a half-pound or more of usable medicine became 1 or 2 ounces, tracked to the gram and filmed at all times.  Courts all across the Ninth Circuit have ruled that medical marijuana use does not protect patients from job discrimination and patients still experience housing, child custody, and medical procedure discrimination on a daily basis.

Medical marijuana laws have become stricter since California's Prop 215

Oregon legislators proclaimed the medical marijuana program rife with abuse on the sole evidence that 50,000 patients had signed on, so they doubled the mandatory registry fee (up to ten times greater if you’re poor and previously got a discounted fee) to reduce the medical marijuana registry numbers.  Oregon sheriffs are in agreement with the ATF that patients have no Second Amendment rights.  Colorado legislators passed a series of medical marijuana business regulations making it more difficult and expensive to operate a dispensary than a liquor store and impossible to be a personal caregiver who just supplies marijuana to a patient.  Montana outright repealed medical marijuana, saved only by a governor’s veto, only to enact new strict regulations to decimate (literally) the medical marijuana program.  California localities continue to restrict dispensary operations.  Washington’s governor vetoed a dispensary measure.  Arizona’s governor is stonewalling implementation of dispensaries.  Alaska, Maine, Nevada, and Vermont still have fewer than 1,000 protected patients.  New Jersey and District of Columbia leaders are dragging their feet and haven’t implemented their programs yet.

What don't we have on site? Spell check.

The basis of medical marijuana restrictions and discrimination depends on a federal Schedule I designation that defines the use of cannabis by healthy people a criminal act.  These restrictions, dropping poll numbers, and failing medical marijuana initiatives indicate a substantial portion of Americans that believe “compassionate use” is a ruse (I wonder what gave them that idea?).

I believe that there are three basic stands on medical marijuana among the voters not personally invested in the issue:

1. The people who believe pot smoking is evil and will never support anyone using it for any reason (“prohibitionists”).
2. The people who believe pot smoking is evil, but letting cancer and AIDS patients suffer is more evil (“medicalizers”).
3. The people who don’t believe pot smoking is evil and would allow any adult to use it (“legalizers”).

If there are 1.5 million pot smokers protected from arrest by medical marijuana laws, why have marijuana arrests continued to climb?

The prohibitionists will never support medical marijuana and the legalizers have always supported medical marijuana.  So the fate of any medical marijuana proposal rests on whether a coalition of legalizers and medicalizers can form a majority.  Over the past fifteen years, forming that majority has required more restrictive definitions of medical marijuana to assuage the medicalizers who increasingly think evil pot smokers are getting through the loopholes.  Worse, forming that coalition requires legalizers to tacitly agree that healthy pot smoking is evil.

When medical marijuana began in the Nineties, the rallying cry was “If there’s going to be a ‘War on Drugs’, let’s get the sick and dying off the battlefield.”  If that’s the case, why do we continue to see a rise in “casualties” on the battlefield?  Even in medical marijuana states, annual arrests of cannabis consumers continue to rise.  All medical marijuana has done for marijuana convicts is improve their population’s average level of health in sixteen states.

It's time to stand up for healthy marijuana users

Medical marijuana started a revitalization of marijuana activism.  But I believe it has reached a point where any future medical marijuana laws will have to be increasingly restrictive.  And the near future holds DEA rescheduling of plant THC for use by Big Pharma in devices that will provide all the medical relief without the “high”, which will cleave some of the medicalizers away from further reforms.  We’ve gotten to a point in time where half as many people only support “medical legalization” over a decade and support of legalization for all adults now outnumbers opposition for the first time.

This is not to argue that we give up on medical marijuana campaigns.  It is to argue that the campaigns need to be re-framed away from “Oh, no, this isn’t legalization at all!” to “Yes, we’re going to legalize for sick people first”.  Until marijuana is supported as a good thing for all and not an evil thing we allow medical exceptions for, medical marijuana patients will remain in second-class citizenship and healthy marijuana smokers will remain behind bars.

In response, NORML Foundation has just published a new book entitled ‘Medical Marijuana Law in California’, researched and written by NORML Legal Committee lawyers from Ventura, James Devine and Jay Leiderman.

While the name of this new legal guide implies exclusivity to California, the reality is that the legal information found in the guide is applicable to the other fourteen states and the District of Columbia that now have legal protections for qualified patients who’ve received a physician’s recommendation to posses and use medical cannabis. California’s patients and ‘cannabusinesses’ were the first in the country, starting in 1996, to legally vet most of the legal/public health concerns regarding medical cannabis (i.e., If a passenger in a car has medical cannabis on his person, is the driver liable for ‘drug transportation?‘ or ‘Can I fail a drug screen at work because I’m a state-approved medical cannabis patient?‘, ‘Can I be a medical cannabis patient and still own a gun?’, etc….).

No personal or legal library that focuses on cannabis is complete without this new book from the NORML Foundation.

If you’re a patient, cultivator, provider, physician, investor, policymaker or member of the media, the 2011 NORML ‘Medical Marijuana Law in California’ is a great and affordable source of up-to-date legal information about the current state of California’s medical marijuana laws.

Topics include:

-Who can use medical marijuana and how much can they possess?

-Medical marijuana in the workplace

-Driver’s Licenses

-Paraphernalia

-Collectives

-Immigration

-Guns

-Probation and Parole concerns

-Concentrated cannabis products like hash, oils and ‘medibles’

-Numerous other legalisms and case studies regarding medical marijuana

*Single copies of the 170-page legal guide retail for $15 (two copies for $25) and are now available online here.

**Bulk copies are available for bookstores, medical cannabis dispensaries, lawyers, physicians and organizations by emailing an inquiry to legal@norml.org, or, by calling 202-483-5500.

Thanks for supporting cannabis law reforms, as well as supporting America’s oldest and largest public interest organization that lobbies, litigates and educates on all matters marijuana-related: NORML!

Sources at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the United States attorney’s office in San Francisco said that federal officials would likely pursue criminal or civil litigation against local marijuana growers as well as Oakland city officials if they decide to move forward with plans to license medical cannabis farming. “Oakland would be on the hook for violating state and federal law,” an unnamed administration official told the website.

Oakland City Attorney John Russo confirmed that DOJ officials are opposed to the city’s licensing plan. “They’ve expressed their concerns that the path Oakland is taking is in violation of the law,” Russo said in a prepared statement.

Oakland officials are seeking to license up to four industrial-sized medical marijuana grow operations within the city limits. The permits do not set limits regarding the quantity of cannabis that licensed producers may cultivate at each given site. City officials began accepting applications from prospective growers in November.

According to the California Watch report, federal officials are also planning to initiate a broader crack down on marijuana production and distribution statewide. The story reports that DOJ and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officials met with California’s four U.S. attorneys on November 10 “to develop a plan to deal with some of the loopholes and gray areas in the state’s medical marijuana program.”

The administration’s threats appear to be in conflict with an October 19, 2009 DOJ memo stating, “As a general matter, pursuit of [federal law enforcement] priorities should not focus federal resources … on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.” Nevertheless, as previously reported by Americans for Safe Access and others, the administration since issuing that memo has engaged in an estimated 30 federal raids of medical marijuana providers, producers, and laboratory facilities that engage in the testing of cannabis potency and quality.

NORML will have further details on this story in Thursday’s weekly media advisory.

Even if Prop. 19 passes, federal drug laws will be ‘vigorously’ enforced, official says
via The Los Angeles Times

The nation’s top federal law enforcement official said the Obama administration would “vigorously enforce” drug laws against people who grow, distribute or sell marijuana for recreational use even if California voters pass a measure to legalize it.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., in a letter sent Wednesday to nine former chiefs of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, wrote, “Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens.”

The initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot would allow Californians 21 and older to grow up to 25 square feet and possess up to an ounce of marijuana. It also allows cities and counties to authorize cultivation and sales. Several cities, including Oakland, appear poised to do so if the law passes. [Author's note: Oakland appears poised to do regardless of whether Prop. 19 passes or not.]

Holder’s letter was made public Friday.

… Possession and sales of marijuana are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. In his letter, Holder wrote: “We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law.”

To which I’d respond: So what? Of course the Obama administration is wedded to America’s failed prohibition policies. After all, it is their policy.

And of course the voters of California cannot change the federal Controlled Substances Act via a statewide vote. Nobody ever claimed that they could.

However, here’s what is noteworthy. Despite the claims of various Prop. 19 opponents that the measure is in ‘direct conflict‘ with federal law or is somehow ‘unconstitutional‘ and would thus be ‘preempted’ by the Feds, at no time today did the federal government challenge the fact that Californians have the legal right to determine their own marijuana policies. Rather, the federal government simply reinforced that they remain of the opinion that marijuana ought to be criminally outlawed — a position that is out-of-step with the American public’s sentiment.

Furthermore, Californians have been here before, and not just in 1996. Seventy-eight years ago this November, Californians overwhelmingly voted for the repeal of a morally, socially, and economically failed public policy – alcohol prohibition. Voters did not wait for the federal government to act; they took the matter into their own hands. And they will do so again this November.

Finally, it goes without saying that the federal justice department — verbal bluster aside — lacks both the resources and the political will to take on the role of targeting and prosecuting the estimated 3.3 million Californians who are presently consuming cannabis for non-medical purposes. These duties are relegated to state, not federal, law enforcement officials. Just as medical marijuana has existed as a legal market in California, in obvious violation of federal Controlled Substances Act, Prop. 19 will too remain the law of the land post-November 2.

Which ultimately begs the question, “If a government’s legitimate use of state power is based on the consent of the governed, then at what point does marijuana prohibition — in particular the federal enforcement of prohibition — become illegitimate public policy?” Perhaps it is time to ask President Obama and United States Attorney General Eric Holder?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

The five cases follow:

10:00 a.m.: People v. Robinson (Paul Eugene), S158528 involves the use
of DNA profile evidence to identify an unnamed defendant in a felony
complaint and arrest warrant.

11:00 a.m.: 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.”

1:30 p.m. In re J. (E.) on Habeas Corpus, S156933 and other consolidated
cases involve residential restrictions imposed on persons required to
register as sex offenders.

2:30 p.m.: People v. McKee (Richard), S162823 concerns the validity of
amendments to the Sexually Violent Predator Act, making commitments
indeterminate, instead of for a term of two years.

3:30 p.m.: People v. Lessie (Tony), S163453 involves the legal effect of
a minor’s request to speak to a parent during a police
interrogation.

EDUCATIONAL WEB SITE

The Supreme Court has launched an educational Web site for the special
session, which includes detailed summaries and briefs for each case to
be argued, at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/oralarg-briefs.htm.

Detailed case summaries, with information on the background and legal
issues involved in each case, are attached to this news release and can
be found at
www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/briefs/berkeley-case-synopsis.doc .

These materials may be used by students, teachers, and members of the
public to learn more about the five cases that will be argued before the
Supreme Court on November 3, 2009.

The Supreme Court also will hear oral arguments on Wednesday, November
4, 2009, in its courtroom in the Earl Warren Building, Fourth Floor, 350
McAllister Street. Those arguments will not be televised, but they are
open to the public. The court’s calendar for both days is at
www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/calendars/documents/SNOVC09PDF .

-#-

Editor’s Note: News media may request reserved seats through Lynn
Holton at lynn.holton@jud.ca.gov or Susan Gluss at
sgluss@law.berkeley.edu .

Pooling for TV and radio stations will be available near Booth
Auditorium on November 3, 2009.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR63-09.PDF

There is no direct link to the webcast yet, but it will be available online at The California Channel as well as on your local cable tv provider. This is on the Cal Channel homepage: “Upcoming Events – November 3, 2009: California Supreme Court Special Public Outreach Session from Berkeley, California”

http://calchannel.com/

The common inference behind this question is that there must be some behind the scenes cabal of Big Pharma, Tobacco, and Alcohol executives conspiring to keep cannabis illegal. By contrast, the real culprits behind pot prohibition are far more overt.

Law enforcement organizations — including cops, district attorneys, prosecutors, prison guard unions, sheriffs, and narcotics officers associations — remain the primary force working against sensible marijuana law reform.

Case in point? Look no further than these two egregious examples:

Los Angeles County D.A. prepares to crack down on pot outlets
via the Los Angeles Times

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley said Thursday he will prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries for over-the-counter sales, targeting a practice that has become commonplace under an initiative approved by California voters more than a decade ago.

“The vast, vast, vast majority, about 100%, of dispensaries in Los Angeles County and the city are operating illegally, they are dealing marijuana illegally, according to our theory,” he said. “The time is right to deal with this problem.”

Cooley and Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich recently concluded that state law bars sales of medical marijuana, an opinion that could spark a renewed effort by law enforcement across the state to rein in the use of marijuana. It comes as polls show a majority of state voters back legalization of marijuana, and supporters are working to place the issue on the ballot next year.

Even prior to the passage of California’s passage of Prop. 215, cannabis dispensaries — the same sort of dispensaries that D.A. Cooley now unilaterally defines as a “problem” — operated openly, and without incident, in L.A. County. Today, over 1,000 such operations exist in Los Angeles. District Attorney Cooley has now arbitrarily declared that “100%” of these dispensaries are acting illegally based not on a court decision, but rather on his own personal anti-pot bias.

Do a majority of public of L.A. county share D.A. Cooley’s view that open market, regulated medi-pot transactions are, in fact, a “problem?” Not at all. Does the will of the voters actually matter to their District Attorney? Not at all.

According to a separate story from the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, D.A. Cooley “was one of dozens of guests at a recent conference … in which the topic was the ‘eradication of medical-marijuana dispensaries in the city of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County,’ according to a flier advertising the event hosted by the California Narcotics Officers’ Association.”

This, of course, would be the same California Narcotics Officers Association that just last month issued the white paper: “California Police Chiefs Association Position Paper on the Decriminalization of Marijuana.” You can read the entire position paper here (Have a potent anti-emetic handy!), but here’s some excerpts.

“Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, was passed by California voters in 1996 on a ballot initiative promoted by those who subscribe to the idea that all drug use should be legalized.”

“It has become clear, despite the claims of use by critically ill people that only about 2% of those using crude Marijuana for medicine are critically ill. [Editor's note: Predictably, no statements, including this bogus percentage, are actually cited with any supporting documentation.] The vast majority of those using crude Marijuana as medicine are young and are using the substance to be under the influence of THC and have no critical medical condition. … Marijuana is being abused by people who have no serous medical condition and simply like to be intoxicated on Marijuana.”

“Marijuana as a smoked product has never proven to be medically beneficial and, in fact, is much more likely to harm one’s health.”

“The thought of decriminalizing Marijuana or allowing taxation of Marijuana is bewildering. The thought that a group of individuals would want to advocate for decriminalization of a substance that the state of California has deemed to be carcinogenic is alarming. [Editor's note: Alcoholic beverages and aspirin -- along with over 300 other substances -- are also included on California's Prop. 65 list of official carcinogens. I suppose the CNOA would argue that these substances ought to be illegal as well.]

“The use of intoxicating and addictive substances fuels crime and destroys lives by creating addiction and dependency. Children are victims of abuse and neglect at the hands of parents or caretakers who live in addiction. Young adults are particularly vulnerable to addiction. Relaxed attitudes toward drug use place them at greater risk of addiction. Clearly legalization of Marijuana will lead to great use by those who would not use if it were not legal. [Editor's note: Virtually every study on this subject finds just the opposite outcome. You can read summaries from a couple dozen or so here, here, and here.] This increased use will lead to negative outcomes.”

“Much as we see in the use of other controlled substances,
people who become addicted to Marijuana and cannot afford to maintain their addiction will turn to crime in order to supply themselves with their drug of choice.”

“Marijuana is not and never will be good for the success, education, and well-being of our society. When a person examines the two known abused drugs in our society, alcohol and tobacco, from a Public Health standpoint, those two substances would be recommended today to be banned. [Editor's note: And apparently the CNOA would be in full support of such a ban.] The California Police Chiefs Association clearly understands that this will not occur. But, the discussion of Marijuana is important especially in light of the money being infused by the Drug Alliance [Editor's note: Who are they?] and their ability to prey on unsuspecting compassionate people of our great state.”

Who is really behind marijuana prohibition. The answer should be obvious.

By Dale Gieringer, Ph.D, Director, California NORML

California NORML has recently heard increasing reports that Marinol patients are being drug tested and denied employment for use of marijuana. In particular, we have heard from legal Prop. 215 patients who were denied jobs despite presenting Marinol prescriptions after being re-tested specifically for marijuana. Until recently, Marinol and marijuana were indistinguishable on the standard drug tests, so that patients with a Marinol prescription had a valid medical excuse under federal law for testing positive for marijuana.

However, special testing techniques have been developed that make it possible to distinguish the two by testing for non-standard cannabinoids that appear in marijuana but not Marinol. Until recently, these tests were expensive and rarely used except in high-profile criminal cases. However, it appears that they are now being routinely used by certain laboratories in cases where Marinol use is claimed. In particular, we have heard reports of such testing being used to disqualify Marinol-using Prop 215 patients by the transportation industry and by Walmart.

California NORML has accordingly altered its drug testing information to warn against relying on Marinol RXs as a screen for marijuana use: http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/testing.tips.html

There is of course no valid scientific or health justification for allowing patients to use Marinol but not marijuana. The only purpose is to enforce compliance with the law. It is a tribute to the power and influence of the drug testing industry that they have prevailed in foisting the costs of this unnecessary and obnoxious procedure on employers.

California NORML, 2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114

(415) 563-5858 / www.canorml.org

Too bad nobody told the cops.

According to papers recently submitted to Congress by the US Drug Enforcement Administration, representatives from the California Police Chiefs Association believe that they can simply override laws that they philosophically disagree with.

Here’s what Association President Steve Krull had to say about this matter in a 2006 letter to former DEA head Karen Tandy: “[A] concentrated effort [by the DEA in California] sustained over a period of time would send a strong message to local and county government that ‘medical marijuana’ is not allowed [in this state.]”

Except for the fact that it is.

Jacob Sullum over at Reason.com nails the situation here, but my added frustration comes from mainstream media’s utter failure to cover this story. Forget that this topic has any connection to marijuana; the larger and more far reaching issue here is that we now have physical evidence that a rogue group of law enforcement officers are trying to undermine democracy and the rule of law.

Perhaps if this sort of behavior was taking place in a foreign country, the US news media would be investigating the issue seriously. But instead the guilty parties are our own police officers, so the mainstream press simply sweeps the story under the rug.

Nothing to see here, except there is.