Hahn wants to tax LA marijuana dispensaries
By Gene Maddaus Staff Writer
Posted: 07/15/2009 07:13:56 PM PDT
Councilwoman Janice Hahn is leading an effort to impose a tax on marijuana
sales as Los Angeles officials look for ways to close a gaping structural
deficit in its budget.
Hahn, who represents an area from San Pedro to Watts, made a motion
Wednesday to explore taxing revenues of marijuana dispensaries.
"We're always looking for a way to raise more revenue," Hahn said, noting
the tax could bring in millions of dollars. "The legitimate clinics don't
mind this. They feel like it makes them more legitimate, and more a part of
the city family."
The city has imposed a moratorium against marijuana dispensaries, but
hundreds of clinics have opened anyway in recent months thanks to a
"hardship" exemption in the city ordinance.
The council is now trying to shut down those clinics, which number more than
500, prompting an outcry from dispensaries and their supporters.
Hahn said the marijuana tax - which would have to be approved by the voters
- is aimed at the approximately 200 clinics that opened legally before the
moratorium was approved, and is not intended to legitimize the "hardship"
clinics.
Tyler Roberts, the co-owner of The CannaVerse, recently opened his club in
San Pedro under a hardship exemption. He said he is worried that the city
will deny the exemption when it comes up for a hearing.
"I would love to pay a tax and to be able to know that my store is just as
legitimate as the locksmith next door to me," Roberts said. "If it
straightens out this hardship exemption crap they've got us going through, I
would be all for it."
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, has offered a bill to tax
marijuana statewide, much like alcohol or cigarettes. State tax officials
believe a $50 per ounce tax would generate $1 billion a year in new
revenues, which would help close the state's budget gap.
The city of Oakland is also moving forward with a 1.8 percent tax on
revenues at the city's four dispensaries. Officials believe that tax, which
is on the city ballot next week, will bring in $400,000 a year.
Stewart Richlin, an attorney who has represented many marijuana clinics in
their battle against the city of Los Angeles, said that any new tax should
be modest.
"The power to tax is the power to destroy," Richlin said. "If it's going to
be an unusual or unreasonable tax, it's going to lead to people going to the
black market."
Richlin suggested that the revenues should be earmarked for drug education
or subsidies for low-income patients who cannot afford marijuana. He
objected to likening marijuana to "sin tax" items like alcohol and
cigarettes because he believes marijuana ought to be regulated as a
prescription drug.
Dispensaries currently pay business license fees and sales tax.
Councilmen Dennis Zine and Bill Rosendahl joined Hahn in making the motion.
Rosendahl would like to see the federal government drop its objections to
state laws permitting medical marijuana laws. He also said he favors taxing
the "hardship" clinics for as long as they are allowed to stay in business.
"If citizens come to me with complaints, I support shutting them down,"
Rosendahl said. "If people don't complain, I'm not going to go make an issue
out of it."
He said he had joined police officers on a visit to a dispensary in Venice
to check compliance with city laws.
"To see the prices that they have," he said, "one would think there could be
a very handsome revenue stream for the city."
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
Palm Springs Gets Ready for a Collective
Terria Smith • The Desert Sun • July 12, 2009
Eleven medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives have submitted
applications to operate dispensaries in Palm Springs.
This comes three months after the city's zoning and land-use ordinance
regulating dispensaries was passed.
The ordinance allowed a 90-day window for establishments to apply to
become one of the city's two legally operated facilities, said Doug
Holland, Palm Springs city attorney.
Craig Ewing, director of Planning Services for the city, said it now
will have to work quickly to review the applications.
"According to the ordinance, we have 30 days to complete our review.
We've had a few in for a while so that's helped. It's going to be a
challenge. We've sent them over to the police; they can only go as fast
as state and federal (agencies) reply. We'll have a report to the city
manager with information we have by August 6," Ewing said.
Under the ordinance dispensaries may not operate in commercial areas,
Holland said.
There can also be no more than two dispensaries within city limits,
Holland said.
The city has filed suit against at least two unnamed dispensaries that
have been operating illegally, Holland said.
In addition to adhering to legal requirements the two dispensaries
should also have the ability to sufficiently provide cannabis for a
large number of patients, said Lanny Swerdlow, president of the
Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project, a medical marijuana advocacy group,
with members in the Coachella Valley.
"You don't just sell marijuana. There are different strains for
different conditions. For insomnia there's one type, for pain there's
something else," Swerdlow said.
He estimates that each facility may have to service as many as 3,000 to
4,000 patients.
"The council members need to understand that patients need a variety
of medicines to meet their variety of needs," Swerdlow said.
Desert Sun reporter K Kaufmann contributed to this report.
http://www.mydesert.com/article/20090712/NEWS01/907120343/1006/NEWS01/Pa\
lm-Springs-marijuana-collectives-vie-for-city-approval
America's Love Hate Relationship With Pot
America's Love-Hate History with Pot
With a New CBS News Poll Finding 41% Now Support Legalization,
CBSNews.com Examines Changing Views of Marijuana in the U.S.
July 13, 2009
(CBS) This story was written by Charles Cooper and Declan McCullagh as
part of a new CBSNews.com special report on the evolving debate over
marijuana legalization in the U.S. Click here for more of the series,
Marijuana Nation: The New War Over Weed
http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504243_162-156.html?tag=contentMain;contentB\
ody
Norm Stamper still remembers the day, nearly six decades ago, when a
police detective visited his elementary school class to warn of the
dangers of smoking the "devil weed."
"That was the term he used -- and he even brought along a bag of
marijuana to show us," said Stamper, 65, who would later become
Seattle's police chief. "I remember him saying something to the effect
that, 'If you smoke this, it will rot the membrane in your nose.' He was
an authority figure, and so I figured he could tell me something about
the dangers of this drug. That was my early education about marijuana."
By today's standards, such a warning might sound as dated as the
bug-eyed, morally-depraved pot fiends portrayed in the 1936 movie Reefer
Madness.
But it was in line with the prevailing view of the 1950s, which
considered marijuana to be not just a dangerous drug, but a stepping
stone to the use of heroin or even more dangerous controlled substances.
In 1979, 27 percent of Americans favored legalization, according to a
CBS News/New York Times poll at the time.
A new CBS News poll released today finds that more Americans now support
legalization. Forty-one percent said they think marijuana should be made
legal and 52 percent are opposed. That's even more than in a CBS News
poll in March when 31 percent said they in favor of legalization in all
cases with another seven percent saying they would favor legalization if
marijuana were taxed and the money went to projects. (More information
from the poll will be released later this morning.)
"They told us that marijuana was a gateway drug," said Stamper, who
these days is a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. "It was
not."
The story of how a child of the post-war era came to doubt, and then
reject, conventional wisdom about the horrors of the "devil weed"
parallels the story about how the rest of America has gradually
rethought its views of marijuana. The transformation has been
intertwined with the rise of the Baby Boom generation and its
successors, the societal upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s, and a
generational shift that chipped away at long-held assumptions about
trust and authority.
Today the potent smell of marijuana legalization is in the air. States
including California and New Mexico -- and, as of mid-June, Rhode Island
-- already permit marijuana's use for medicinal purposes. The success of
those initiatives, coupled with an economic downturn, a president who
did inhale and governors who are willing to discuss complete
legalization, make it seem possible that legal bans on recreational use
of marijuana will, in the not-so-distant future, go up in smoke.
Smoke or Fire: How Pot Got Banned
By historical standards, today's federal ban on possession of marijuana
may eventually be viewed as something of an aberration. There's evidence
that the intoxicating properties of cannabis were known to Chinese
physicians about 2,000 years ago. And for the first few hundred years
after colonies were established on Jamestown and Plymouth Rock, the
possession of intoxicants was not forbidden.
That began to change about 100 years ago. In response to worries about
opium addicts, the International Opium Convention was held in 1909,
which led to a drug-control treaty signed three years later by the major
nations at the time, including the United States.
The domestic political debate over opiates had unmistakable racist
overtones. A 1914 headline in the New York Times said "Negro Cocaine
'Fiends' Are A New Southern Menace; Murder And Insanity Increasing Among
Lower Class Blacks Because They Have Taken To 'Sniffing' Since Deprived
Of Whisky By Prohibition." Another article about a black man who was
lynched refers to him as a "cocaine fiend"; another says that "opium,
the most pernicious drug known to humanity, is surrounded, in this
country, with far fewer safeguards than any nation in all Europe fences
it with."
Congress enacted a law known as the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914,
which regulated cocaine and opiates. Because that era coincided with a
robust view of states' rights, the federal law did not seek to prohibit
the private possession of pot directly. Such a measure probably would
have experienced a swift demise at the hands of the judicial system at
the time. So the Harrison Act's drafters took a more circuitous
approach: they imposed stiff taxes.
Cannabis was believed to be a narcotic having practically the same
effect as morphine and cocaine, and state restrictions began sprouting
like weeds.
Some western states seem to have restricted it out of hostility to
Mexican immigrants; a Chicago Tribune article from 1919 called cannabis
"a weed of the Mexican desert." During the debate on Texas' first
marijuana law, noted Charles Whitebread, a professor at the University
of Southern California Law School, one legislator in the Texas Senate
declared in session that "all Mexicans are crazy and this stuff is what
makes them crazy."
That was not an isolated sentiment. In a letter to the Bureau of
Narcotics, Floyd Baskette, then the city editor of The Alamosa Daily
Courier in Colorado, complained in 1936 about felons arrested while
under the influence of marijuana.
"I wish I could show you what a small marijuana cigarette can do to one
of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents," he wrote. "That's why our
problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is
composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentally,
because of social and racial conditions..."
Other states and cities -- including New York City in 1914 -- outlawed
pot for fear it was, or would become, a gateway drug leading to the use
of opium or cocaine.
The Legal War Over the Weed
One year after the filming of "Reefer Madness," Congress enacted a law
restricting the use of marijuana, cannabis or hemp. While it was a tax
bill that did not officially ban pot, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was
the first step toward a complete federal prohibition.
The net effect of this Prohibition-era provision was to deter -- and
stigmatize --recreational use of these substances for more than the next
couple of generations. The Marihuana Tax Act is perhaps most remembered
for the controversial testimony supporting its passage.
One of its chief proponents, Harry J. Anslinger, then the Commissioner
of Narcotics for the Treasury Department, offered testimony depicting
marijuana in stark terms.
"Some individuals have a complete loss of sense of time or a sense of
value," Anslinger said. "They lose their sense of place. They have an
increased feeling of physical strength and power. Some people will fly
into a delirious rage and they are temporarily irresponsible and may
commit violent crimes... It is dangerous to the mind and body, and
particularly dangerous to the criminal type, because it releases all of
the inhibitions."
At the time, there were more than two dozen medicinal products on the
market which contained marijuana. In the new political climate, replete
with warnings from the federal government, they didn't last long.
The anti-marijuana laws toughened up with the passage of the Boggs Act
in 1951, enacted with the same justification that New York City invoked
a generation earlier -- that while marijuana was not addictive, it could
invite users to switch to heroin. First time offenders could receive up
to five years in jail. For second-timers, the range was between five and
ten years, while third-time offenders could wind up sitting in prison
between ten to twenty years.
This federal act increased penalties for drug violators -- marijuana
newly included -- and the individual states followed Uncle Sam's lead.
But it was the return of the stepping stone thesis which made headlines.
Once again, testimony surfaced linking marijuana with harder narcotics,
and Anslinger returned to the microphone to sound more alarm bells.
"The danger is this," Anslinger said. "Over 50 percent of these young
addicts started on marijuana smoking. They started there and graduated
to heroin. They took the needle when the thrill of marijuana was gone."
As the Beat Generation discovered its voice after World War II, it
nonetheless remained a dangerous time to be caught with a joint. The
hipsters remained a distinctly small minority, and movies like "High
School Confidential" (1958) depicted marijuana infiltrating a small town
high school. Marijuana possession was considered a felony in all 50
states punishable by punitive prison terms.
But social upheaval loomed. When the youth counterculture emerged in the
1960s, its embrace of drugs forced lawmakers and police to deal with a
sudden demographic change: Marijuana was no longer a problem confined to
Hispanics and blacks. The sons and daughters of the white middle class
were also toking up, and in significant numbers.
Although public opinion was slow to catch up to the shift -- only 15
percent of the American people polled in a Gallup poll at the time
favored marijuana legalization -- by the end of the decade, the laws
recognized the difference between marijuana and more dangerous
narcotics.
Taking stock of the chronology of events in February 1970, the New York
Times noted: "The problem has begun to come home to roost -- in all
strata of society... suddenly, the punitive, vindictive approach was
touching all classes of society. And now the most exciting thing that's
really happening is the change in attitude by the people. Now we have a
willingness to examine the problem as to whether it's an
experimentation, or an illness rather than an 'evil.'"
In subsequent years, the push behind marijuana legalization began to
receive broader support. It was even supported by conservative icon
William F. Buckley, who argued that the war against pot was wasting time
and money.
"Most transgressors caught using marijuana aren't packed away to jail,
but some are, and in Alabama, if you are convicted three times of
marijuana possession, they'll lock you up for 15 years to life," he
warned in 2004.
Gradually, but consistently, social acceptance of marijuana continued to
climb. By the 1980s, over 80 percent of high school students said they
had easy access to marijuana. By 1988, no less an authority than the
Drug Enforcement Administration's administrative law judge, Francis
Young, concluded that "marijuana may well be the safest psychoactive
substance commonly used in human history."
As they do each April 20, when pot enthusiasts gather for so-called
"smoke-out" events around the nation, the pro-legalization movement
points to the greater acceptance of marijuana use as a harbinger of
legal changes. Keith Stroup, founder of the marijuana legalization
organization NORML, earlier this year earlier this year told CBS
News.com that "within 5 years we're going to stop arresting responsible
marijuana smokers in this country."
Meanwhile, medical marijuana initiatives have carried the day in several
states, including California, Washington, Hawaii, Oregon, Alaska,
Colorado, Nevada and Maine. And even though federal law continues to
prohibit smoking marijuana even for medicinal purposes, the Obama
administration has said it would no longer send federal police to
conduct armed raids against dispensaries in states where voters have
legalized medical marijuana.
As for the legalization of marijuana for recreational use: So far, most
politicians seem wary of the topic, and are being more conservative in
their public statements than polls would suggest.
When Mr. Obama, who has admitted to smoking pot, held a virtual town
hall meeting in March, tens of thousands of Americans voted via the
Internet on questions that he should be asked. Marijuana legalization
was by far the most popular topic, with questions such as this one:
"What are your plans for the failing, 'War on Drugs', that's sucking
money from tax payers and putting non-violent people in prison longer
than the violent criminals?"
The president's answer: "No, I don't think this is a good strategy to
grow our economy."
"If (politicians) weren't congenital cowards, they would do it. But
nobody wants to be the first to jump into the pool," said Jack Woehr,
who ran unsuccessfully for Congress three times in Jefferson County,
Colorado, where he argued that marijuana decriminalization is a civil
rights question. "I think it will happen in the next six years.
Somebody's going to do it, and the politicians will discover that the
other side simply doesn't care that much."
Another impetus that has been prompting calls for legalization is the
lingering disparities in the legal treatment of affluent users who have
tried marijuana -- and poorer Americans arrested on drug possession
charges who are unable to navigate the legal system.
Nationwide, police arrested over 820,000 people for marijuana possession
as of 2006, according to FBI statistics, or one arrest every 38 seconds.
Even in famously liberal San Francisco, possession of greater than 28.5
grams of cannabis is punishable by up to six months in jail, and racial
and wealth disparities remains an issue.
Carol Ruth Silver, a former Freedom Rider who served on San Francisco's
Board of Supervisors for more than a decade, had worked with the local
sheriff's department as director of prisoner legal services until
earlier this year. But in February, she resigned her post over
frustration that prisoners are still being incarcerated on charges of
felony possession of marijuana.
Silver said: "I had never seen or fully understood how totally wrong and
unjust laws are that are keeping vast numbers of people in jail for
exactly the same behavior that our presidents, law students and judges
have engaged in -- which is the recreational use of drugs. Some people
get caught and wind up in jail. Some people wind up in the White House.
It became very difficult for me to have to look at somebody and say,
'You're in jail for something that I did and my friends did and the
president did -- but you have to stay here when I walk out the door.'"America's Love-Hate History with Pot
With a New CBS News Poll Finding 41% Now Support Legalization,
CBSNews.com Examines Changing Views of Marijuana in the U.S.
July 13, 2009
(CBS) This story was written by Charles Cooper and Declan McCullagh as
part of a new CBSNews.com special report on the evolving debate over
marijuana legalization in the U.S. Click here for more of the series,
Marijuana Nation: The New War Over Weed
http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504243_162-156.html?tag=contentMain;contentB\
ody
Norm Stamper still remembers the day, nearly six decades ago, when a
police detective visited his elementary school class to warn of the
dangers of smoking the "devil weed."
"That was the term he used -- and he even brought along a bag of
marijuana to show us," said Stamper, 65, who would later become
Seattle's police chief. "I remember him saying something to the effect
that, 'If you smoke this, it will rot the membrane in your nose.' He was
an authority figure, and so I figured he could tell me something about
the dangers of this drug. That was my early education about marijuana."
By today's standards, such a warning might sound as dated as the
bug-eyed, morally-depraved pot fiends portrayed in the 1936 movie Reefer
Madness.
But it was in line with the prevailing view of the 1950s, which
considered marijuana to be not just a dangerous drug, but a stepping
stone to the use of heroin or even more dangerous controlled substances.
In 1979, 27 percent of Americans favored legalization, according to a
CBS News/New York Times poll at the time.
A new CBS News poll released today finds that more Americans now support
legalization. Forty-one percent said they think marijuana should be made
legal and 52 percent are opposed. That's even more than in a CBS News
poll in March when 31 percent said they in favor of legalization in all
cases with another seven percent saying they would favor legalization if
marijuana were taxed and the money went to projects. (More information
from the poll will be released later this morning.)
"They told us that marijuana was a gateway drug," said Stamper, who
these days is a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. "It was
not."
The story of how a child of the post-war era came to doubt, and then
reject, conventional wisdom about the horrors of the "devil weed"
parallels the story about how the rest of America has gradually
rethought its views of marijuana. The transformation has been
intertwined with the rise of the Baby Boom generation and its
successors, the societal upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s, and a
generational shift that chipped away at long-held assumptions about
trust and authority.
Today the potent smell of marijuana legalization is in the air. States
including California and New Mexico -- and, as of mid-June, Rhode Island
-- already permit marijuana's use for medicinal purposes. The success of
those initiatives, coupled with an economic downturn, a president who
did inhale and governors who are willing to discuss complete
legalization, make it seem possible that legal bans on recreational use
of marijuana will, in the not-so-distant future, go up in smoke.
Smoke or Fire: How Pot Got Banned
By historical standards, today's federal ban on possession of marijuana
may eventually be viewed as something of an aberration. There's evidence
that the intoxicating properties of cannabis were known to Chinese
physicians about 2,000 years ago. And for the first few hundred years
after colonies were established on Jamestown and Plymouth Rock, the
possession of intoxicants was not forbidden.
That began to change about 100 years ago. In response to worries about
opium addicts, the International Opium Convention was held in 1909,
which led to a drug-control treaty signed three years later by the major
nations at the time, including the United States.
The domestic political debate over opiates had unmistakable racist
overtones. A 1914 headline in the New York Times said "Negro Cocaine
'Fiends' Are A New Southern Menace; Murder And Insanity Increasing Among
Lower Class Blacks Because They Have Taken To 'Sniffing' Since Deprived
Of Whisky By Prohibition." Another article about a black man who was
lynched refers to him as a "cocaine fiend"; another says that "opium,
the most pernicious drug known to humanity, is surrounded, in this
country, with far fewer safeguards than any nation in all Europe fences
it with."
Congress enacted a law known as the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914,
which regulated cocaine and opiates. Because that era coincided with a
robust view of states' rights, the federal law did not seek to prohibit
the private possession of pot directly. Such a measure probably would
have experienced a swift demise at the hands of the judicial system at
the time. So the Harrison Act's drafters took a more circuitous
approach: they imposed stiff taxes.
Cannabis was believed to be a narcotic having practically the same
effect as morphine and cocaine, and state restrictions began sprouting
like weeds.
Some western states seem to have restricted it out of hostility to
Mexican immigrants; a Chicago Tribune article from 1919 called cannabis
"a weed of the Mexican desert." During the debate on Texas' first
marijuana law, noted Charles Whitebread, a professor at the University
of Southern California Law School, one legislator in the Texas Senate
declared in session that "all Mexicans are crazy and this stuff is what
makes them crazy."
That was not an isolated sentiment. In a letter to the Bureau of
Narcotics, Floyd Baskette, then the city editor of The Alamosa Daily
Courier in Colorado, complained in 1936 about felons arrested while
under the influence of marijuana.
"I wish I could show you what a small marijuana cigarette can do to one
of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents," he wrote. "That's why our
problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is
composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentally,
because of social and racial conditions..."
Other states and cities -- including New York City in 1914 -- outlawed
pot for fear it was, or would become, a gateway drug leading to the use
of opium or cocaine.
The Legal War Over the Weed
One year after the filming of "Reefer Madness," Congress enacted a law
restricting the use of marijuana, cannabis or hemp. While it was a tax
bill that did not officially ban pot, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was
the first step toward a complete federal prohibition.
The net effect of this Prohibition-era provision was to deter -- and
stigmatize --recreational use of these substances for more than the next
couple of generations. The Marihuana Tax Act is perhaps most remembered
for the controversial testimony supporting its passage.
One of its chief proponents, Harry J. Anslinger, then the Commissioner
of Narcotics for the Treasury Department, offered testimony depicting
marijuana in stark terms.
"Some individuals have a complete loss of sense of time or a sense of
value," Anslinger said. "They lose their sense of place. They have an
increased feeling of physical strength and power. Some people will fly
into a delirious rage and they are temporarily irresponsible and may
commit violent crimes... It is dangerous to the mind and body, and
particularly dangerous to the criminal type, because it releases all of
the inhibitions."
At the time, there were more than two dozen medicinal products on the
market which contained marijuana. In the new political climate, replete
with warnings from the federal government, they didn't last long.
The anti-marijuana laws toughened up with the passage of the Boggs Act
in 1951, enacted with the same justification that New York City invoked
a generation earlier -- that while marijuana was not addictive, it could
invite users to switch to heroin. First time offenders could receive up
to five years in jail. For second-timers, the range was between five and
ten years, while third-time offenders could wind up sitting in prison
between ten to twenty years.
This federal act increased penalties for drug violators -- marijuana
newly included -- and the individual states followed Uncle Sam's lead.
But it was the return of the stepping stone thesis which made headlines.
Once again, testimony surfaced linking marijuana with harder narcotics,
and Anslinger returned to the microphone to sound more alarm bells.
"The danger is this," Anslinger said. "Over 50 percent of these young
addicts started on marijuana smoking. They started there and graduated
to heroin. They took the needle when the thrill of marijuana was gone."
As the Beat Generation discovered its voice after World War II, it
nonetheless remained a dangerous time to be caught with a joint. The
hipsters remained a distinctly small minority, and movies like "High
School Confidential" (1958) depicted marijuana infiltrating a small town
high school. Marijuana possession was considered a felony in all 50
states punishable by punitive prison terms.
But social upheaval loomed. When the youth counterculture emerged in the
1960s, its embrace of drugs forced lawmakers and police to deal with a
sudden demographic change: Marijuana was no longer a problem confined to
Hispanics and blacks. The sons and daughters of the white middle class
were also toking up, and in significant numbers.
Although public opinion was slow to catch up to the shift -- only 15
percent of the American people polled in a Gallup poll at the time
favored marijuana legalization -- by the end of the decade, the laws
recognized the difference between marijuana and more dangerous
narcotics.
Taking stock of the chronology of events in February 1970, the New York
Times noted: "The problem has begun to come home to roost -- in all
strata of society... suddenly, the punitive, vindictive approach was
touching all classes of society. And now the most exciting thing that's
really happening is the change in attitude by the people. Now we have a
willingness to examine the problem as to whether it's an
experimentation, or an illness rather than an 'evil.'"
In subsequent years, the push behind marijuana legalization began to
receive broader support. It was even supported by conservative icon
William F. Buckley, who argued that the war against pot was wasting time
and money.
"Most transgressors caught using marijuana aren't packed away to jail,
but some are, and in Alabama, if you are convicted three times of
marijuana possession, they'll lock you up for 15 years to life," he
warned in 2004.
Gradually, but consistently, social acceptance of marijuana continued to
climb. By the 1980s, over 80 percent of high school students said they
had easy access to marijuana. By 1988, no less an authority than the
Drug Enforcement Administration's administrative law judge, Francis
Young, concluded that "marijuana may well be the safest psychoactive
substance commonly used in human history."
As they do each April 20, when pot enthusiasts gather for so-called
"smoke-out" events around the nation, the pro-legalization movement
points to the greater acceptance of marijuana use as a harbinger of
legal changes. Keith Stroup, founder of the marijuana legalization
organization NORML, earlier this year earlier this year told CBS
News.com that "within 5 years we're going to stop arresting responsible
marijuana smokers in this country."
Meanwhile, medical marijuana initiatives have carried the day in several
states, including California, Washington, Hawaii, Oregon, Alaska,
Colorado, Nevada and Maine. And even though federal law continues to
prohibit smoking marijuana even for medicinal purposes, the Obama
administration has said it would no longer send federal police to
conduct armed raids against dispensaries in states where voters have
legalized medical marijuana.
As for the legalization of marijuana for recreational use: So far, most
politicians seem wary of the topic, and are being more conservative in
their public statements than polls would suggest.
When Mr. Obama, who has admitted to smoking pot, held a virtual town
hall meeting in March, tens of thousands of Americans voted via the
Internet on questions that he should be asked. Marijuana legalization
was by far the most popular topic, with questions such as this one:
"What are your plans for the failing, 'War on Drugs', that's sucking
money from tax payers and putting non-violent people in prison longer
than the violent criminals?"
The president's answer: "No, I don't think this is a good strategy to
grow our economy."
"If (politicians) weren't congenital cowards, they would do it. But
nobody wants to be the first to jump into the pool," said Jack Woehr,
who ran unsuccessfully for Congress three times in Jefferson County,
Colorado, where he argued that marijuana decriminalization is a civil
rights question. "I think it will happen in the next six years.
Somebody's going to do it, and the politicians will discover that the
other side simply doesn't care that much."
Another impetus that has been prompting calls for legalization is the
lingering disparities in the legal treatment of affluent users who have
tried marijuana -- and poorer Americans arrested on drug possession
charges who are unable to navigate the legal system.
Nationwide, police arrested over 820,000 people for marijuana possession
as of 2006, according to FBI statistics, or one arrest every 38 seconds.
Even in famously liberal San Francisco, possession of greater than 28.5
grams of cannabis is punishable by up to six months in jail, and racial
and wealth disparities remains an issue.
Carol Ruth Silver, a former Freedom Rider who served on San Francisco's
Board of Supervisors for more than a decade, had worked with the local
sheriff's department as director of prisoner legal services until
earlier this year. But in February, she resigned her post over
frustration that prisoners are still being incarcerated on charges of
felony possession of marijuana.
Silver said: "I had never seen or fully understood how totally wrong and
unjust laws are that are keeping vast numbers of people in jail for
exactly the same behavior that our presidents, law students and judges
have engaged in -- which is the recreational use of drugs. Some people
get caught and wind up in jail. Some people wind up in the White House.
It became very difficult for me to have to look at somebody and say,
'You're in jail for something that I did and my friends did and the
president did -- but you have to stay here when I walk out the door.'"
With a New CBS News Poll Finding 41% Now Support Legalization,
CBSNews.com Examines Changing Views of Marijuana in the U.S.
July 13, 2009
(CBS) This story was written by Charles Cooper and Declan McCullagh as
part of a new CBSNews.com special report on the evolving debate over
marijuana legalization in the U.S. Click here for more of the series,
Marijuana Nation: The New War Over Weed
http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504243_162-156.html?tag=contentMain;contentB\
ody
Norm Stamper still remembers the day, nearly six decades ago, when a
police detective visited his elementary school class to warn of the
dangers of smoking the "devil weed."
"That was the term he used -- and he even brought along a bag of
marijuana to show us," said Stamper, 65, who would later become
Seattle's police chief. "I remember him saying something to the effect
that, 'If you smoke this, it will rot the membrane in your nose.' He was
an authority figure, and so I figured he could tell me something about
the dangers of this drug. That was my early education about marijuana."
By today's standards, such a warning might sound as dated as the
bug-eyed, morally-depraved pot fiends portrayed in the 1936 movie Reefer
Madness.
But it was in line with the prevailing view of the 1950s, which
considered marijuana to be not just a dangerous drug, but a stepping
stone to the use of heroin or even more dangerous controlled substances.
In 1979, 27 percent of Americans favored legalization, according to a
CBS News/New York Times poll at the time.
A new CBS News poll released today finds that more Americans now support
legalization. Forty-one percent said they think marijuana should be made
legal and 52 percent are opposed. That's even more than in a CBS News
poll in March when 31 percent said they in favor of legalization in all
cases with another seven percent saying they would favor legalization if
marijuana were taxed and the money went to projects. (More information
from the poll will be released later this morning.)
"They told us that marijuana was a gateway drug," said Stamper, who
these days is a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. "It was
not."
The story of how a child of the post-war era came to doubt, and then
reject, conventional wisdom about the horrors of the "devil weed"
parallels the story about how the rest of America has gradually
rethought its views of marijuana. The transformation has been
intertwined with the rise of the Baby Boom generation and its
successors, the societal upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s, and a
generational shift that chipped away at long-held assumptions about
trust and authority.
Today the potent smell of marijuana legalization is in the air. States
including California and New Mexico -- and, as of mid-June, Rhode Island
-- already permit marijuana's use for medicinal purposes. The success of
those initiatives, coupled with an economic downturn, a president who
did inhale and governors who are willing to discuss complete
legalization, make it seem possible that legal bans on recreational use
of marijuana will, in the not-so-distant future, go up in smoke.
Smoke or Fire: How Pot Got Banned
By historical standards, today's federal ban on possession of marijuana
may eventually be viewed as something of an aberration. There's evidence
that the intoxicating properties of cannabis were known to Chinese
physicians about 2,000 years ago. And for the first few hundred years
after colonies were established on Jamestown and Plymouth Rock, the
possession of intoxicants was not forbidden.
That began to change about 100 years ago. In response to worries about
opium addicts, the International Opium Convention was held in 1909,
which led to a drug-control treaty signed three years later by the major
nations at the time, including the United States.
The domestic political debate over opiates had unmistakable racist
overtones. A 1914 headline in the New York Times said "Negro Cocaine
'Fiends' Are A New Southern Menace; Murder And Insanity Increasing Among
Lower Class Blacks Because They Have Taken To 'Sniffing' Since Deprived
Of Whisky By Prohibition." Another article about a black man who was
lynched refers to him as a "cocaine fiend"; another says that "opium,
the most pernicious drug known to humanity, is surrounded, in this
country, with far fewer safeguards than any nation in all Europe fences
it with."
Congress enacted a law known as the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914,
which regulated cocaine and opiates. Because that era coincided with a
robust view of states' rights, the federal law did not seek to prohibit
the private possession of pot directly. Such a measure probably would
have experienced a swift demise at the hands of the judicial system at
the time. So the Harrison Act's drafters took a more circuitous
approach: they imposed stiff taxes.
Cannabis was believed to be a narcotic having practically the same
effect as morphine and cocaine, and state restrictions began sprouting
like weeds.
Some western states seem to have restricted it out of hostility to
Mexican immigrants; a Chicago Tribune article from 1919 called cannabis
"a weed of the Mexican desert." During the debate on Texas' first
marijuana law, noted Charles Whitebread, a professor at the University
of Southern California Law School, one legislator in the Texas Senate
declared in session that "all Mexicans are crazy and this stuff is what
makes them crazy."
That was not an isolated sentiment. In a letter to the Bureau of
Narcotics, Floyd Baskette, then the city editor of The Alamosa Daily
Courier in Colorado, complained in 1936 about felons arrested while
under the influence of marijuana.
"I wish I could show you what a small marijuana cigarette can do to one
of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents," he wrote. "That's why our
problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is
composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentally,
because of social and racial conditions..."
Other states and cities -- including New York City in 1914 -- outlawed
pot for fear it was, or would become, a gateway drug leading to the use
of opium or cocaine.
The Legal War Over the Weed
One year after the filming of "Reefer Madness," Congress enacted a law
restricting the use of marijuana, cannabis or hemp. While it was a tax
bill that did not officially ban pot, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was
the first step toward a complete federal prohibition.
The net effect of this Prohibition-era provision was to deter -- and
stigmatize --recreational use of these substances for more than the next
couple of generations. The Marihuana Tax Act is perhaps most remembered
for the controversial testimony supporting its passage.
One of its chief proponents, Harry J. Anslinger, then the Commissioner
of Narcotics for the Treasury Department, offered testimony depicting
marijuana in stark terms.
"Some individuals have a complete loss of sense of time or a sense of
value," Anslinger said. "They lose their sense of place. They have an
increased feeling of physical strength and power. Some people will fly
into a delirious rage and they are temporarily irresponsible and may
commit violent crimes... It is dangerous to the mind and body, and
particularly dangerous to the criminal type, because it releases all of
the inhibitions."
At the time, there were more than two dozen medicinal products on the
market which contained marijuana. In the new political climate, replete
with warnings from the federal government, they didn't last long.
The anti-marijuana laws toughened up with the passage of the Boggs Act
in 1951, enacted with the same justification that New York City invoked
a generation earlier -- that while marijuana was not addictive, it could
invite users to switch to heroin. First time offenders could receive up
to five years in jail. For second-timers, the range was between five and
ten years, while third-time offenders could wind up sitting in prison
between ten to twenty years.
This federal act increased penalties for drug violators -- marijuana
newly included -- and the individual states followed Uncle Sam's lead.
But it was the return of the stepping stone thesis which made headlines.
Once again, testimony surfaced linking marijuana with harder narcotics,
and Anslinger returned to the microphone to sound more alarm bells.
"The danger is this," Anslinger said. "Over 50 percent of these young
addicts started on marijuana smoking. They started there and graduated
to heroin. They took the needle when the thrill of marijuana was gone."
As the Beat Generation discovered its voice after World War II, it
nonetheless remained a dangerous time to be caught with a joint. The
hipsters remained a distinctly small minority, and movies like "High
School Confidential" (1958) depicted marijuana infiltrating a small town
high school. Marijuana possession was considered a felony in all 50
states punishable by punitive prison terms.
But social upheaval loomed. When the youth counterculture emerged in the
1960s, its embrace of drugs forced lawmakers and police to deal with a
sudden demographic change: Marijuana was no longer a problem confined to
Hispanics and blacks. The sons and daughters of the white middle class
were also toking up, and in significant numbers.
Although public opinion was slow to catch up to the shift -- only 15
percent of the American people polled in a Gallup poll at the time
favored marijuana legalization -- by the end of the decade, the laws
recognized the difference between marijuana and more dangerous
narcotics.
Taking stock of the chronology of events in February 1970, the New York
Times noted: "The problem has begun to come home to roost -- in all
strata of society... suddenly, the punitive, vindictive approach was
touching all classes of society. And now the most exciting thing that's
really happening is the change in attitude by the people. Now we have a
willingness to examine the problem as to whether it's an
experimentation, or an illness rather than an 'evil.'"
In subsequent years, the push behind marijuana legalization began to
receive broader support. It was even supported by conservative icon
William F. Buckley, who argued that the war against pot was wasting time
and money.
"Most transgressors caught using marijuana aren't packed away to jail,
but some are, and in Alabama, if you are convicted three times of
marijuana possession, they'll lock you up for 15 years to life," he
warned in 2004.
Gradually, but consistently, social acceptance of marijuana continued to
climb. By the 1980s, over 80 percent of high school students said they
had easy access to marijuana. By 1988, no less an authority than the
Drug Enforcement Administration's administrative law judge, Francis
Young, concluded that "marijuana may well be the safest psychoactive
substance commonly used in human history."
As they do each April 20, when pot enthusiasts gather for so-called
"smoke-out" events around the nation, the pro-legalization movement
points to the greater acceptance of marijuana use as a harbinger of
legal changes. Keith Stroup, founder of the marijuana legalization
organization NORML, earlier this year earlier this year told CBS
News.com that "within 5 years we're going to stop arresting responsible
marijuana smokers in this country."
Meanwhile, medical marijuana initiatives have carried the day in several
states, including California, Washington, Hawaii, Oregon, Alaska,
Colorado, Nevada and Maine. And even though federal law continues to
prohibit smoking marijuana even for medicinal purposes, the Obama
administration has said it would no longer send federal police to
conduct armed raids against dispensaries in states where voters have
legalized medical marijuana.
As for the legalization of marijuana for recreational use: So far, most
politicians seem wary of the topic, and are being more conservative in
their public statements than polls would suggest.
When Mr. Obama, who has admitted to smoking pot, held a virtual town
hall meeting in March, tens of thousands of Americans voted via the
Internet on questions that he should be asked. Marijuana legalization
was by far the most popular topic, with questions such as this one:
"What are your plans for the failing, 'War on Drugs', that's sucking
money from tax payers and putting non-violent people in prison longer
than the violent criminals?"
The president's answer: "No, I don't think this is a good strategy to
grow our economy."
"If (politicians) weren't congenital cowards, they would do it. But
nobody wants to be the first to jump into the pool," said Jack Woehr,
who ran unsuccessfully for Congress three times in Jefferson County,
Colorado, where he argued that marijuana decriminalization is a civil
rights question. "I think it will happen in the next six years.
Somebody's going to do it, and the politicians will discover that the
other side simply doesn't care that much."
Another impetus that has been prompting calls for legalization is the
lingering disparities in the legal treatment of affluent users who have
tried marijuana -- and poorer Americans arrested on drug possession
charges who are unable to navigate the legal system.
Nationwide, police arrested over 820,000 people for marijuana possession
as of 2006, according to FBI statistics, or one arrest every 38 seconds.
Even in famously liberal San Francisco, possession of greater than 28.5
grams of cannabis is punishable by up to six months in jail, and racial
and wealth disparities remains an issue.
Carol Ruth Silver, a former Freedom Rider who served on San Francisco's
Board of Supervisors for more than a decade, had worked with the local
sheriff's department as director of prisoner legal services until
earlier this year. But in February, she resigned her post over
frustration that prisoners are still being incarcerated on charges of
felony possession of marijuana.
Silver said: "I had never seen or fully understood how totally wrong and
unjust laws are that are keeping vast numbers of people in jail for
exactly the same behavior that our presidents, law students and judges
have engaged in -- which is the recreational use of drugs. Some people
get caught and wind up in jail. Some people wind up in the White House.
It became very difficult for me to have to look at somebody and say,
'You're in jail for something that I did and my friends did and the
president did -- but you have to stay here when I walk out the door.'"America's Love-Hate History with Pot
With a New CBS News Poll Finding 41% Now Support Legalization,
CBSNews.com Examines Changing Views of Marijuana in the U.S.
July 13, 2009
(CBS) This story was written by Charles Cooper and Declan McCullagh as
part of a new CBSNews.com special report on the evolving debate over
marijuana legalization in the U.S. Click here for more of the series,
Marijuana Nation: The New War Over Weed
http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504243_162-156.html?tag=contentMain;contentB\
ody
Norm Stamper still remembers the day, nearly six decades ago, when a
police detective visited his elementary school class to warn of the
dangers of smoking the "devil weed."
"That was the term he used -- and he even brought along a bag of
marijuana to show us," said Stamper, 65, who would later become
Seattle's police chief. "I remember him saying something to the effect
that, 'If you smoke this, it will rot the membrane in your nose.' He was
an authority figure, and so I figured he could tell me something about
the dangers of this drug. That was my early education about marijuana."
By today's standards, such a warning might sound as dated as the
bug-eyed, morally-depraved pot fiends portrayed in the 1936 movie Reefer
Madness.
But it was in line with the prevailing view of the 1950s, which
considered marijuana to be not just a dangerous drug, but a stepping
stone to the use of heroin or even more dangerous controlled substances.
In 1979, 27 percent of Americans favored legalization, according to a
CBS News/New York Times poll at the time.
A new CBS News poll released today finds that more Americans now support
legalization. Forty-one percent said they think marijuana should be made
legal and 52 percent are opposed. That's even more than in a CBS News
poll in March when 31 percent said they in favor of legalization in all
cases with another seven percent saying they would favor legalization if
marijuana were taxed and the money went to projects. (More information
from the poll will be released later this morning.)
"They told us that marijuana was a gateway drug," said Stamper, who
these days is a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. "It was
not."
The story of how a child of the post-war era came to doubt, and then
reject, conventional wisdom about the horrors of the "devil weed"
parallels the story about how the rest of America has gradually
rethought its views of marijuana. The transformation has been
intertwined with the rise of the Baby Boom generation and its
successors, the societal upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s, and a
generational shift that chipped away at long-held assumptions about
trust and authority.
Today the potent smell of marijuana legalization is in the air. States
including California and New Mexico -- and, as of mid-June, Rhode Island
-- already permit marijuana's use for medicinal purposes. The success of
those initiatives, coupled with an economic downturn, a president who
did inhale and governors who are willing to discuss complete
legalization, make it seem possible that legal bans on recreational use
of marijuana will, in the not-so-distant future, go up in smoke.
Smoke or Fire: How Pot Got Banned
By historical standards, today's federal ban on possession of marijuana
may eventually be viewed as something of an aberration. There's evidence
that the intoxicating properties of cannabis were known to Chinese
physicians about 2,000 years ago. And for the first few hundred years
after colonies were established on Jamestown and Plymouth Rock, the
possession of intoxicants was not forbidden.
That began to change about 100 years ago. In response to worries about
opium addicts, the International Opium Convention was held in 1909,
which led to a drug-control treaty signed three years later by the major
nations at the time, including the United States.
The domestic political debate over opiates had unmistakable racist
overtones. A 1914 headline in the New York Times said "Negro Cocaine
'Fiends' Are A New Southern Menace; Murder And Insanity Increasing Among
Lower Class Blacks Because They Have Taken To 'Sniffing' Since Deprived
Of Whisky By Prohibition." Another article about a black man who was
lynched refers to him as a "cocaine fiend"; another says that "opium,
the most pernicious drug known to humanity, is surrounded, in this
country, with far fewer safeguards than any nation in all Europe fences
it with."
Congress enacted a law known as the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914,
which regulated cocaine and opiates. Because that era coincided with a
robust view of states' rights, the federal law did not seek to prohibit
the private possession of pot directly. Such a measure probably would
have experienced a swift demise at the hands of the judicial system at
the time. So the Harrison Act's drafters took a more circuitous
approach: they imposed stiff taxes.
Cannabis was believed to be a narcotic having practically the same
effect as morphine and cocaine, and state restrictions began sprouting
like weeds.
Some western states seem to have restricted it out of hostility to
Mexican immigrants; a Chicago Tribune article from 1919 called cannabis
"a weed of the Mexican desert." During the debate on Texas' first
marijuana law, noted Charles Whitebread, a professor at the University
of Southern California Law School, one legislator in the Texas Senate
declared in session that "all Mexicans are crazy and this stuff is what
makes them crazy."
That was not an isolated sentiment. In a letter to the Bureau of
Narcotics, Floyd Baskette, then the city editor of The Alamosa Daily
Courier in Colorado, complained in 1936 about felons arrested while
under the influence of marijuana.
"I wish I could show you what a small marijuana cigarette can do to one
of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents," he wrote. "That's why our
problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is
composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentally,
because of social and racial conditions..."
Other states and cities -- including New York City in 1914 -- outlawed
pot for fear it was, or would become, a gateway drug leading to the use
of opium or cocaine.
The Legal War Over the Weed
One year after the filming of "Reefer Madness," Congress enacted a law
restricting the use of marijuana, cannabis or hemp. While it was a tax
bill that did not officially ban pot, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was
the first step toward a complete federal prohibition.
The net effect of this Prohibition-era provision was to deter -- and
stigmatize --recreational use of these substances for more than the next
couple of generations. The Marihuana Tax Act is perhaps most remembered
for the controversial testimony supporting its passage.
One of its chief proponents, Harry J. Anslinger, then the Commissioner
of Narcotics for the Treasury Department, offered testimony depicting
marijuana in stark terms.
"Some individuals have a complete loss of sense of time or a sense of
value," Anslinger said. "They lose their sense of place. They have an
increased feeling of physical strength and power. Some people will fly
into a delirious rage and they are temporarily irresponsible and may
commit violent crimes... It is dangerous to the mind and body, and
particularly dangerous to the criminal type, because it releases all of
the inhibitions."
At the time, there were more than two dozen medicinal products on the
market which contained marijuana. In the new political climate, replete
with warnings from the federal government, they didn't last long.
The anti-marijuana laws toughened up with the passage of the Boggs Act
in 1951, enacted with the same justification that New York City invoked
a generation earlier -- that while marijuana was not addictive, it could
invite users to switch to heroin. First time offenders could receive up
to five years in jail. For second-timers, the range was between five and
ten years, while third-time offenders could wind up sitting in prison
between ten to twenty years.
This federal act increased penalties for drug violators -- marijuana
newly included -- and the individual states followed Uncle Sam's lead.
But it was the return of the stepping stone thesis which made headlines.
Once again, testimony surfaced linking marijuana with harder narcotics,
and Anslinger returned to the microphone to sound more alarm bells.
"The danger is this," Anslinger said. "Over 50 percent of these young
addicts started on marijuana smoking. They started there and graduated
to heroin. They took the needle when the thrill of marijuana was gone."
As the Beat Generation discovered its voice after World War II, it
nonetheless remained a dangerous time to be caught with a joint. The
hipsters remained a distinctly small minority, and movies like "High
School Confidential" (1958) depicted marijuana infiltrating a small town
high school. Marijuana possession was considered a felony in all 50
states punishable by punitive prison terms.
But social upheaval loomed. When the youth counterculture emerged in the
1960s, its embrace of drugs forced lawmakers and police to deal with a
sudden demographic change: Marijuana was no longer a problem confined to
Hispanics and blacks. The sons and daughters of the white middle class
were also toking up, and in significant numbers.
Although public opinion was slow to catch up to the shift -- only 15
percent of the American people polled in a Gallup poll at the time
favored marijuana legalization -- by the end of the decade, the laws
recognized the difference between marijuana and more dangerous
narcotics.
Taking stock of the chronology of events in February 1970, the New York
Times noted: "The problem has begun to come home to roost -- in all
strata of society... suddenly, the punitive, vindictive approach was
touching all classes of society. And now the most exciting thing that's
really happening is the change in attitude by the people. Now we have a
willingness to examine the problem as to whether it's an
experimentation, or an illness rather than an 'evil.'"
In subsequent years, the push behind marijuana legalization began to
receive broader support. It was even supported by conservative icon
William F. Buckley, who argued that the war against pot was wasting time
and money.
"Most transgressors caught using marijuana aren't packed away to jail,
but some are, and in Alabama, if you are convicted three times of
marijuana possession, they'll lock you up for 15 years to life," he
warned in 2004.
Gradually, but consistently, social acceptance of marijuana continued to
climb. By the 1980s, over 80 percent of high school students said they
had easy access to marijuana. By 1988, no less an authority than the
Drug Enforcement Administration's administrative law judge, Francis
Young, concluded that "marijuana may well be the safest psychoactive
substance commonly used in human history."
As they do each April 20, when pot enthusiasts gather for so-called
"smoke-out" events around the nation, the pro-legalization movement
points to the greater acceptance of marijuana use as a harbinger of
legal changes. Keith Stroup, founder of the marijuana legalization
organization NORML, earlier this year earlier this year told CBS
News.com that "within 5 years we're going to stop arresting responsible
marijuana smokers in this country."
Meanwhile, medical marijuana initiatives have carried the day in several
states, including California, Washington, Hawaii, Oregon, Alaska,
Colorado, Nevada and Maine. And even though federal law continues to
prohibit smoking marijuana even for medicinal purposes, the Obama
administration has said it would no longer send federal police to
conduct armed raids against dispensaries in states where voters have
legalized medical marijuana.
As for the legalization of marijuana for recreational use: So far, most
politicians seem wary of the topic, and are being more conservative in
their public statements than polls would suggest.
When Mr. Obama, who has admitted to smoking pot, held a virtual town
hall meeting in March, tens of thousands of Americans voted via the
Internet on questions that he should be asked. Marijuana legalization
was by far the most popular topic, with questions such as this one:
"What are your plans for the failing, 'War on Drugs', that's sucking
money from tax payers and putting non-violent people in prison longer
than the violent criminals?"
The president's answer: "No, I don't think this is a good strategy to
grow our economy."
"If (politicians) weren't congenital cowards, they would do it. But
nobody wants to be the first to jump into the pool," said Jack Woehr,
who ran unsuccessfully for Congress three times in Jefferson County,
Colorado, where he argued that marijuana decriminalization is a civil
rights question. "I think it will happen in the next six years.
Somebody's going to do it, and the politicians will discover that the
other side simply doesn't care that much."
Another impetus that has been prompting calls for legalization is the
lingering disparities in the legal treatment of affluent users who have
tried marijuana -- and poorer Americans arrested on drug possession
charges who are unable to navigate the legal system.
Nationwide, police arrested over 820,000 people for marijuana possession
as of 2006, according to FBI statistics, or one arrest every 38 seconds.
Even in famously liberal San Francisco, possession of greater than 28.5
grams of cannabis is punishable by up to six months in jail, and racial
and wealth disparities remains an issue.
Carol Ruth Silver, a former Freedom Rider who served on San Francisco's
Board of Supervisors for more than a decade, had worked with the local
sheriff's department as director of prisoner legal services until
earlier this year. But in February, she resigned her post over
frustration that prisoners are still being incarcerated on charges of
felony possession of marijuana.
Silver said: "I had never seen or fully understood how totally wrong and
unjust laws are that are keeping vast numbers of people in jail for
exactly the same behavior that our presidents, law students and judges
have engaged in -- which is the recreational use of drugs. Some people
get caught and wind up in jail. Some people wind up in the White House.
It became very difficult for me to have to look at somebody and say,
'You're in jail for something that I did and my friends did and the
president did -- but you have to stay here when I walk out the door.'"
Untaxed Revenue
Tammerlin Drummond: Pot of untaxed revenue
MediaNews columnist
Posted: 07/12/2009 12:00:00 AM PDT
SHE COULD BE a middle-age soccer mom. Or maybe, a Prop. 8 supporter warning
against the "evils" of same-sex marriage. But from the looks of her, Nadene
Herndon is about the last person I'd envision firing up a joint.
But there she is, the star of a controversial television advertisement from
the Marijuana Policy Project — stumping for the legalization and taxing of
pot in California.
Gazing earnestly into the camera, the Fair Oaks woman tells us that
California is facing huge cuts to schools, health care and public safety as
the state struggles with a whopper of a budget deficit.
"But the governor and the Legislature are ignoring millions of Californians
who want to pay taxes," Herndon says. "We're marijuana users. Instead of
being treated like criminals for a substance safer than alcohol, we want to
pay our fair share."
California's "marijuana industry," she says, could pay the salaries of
20,000 teachers and give the state's empty coffers a $1 billion infusion.
Help solve California's budget problems by legalizing and taxing pot?
Oh heck no, said the honchos at some of our area television news networks,
who refused to air the 30-second spot.
NBC affiliate KNTV rejected it. ABC affiliate KGO also turned the ad down
because it was "not comfortable." CBS affiliate KPIX and Fox affiliate KTVU
never answered back.
The ads did begin airing on KRON, on stations statewide and on CNN, Headline
News, MSNBC and CNBC.
The squeamishness of some TV stations notwithstanding, the pro-legalization
movement is gaining momentum.
Oakland is ground zero.
The city made national news when it put Measure F on the ballot in the July
21 special election. If F passes, Oakland would become the first city in the
country to levy a direct tax against marijuana dispensaries — $18 for every
$1,000 sales, on some $20 million in gross sales.
The pot dispensers are all for it because they see the tax as a huge step in
their efforts to be treated like other businesses. You can't call us
criminals! We pay taxes like everyone else. They can afford it. Pot sales,
at least, are recession proof. Many Oakland officials are for it because
$315,000 in new revenue is nothing to sneeze at when you're flat busted.
I suspect that if Oakland passes F, other California cities with pot clubs
in their midst will rush to follow suit.
That of course would give a huge boost to the legalization movement.
The fact is, if you're going to allow the cannabis dispensaries, you might
as well legalize pot. Just about anyone can qualify for a medical marijuana
card based on a supposed chronic illness that impairs their ability to
function. There are plenty of doctors willing to do the wink and nod and
plenty of folks with ID cards who sell illegally what they obtain legally.
Many people, whether they indulge or not, probably get that. According to a
Field Poll conducted in April, 56 percent of California voters think we
should legalize marijuana for recreational use and tax the proceeds. Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger says it's time to revisit the issue and examine the
impact of legalization.
Possession of marijuana for any reason is still a violation of federal law.
The Bush administration routinely sent out the Drug Enforcement Agency to
raid medical marijuana dispensaries.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. announced in March that the feds would
no longer prosecute the owners of legitimate medical marijuana dispensaries
— only those, who "falsely masquerade as medical dispensaries and use
medical marijuana laws as a shield." Good luck sorting that out.
Last month, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., reintroduced the Personal Use of
Marijuana By Responsible Adults Act of 2009 (I kid you not).
The law would make it legal to possess up to 3.5 ounces of pot and the
"transfer not for sale" of up to one ounce. So say you want to give a friend
an ounce as a gift, you wouldn't have to worry about the feds kicking in
your door. Our very own Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, is on board.
In California, supporters of legalization are working on a state initiative
that would allow adults over the age of 21 to possess pot for personal use.
Meanwhile, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, is pushing a bill in
the Legislature that would regulate pot much like alcohol.
A lot of people will scream bloody murder.
But if taxing pot means not having to make unconscionable spending cuts that
shaft old and poor people, I'd be willing to consider it.
Tammerlin Drummond is a columnist for Bay Area News Group. Reach her at
tdrummond@bayareanewsgroup.com or on Twitter @Tammerlin.
http://www.mercurynews.com/columns/ci_12813584
MediaNews columnist
Posted: 07/12/2009 12:00:00 AM PDT
SHE COULD BE a middle-age soccer mom. Or maybe, a Prop. 8 supporter warning
against the "evils" of same-sex marriage. But from the looks of her, Nadene
Herndon is about the last person I'd envision firing up a joint.
But there she is, the star of a controversial television advertisement from
the Marijuana Policy Project — stumping for the legalization and taxing of
pot in California.
Gazing earnestly into the camera, the Fair Oaks woman tells us that
California is facing huge cuts to schools, health care and public safety as
the state struggles with a whopper of a budget deficit.
"But the governor and the Legislature are ignoring millions of Californians
who want to pay taxes," Herndon says. "We're marijuana users. Instead of
being treated like criminals for a substance safer than alcohol, we want to
pay our fair share."
California's "marijuana industry," she says, could pay the salaries of
20,000 teachers and give the state's empty coffers a $1 billion infusion.
Help solve California's budget problems by legalizing and taxing pot?
Oh heck no, said the honchos at some of our area television news networks,
who refused to air the 30-second spot.
NBC affiliate KNTV rejected it. ABC affiliate KGO also turned the ad down
because it was "not comfortable." CBS affiliate KPIX and Fox affiliate KTVU
never answered back.
The ads did begin airing on KRON, on stations statewide and on CNN, Headline
News, MSNBC and CNBC.
The squeamishness of some TV stations notwithstanding, the pro-legalization
movement is gaining momentum.
Oakland is ground zero.
The city made national news when it put Measure F on the ballot in the July
21 special election. If F passes, Oakland would become the first city in the
country to levy a direct tax against marijuana dispensaries — $18 for every
$1,000 sales, on some $20 million in gross sales.
The pot dispensers are all for it because they see the tax as a huge step in
their efforts to be treated like other businesses. You can't call us
criminals! We pay taxes like everyone else. They can afford it. Pot sales,
at least, are recession proof. Many Oakland officials are for it because
$315,000 in new revenue is nothing to sneeze at when you're flat busted.
I suspect that if Oakland passes F, other California cities with pot clubs
in their midst will rush to follow suit.
That of course would give a huge boost to the legalization movement.
The fact is, if you're going to allow the cannabis dispensaries, you might
as well legalize pot. Just about anyone can qualify for a medical marijuana
card based on a supposed chronic illness that impairs their ability to
function. There are plenty of doctors willing to do the wink and nod and
plenty of folks with ID cards who sell illegally what they obtain legally.
Many people, whether they indulge or not, probably get that. According to a
Field Poll conducted in April, 56 percent of California voters think we
should legalize marijuana for recreational use and tax the proceeds. Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger says it's time to revisit the issue and examine the
impact of legalization.
Possession of marijuana for any reason is still a violation of federal law.
The Bush administration routinely sent out the Drug Enforcement Agency to
raid medical marijuana dispensaries.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. announced in March that the feds would
no longer prosecute the owners of legitimate medical marijuana dispensaries
— only those, who "falsely masquerade as medical dispensaries and use
medical marijuana laws as a shield." Good luck sorting that out.
Last month, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., reintroduced the Personal Use of
Marijuana By Responsible Adults Act of 2009 (I kid you not).
The law would make it legal to possess up to 3.5 ounces of pot and the
"transfer not for sale" of up to one ounce. So say you want to give a friend
an ounce as a gift, you wouldn't have to worry about the feds kicking in
your door. Our very own Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, is on board.
In California, supporters of legalization are working on a state initiative
that would allow adults over the age of 21 to possess pot for personal use.
Meanwhile, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, is pushing a bill in
the Legislature that would regulate pot much like alcohol.
A lot of people will scream bloody murder.
But if taxing pot means not having to make unconscionable spending cuts that
shaft old and poor people, I'd be willing to consider it.
Tammerlin Drummond is a columnist for Bay Area News Group. Reach her at
tdrummond@bayareanewsgroup.com or on Twitter @Tammerlin.
http://www.mercurynews.com/columns/ci_12813584
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
State legislators table medicinal marijuana bill
By Alex Ruoff • Staff Writer • July 1, 2009
MILTON --When Jake Mills' wife was diagnosed with stomach cancer last year, the couple looked at every possible way to curb the side effects of chemotherapy and prescription drugs, even medicinal marijuana.
"They tell you all about the dangers of going through the drugs and the surgeries, and we asked about everything," the Milton resident said. "No one really gave us a straight answer, and everyone had a different opinion."
Because so many are unsure if the drug should be legalized, state legislators are tabling their vote on Senate Bill 94, which could provide for medical marijuana use by patients prescribed the drug by certified doctors.
The issue has caused debate in the medical community over the years, which could be why the Medical Society of Delaware has reportedly stood neutral on the issue.
Under the proposal, doctors could issue ID cards that would allow patients to purchase up to six ounces of marijuana at state-controlled centers, or grow up to 12 plants in their home.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Margaret Henry, D-Wilmington, passed through a Senate committee without opposition, but has not come up again during the summer congressional session, which ends this week.
"We're talking about a move that could provide relief for so many people with serious problems," said Bruce Mirken, a representative for the Marijuana Policy Project -- a group that advocates the legalization of the drug.
Mirken said there is significant medical evidence to prove that marijuana use can curtail side effects from pain medications and neuropathic disorders.
Julie Hattier, who practices with Beachview Health Associates in Millville, said she's had experience with prescribing Marinol, a pill derived from marijuana's active ingredient THC, which can be a great anti-depressant.
"When I practiced in Utah, I did find it helpful for certain patients," she said. "But I wouldn't recommend you smoke anything."
Hattier said marijuana's active chemicals help raise serotonin levels, which directly alter moods and help fight depression brought on by other medications. But there are better ways of administering the drug, she said.
"Marinol can be helpful, but I don't think I would prescribe marijuana as there are still many chemicals found in it that could be harmful," she said. "It would be like telling someone to smoke tobacco, and I would never do that."
aruoff@dmg.gannett.com
302-537-1881, ext. 201
http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20090701/DW01/907010359/-1/DW
Medicinal marijuana challenges commission
By JESSICA SIEFF / Niles Daily Star
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:59 AM EDT
Since the voters gave the green light to medicinal marijuana in the state of Michigan officials in every city, county and jurisdiction have been trying to figure out just how to uphold the law without opening the door to those who may want to break it.
Now, the Niles Housing Commission is facing another challenge stemming from the new law.
Recently an eviction notice was delivered to a resident of one of the commission's public housing units after it became apparent that the resident was growing marijuana on the premises.
The drug was being grown for medicinal purposes only - and when it comes to the city's recent ordinance and state law - follows all regulations.
But the housing unit is the property of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, subject to federal law, trumping the state's legislation.
Under the federal law, said the commission's new executive director Mary Ann Bush, "regardless of it being medicinal, it's considered criminal activity..."
Bush said a standard 14-day notice was delivered last week. In a recent news article, the resident, identified as Steve Allain expressed his reaction to the notice and his position on the situation, suffering from illness and struggling financially.
Still, should Allain refuse to leave his HUD sponsored home, Bush said "the legal process will be pursued."
The situation brings the new executive director into the spotlight. Bush started her position at the Housing Commission after the board interviewed multiple candidates for the past few months.*
Juan Ganum, a member of the board, which seems to be enjoying calmer waters after what was a tumultuous year, said the new director was "just an excellent candidate."
A resident of Portage, Ganum said Bush is self-employed in real estate and came to the commission with HUD experience.
"She has excellent communication skills," he said, adding that she "presented herself as a superior candidate."
The process of interviewing and finding a new director for the commission was done in a manner Ganum described as "unorthodox."
After final candidates were chosen, residents were able to observe in an open meeting, the board's interview of those candidates.
"I think the residents really appreciated (it)," he said. "Even though it was very unorthodox. We wanted to make the process as transparent as possible."
After a year that saw unrest within the commission and among the board itself, now Bush and Ganum said it some of the negativity has eased.
"It's been good," Bush said. "I used to work in Section Eight housing, so the concept is something I've been familiar with."
Since taking the position, Bush said that she and the staff have been plenty busy. A "major marketing piece" was recently completed and sent out, she said, in an effort to bring in new tenants. And renovations have also been taking place.
Bush said being present and visible as also helped in letting residents know someone is there working for them and she said she has found, "they're willing to support change if the change is positive."
As Allain's eviction comes closer and closer to its close - several questions remain about just what the outcome to the situation will be.
And - will it derail progress at the Niles Housing Commission?
http://www.nilesstar.com/articles/2009/07/01/news/ndnews1.txt
Marijuana helicopter damaged in forced landing
Written by Lake County News Reports
Wednesday, 01 July 2009
LAKE COUNTY – A helicopter used by local officials for aerial surveillance of illegal marijuana gardens was damaged in a forced landing last week after it had an engine failure during a training flight.
Capt. James Bauman of the Lake County Sheriff's Office reported Tuesday that no one was injured when the helicopter landed in an open meadow on Cow Mountain – about seven miles northwest of Lakeport – at about 3 p.m. June 25.
The Robinson R-44, owned by Cutting Edge Helicopters out of Sacramento, is used in ongoing aerial surveillance of illegal marijuana grows. Bauman said the helicopter was "substantially damaged" in the landing.
The helicopter crew – including Lt. Dave Garzoli of the sheriff's Major Crimes Unit, who was undergoing flight instruction, and a company pilot who also is a certified flight instructor – had spent the morning conducting aerial surveillance over Lake County and were returning to Lakeport on a training flight after refueling in Ukiah, Bauman said.
During the training flight, the crew was simulating an emergency 180-degree autorotation and power recovery procedure at an altitude of about 500 feet over Cow Mountain when Bauman said they experienced an engine failure.
When attempts to recover engine power failed, the crew committed to a forced landing and, due to the lack of RPMs, the main rotor blades impacted the helicopter's tail boom as the craft touched the ground, which Bauman said caused the damage.
Bauman said there was no property damage other than to the helicopter. The cause of the engine failure is being investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board and Cutting Edge Helicopters.
In April the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an agreement with Cutting Edge Helicopters to rent its equipment for marijuana surveillance activities.
In the agreement, Cutting Edge receives $490 an hour, according to minutes from the April 14 Board of Supervisors meeting.
At that time the board also approved helicopter lease agreements with PJ Helicopters and A&P Helicopters for rates of $700 and $750, respectively, as Lake County News has reported.
http://lakeconews.com/content/view/9315/764/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
