West Coast Leaf Vol 1 # 4, Winter 2009. Front page articles 

West Coasterdam • Calendar • Activists • Science • National, International • Medical Marijuana POWs • Editorials, Commentary • Gardening • Reviews • Obituaries •

On this page: Election news • Obama • Court cases • Hemp • Department of Motor Vehicles • Santa Barbara dispensaries

Caption: RETREAT TO THE GREAT INDOORS — Here comes the indoor sun. Even though it’s winter, West Coast farmers can still look forward to a harvest from an indoor garden. Whether it’s to pull in a crop that will get them through the winter or just getting an early start on the springtime outdoor planting season, knowing the basics of how to maintain a grow room is a key. Story inside. West Coast Leaf photo. 

Election brings new hope for reform in 2009 

Mass decrims marijuana; Michigan legalizes medical; Big Island defunds copters 

By Bruce Mirken* Marijuana Policy Project

Cannabis reform efforts enter the year 2009 with a more promising playing field. 

Largely under the radar of the political chattering classes, voters dealt a stunning blow to America’s war on cannabis in 2008, handing huge victories to two state ballot initiatives that had strong backing from the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP).

Michigan voters made their state the 13th to allow medical use of cannabis, passing Proposal 1 by 63 to 37 percent. Massachusetts voters by 65 to 35 percent decriminalized possession of up to an ounce of cannabis; replacing arrests, legal fees, court appearances, the possibility of jail and a lifelong criminal record with a $100 fine, much like a traffic ticket, that can be paid through the mail.

Reformers rolled up a string of local victories. Proposition JJ in Berkeley (CA) will improve access to dispensaries. Measures passed in Fayetteville (AR) and Hawaii County (HI) making adult possession offenses the lowest priority for local law enforcement. Voters on the Big Island of Hawai’i also elected to cut funding for eradication helicopter surveillance.

What makes these results so amazing is that they followed the most intensive anti-cannabis campaign by federal officials since the days of Reefer Madness. Marijuana arrests have been setting all-time records year after year, reaching the point where one American is arrested on cannabis charges every 36 seconds.

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, with “drug czar” John Walters at the helm, has led a hysterical anti-marijuana propaganda campaign. During his’ tenure, ONDCP has released at least 127 separate anti-marijuana TV, radio and print ads, at a cost of hundreds of millions of tax dollars, plus 34 press releases focused mainly on cannabis, while no fewer than 50 reports from ONDCP and other federal agencies focused on the alleged evils of marijuana or touted anti-cannabis campaigns.

Walters himself campaigned personally in Michigan against the medical marijuana initiative, calling it an “abomination” and carting with him — at taxpayer expense — the infamous cannabis vending machine seized from an Los Angeles dispensary earlier this year. He and other opponents simply ignored the fact that Proposal 1 didn’t even authorize dispensaries, much less vending machines.

Massachusetts’ political and law enforcement establishment — including both Republican and Democratic politicians and all 11 district attorneys, several of whom admitted to having smoked cannabis — lined up against Question 2, the decriminalization initiative. They warned of rampant drug abuse and crime should the measure pass, simply ignoring the fact that no such thing has happened in the 11 other states and several nations that have had similar laws for years. Both daily newspapers in Boston opposed it as well.

Voters were having none of it, giving a thumping rejection to the lies and hysteria in both states. Strikingly, cannabis decrim out-polled Barack Obama by three points in MA and medical marijuana by six in MI. Clearly, Americans have taken a hard look at our national war on cannabis and concluded it needs to change. 

The one distinctly unhappy note was the lopsided defeat of California’s Prop 5. This measure, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, would have improved and expanded drug treatment for nonviolent offenders and provided drug treatment for youth, easing overcrowding of the state’s prison system. It also would have made possession of up to an ounce of cannabis an infraction rather than a misdemeanor. Unfortunately, the campaign never overcame well-financed opposition backed by the prison guards’ union and officials like Attorney General Jerry Brown.

Still, the picture overall was extraordinarily positive, particularly on the medical  front. President-elect Obama said repeatedly during the campaign that he doesn’t believe the federal government should be arresting those who follow state medical marijuana laws. The massive medical victory in MI means that one in four Americans now lives in a medical cannabis state, and many of those states — including Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico — were crucial to Obama’s win.

A healthy handful of medical cannabis opponents in Congress were sent packing as well. While the odious Mark Souder (R-IN) was reelected, several others, including Tom Feeney (R-FL), Ric Keller (R-FL), and Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), were defeated. A handful of patient-friendly candidates won new seats, including Democrat Diane Titus of Nevada.

None of this means the battle is won, and we all understand that the Obama administration will come into office facing a stack of crises needing urgent attention. But the gains we made this year are real and significant. Our next job is to make sure that Congress and the new president are paying attention.

* Director of communications for MPP. , www.mpp.org. 

Caption: OBAMA — For the first time, America has chosen a President who not only smoked cannabis but made a point to inhale; who voted as a state legislator to restore industrial hemp; and repeatedly has promised to cut support for DEA raids in states where medical marijuana has been legalized. 

Cal courts curb caregiver defense and butane oil-making 

Cannabis collective members retain broad legal protection 

By Chris Conrad West Coast Leaf 

The California State Supreme Court took a restrictive view of the “primary caregiver” definition Nov. 24 in its People v. Mentch decision that excludes most people from using that legal defense. Mentch had sought to expand the caregiver definition to include providing cannabis to many patients. The ruling leaves intact the earlier People v. Urziceanu‘s broad protection for patients who collectively engage in cultivation and distribution. 

A separate Appeals Court decision, People v. Bergen, held that it is legal for qualified patients and collectives to possess foods, tinctures, liniments, hashish, kief or hash oil as well as to make most of those products — except if using a solvent such as butane to extract resin as hash oil, or honey oil as it is also known. That moves beyond simply ‘processing’ resin to ‘chemical extraction,’ per Bergen, and shifts the butane process into the realm of ‘clandestine drug labs.’ The Court noted the inherent danger of using flammable solvents as opposed to mechanical separation. 

“Unlike the general prohibitions in section 11358, the focus of section 11379.6(a) is on the particular processes employed to produce a controlled substance—by chemical extraction or chemical synthesis. ... 11358 would be appropriate, for example, if the resin was physically extracted from the cannabis plant through pressure, through a screening process, or by using an ice water method to produce the concentrated cannabis ... [or] if the method used was instead by leaching the resin from the plant material by dissolving it in a non-chemical lipid extractor, such as butter.”

Section 11379.6(a) states, “Except as otherwise provided by law, every person who manufactures, compounds, converts, produces, derives, processes, or prepares, either directly or indirectly by chemical extraction or independently by means of chemical synthesis, any controlled substance ... shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, five, or seven years and by a fine” up to $50,000. 

Licensed ND hemp farmers sue DEA for permits

Favorable decision could bring back US farming crop

By Adam Eidinger VoteHemp 

Documents online at VoteHemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html. 

Two North Dakota farmers, who filed a landmark lawsuit in June 2007 to end the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) ban on commercial hemp farming in the US, were heard Nov. 12 in the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Oral arguments before the three judge panel centered on the assertion that because there is no possibility the hemp crop could be diverted into drug markets, the Commerce Clause does not allow DEA to regulate industrial hemp farming in the state. If successful, the suit will lead to the first state-regulated commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in over 50 years. The court’s decision is not expected until next year. 

The farmers, ND State Rep. David Monson and seed breeder Wayne Hauge, are appealing a decision by the US District Court of ND on a number of grounds; in particular, the Court ruled that hemp and marijuana are the same, as DEA has wrongly contended. Scientific data shows that not only are oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis genetically distinct from drug varieties, but there are absolutely no psychoactive effects gained from eating it. Rep. Monson observed oral arguments. 

“Given North Dakota’s unique regulatory regime, nothing leaves the farmer’s property except those parts of the plant Congress has already decided should be exempt from regulation: hemp stalk, fiber seed and oil,” argued attorney Joe Sandler. “The question is whether there is any rational basis for Congressional regulation of the plant itself growing on the farmer’s property. The answer is no — because industrial hemp is useless as drug marijuana and there’s no danger of diversion, so there’s no possible impact on the market for drug marijuana.” 

The government’s arguments centered on the idea that the plaintiffs should apply to the DEA for permission to grow hemp and the court didn’t have jurisdiction over the issues raised. “The plaintiffs should await the DEA’s decision on their application,” said Melissa Patterson on behalf of the government. Judge Michael Milloy responded, “Isn’t it true the DEA will not rule on the farmer’s applications to grow hemp, you’ve had 11 months?” 

The ND Legislature removed in 2007 the requirement that state-licensed industrial hemp farmers first obtain DEA permits before growing hemp. The question before the Appeals Court is whether or not federal authorities can prosecute state-licensed farmers who grow non-drug oilseed and fiber hemp pursuant to North Dakota law. If it is successful, states across the nation will be free to implement hemp farming laws without federal interference. Vote Hemp, the nation's leading industrial hemp advocacy group, and supporters are providing financial support for the suit. 

Medical discrimination suit filed against DMV

ASA fights revocation of qualified patient’s driver’s license

By Kris Hermes Americans for Safe Access

Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a lawsuit against the California Dept. of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Nov. 19 on behalf of a 53-year-old patient from Atwater. Despite her clean driving record — not having caused an accident in 37 years of driving — the DMV revoked Rose Johnson’s license July 26 because of her status as a legal cannabis patient. The DMV refused to renew her license after obtaining her medical records and learning that she was a qualified patient. According to the DMV, her license was revoked “because of...[an] addiction to, or habitual use of, [a] drug,” thereby rendering her unable to safely operate a motor vehicle — even though no evidence existed to substantiate this claim.

“The DMV cannot simply disregard California’s medical marijuana law,” said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who is representing Johnson in her case.. “When voters enacted the Compassionate Use Act, they never intended to authorize the DMV to strip cannabis patients of their drivers’ licenses. The DMV should not be in the business of revoking the licenses of drivers like Ms. Johnson simply because she is a medical marijuana patient.”

Advocates assert that the DMV policy of suspending and revoking the licenses of cannabis patients is widespread, occurring in at at least eight counties, including Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Glenn, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, and Sonoma. License revocations by the DMV, which have been based on a person’s status as a cannabis patient, are often rationalized by label them “drug abusers” despite having no evidence of the claim.

In 2007, Merced — the county in which Johnson lives — implemented a police policy that instructed its Sheriff deputies to respect state law and not to cite medical cannabis patients or seize their medicine.

“The DMV is not under a different set of requirements than local police in California,” said Elford. “The failure to uphold California’s medical marijuana law is entirely inappropriate for any local or state agency.” The lawsuit filed by ASA is expected to be heard in Merced Superior Court. The suit against the DMV is part of a campaign by ASA to fully implement California’s medical marijuana laws.

Info: AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/DMV_Writ.pdf 

DEA goes after Santa Barbara dispensaries

By Brendan Hamme Measure P Oversight Committee Patient Representative

Although it once seemed an idyllic sanctuary for patients, with over 20 cannabis outlets, Santa Barbara dispensaries have again been shut down by the DEA, which has decided to make an example out of them. After their letter-writing campaign threatening asset forfeiture in the summer of 2007 resulted in a mere temporary closure of local co-ops and collectives, the DEA turned up the heat. 

In August 2008, they resorted to a direct meeting in the county District Attorney’s office between landlords renting to dispensaries, DEA agents and lawyers from the Department of Justice. This marks the first time the DOJ has conducted in person meetings — action taken, according to Cal NORML, at the behest of wealthy donors to the Republican party from a notoriously conservative district of the city. Faced with seizure of their property, every dispensary in town shut down as of Sept. 19. 

Until the DEA’s initial letter writing campaign, Santa Barbara’s collectives operated smoothly for years. Although the ACME Collective garnered some media attention for a series of incidents, including a gang fight and an attempted break-in, it closed down rather quickly. Just prior to the DEA’s recent action, the city passed first a unanimous, six month moratorium on new dispensaries, then dispensary guidelines with zoning restrictions and a licensing process in hopes of avoiding further negative attention. The dispensaries themselves also had recently banded together to institute self regulation. 

Santa Barbara patients gathered downtown in late August to protest the DEA, organized in part by dispensary owner Mark Russell. Accompanied by Elvy Musikka, one of the few remaining federal IND patients to receive federal medical marijuana, whose presence highlighted the hypocrisy of the federal war against state-legal cannabis, some 50 patients marched from the waterfront to the court house. 

The march attracted regional press and local attention, making its way up the sides of the city’s busiest street chanting slogans such as “No access is not a solution,” and “Respect the will of the people,” which also adorned the shirts of many marchers. 

For some time after the deadline, patients along the Central Coast were forced to acquire medicine on the streets, with all of its attendant risks. However, despite the DEA’s increasingly aggressive tactics, clubs are slowly beginning to reopen, some in the same locations. At least one has opted to return to delivery service as they had immediately after the letters; others are trying to buy property directly, to make a final stand in the face of further government action. It remains to be seen how the city guidelines will affect things. 

Pressing Obama for meaningful change

By Dale Gieringer California NORML

Encouraged by the election, cannabis advocates are calling on President-elect Obama to make good on his pledge for change. In particular they want Obama to fulfill his one major pledge on cannabis, namely to end the DEA’s medical marijuana raids. 

As stated in a release by the Obama for America campaign: “Many states have laws that condone medical marijuana, but the Bush Administration is using federal drug enforcement agents to raid these facilities and arrest seriously ill people. Focusing scarce law enforcement resources on these patients who pose no threat while many violent and highly dangerous drug traffickers are at large makes no sense. Senator Obama will not continue the Bush policy when he is president.” 

In furtherance of this pledge, advocates are urging the new administration to respect state cannabis laws; desist from arrest and prosecution of medical marijuana defendants; and pardon federal medical marijuana convicts, many of whom face lengthy sentences. 

There is little expectation that the administration will move quickly or dramatically to change federal drug policy. Drug reform received disappointingly scant attention in this year’s campaign. At a minimum, however, reformers are hopeful that Obama will order executive agencies to re-examine Bush administration policies and give a fair hearing to the mounting scientific evidence for reform. To this end, advocates are urging the administration to staff the Office of National Drug Control Policy with directors who have a background in public health, addiction and treatment rather than law enforcement or drug war advocacy. 

Advocates are particularly hopeful that the administration can be persuaded to lift restrictions on cannabis research. In particular, they are pressing for DEA to stop blocking a license for a medical cannabis research garden at the University of Massachusetts, and for NIDA to unblock access to research cannabis by approving a vaporizer research protocol by California NORML and MAPS. Both projects have been stalled for five years. 

Beyond this, advocates are urging the administration to approve a pending petition to reschedule cannabis for medical use. The petition, filed by a coalition of patients and reform groups, has been stalled by the Bush administration for six years. A likely response for Obama would be to appoint an inter-agency commission to review the status of medical cannabis, with the ultimate resolution taking several years. 

In the longer run, cannabis advocates are urging Obama to give serious consideration to decriminalization, a policy he supported as a State Senator. However, prospects for any such move remain distant. Despite recent electoral victories for cannabis in Massachusetts and Michigan, there is little inclination in Congress to change cannabis laws.

Initial indications are that cannabis reformers may have a tough row to hoe. Leading Obama advisors, including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Vice-President Biden, have a record of hostility to reform. The directors of Obama’s transition team for ONDCP are Christopher Putala, an ex-staffer for Sen. Biden’s Judiciary Committee who helped write anti-drug bills, and Donald Vareen, who opposed medical marijuana while working in Drug Czar McCaffrey’s office. 

The DEA has shown no signs of letting up during the Obama transition, having raided the Garden of Eden, a licensed dispensary in Alameda County, nine days after the election. Marijuana advocates must apply pressure to take advantage of Obama’s opening for change. Make your views known at: change.gov/page/s/yourvision or via canorml.org.

Advertisements