Friday, October 29, 2010

If you vote no on Proposition 19, nothing changes

Prohibition is failing

Published by The Reporter

Posted: 10/29/2010 01:03:01 AM PDT

If you vote no on Proposition 19, nothing changes. Marijuana is easier for teenagers to get than alcohol or tobacco now. Marijuana is the No. 1 source of funding for drug cartels now. Marijuana has been used by more than half of the full-time work force now. Marijuana prohibition clearly isn't working.

Concerns raised by opponents of Proposition 19 about the Drug Free Workplace Act are unwarranted. The U.S. Department of Labor Web site explicitly states: "The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 does not require drug testing." Additionally, concerns about driving under the influence of marijuana are unwarranted. We already have laws addressing driving under the influence for medical marijuana users and there has been no epidemic. The epidemic is with alcohol, which is responsible 39 percent of all traffic deaths.

This initiative simply mimics a stricter policy than Alaska's on growing and possessing marijuana (Alaska legalized growing and possession in 1975) and lets local governments decide if they would like to legalize sales. San Francisco will probably legalize it, along with Oakland and some other, more liberal cities.

If our city wants to legalize it, after seeing whether the effect is negative or positive, then it can. But we've already failed on every possible criteria for preventing marijuana use, so why not give legalization -- a policy that works in the Netherlands, Alaska, and Portugal -- a try?

Vote yes on Proposition 19.

Gerald

Thursday, October 28, 2010

WATCH THE MEMORIAL TRIBUTE TO MICHELLE RAINEY!

Memorial Tribute To Michelle Rainey

By Cannabis Culture - Wednesday, October 27 2010

Tags:

CANNABIS CULTURE - Friends of Canadian cannabis activist Michelle Rainey will be hold a memorial tribute in her honor at BC Marijuana Party Headquarters on Thursday, October 28. Tune in to our LIVE webcast starting at 8pm Pacific time.

A devoted activist and friend to many in Vancouver's cannabis community and around the world, Michelle passed away on October 20 after fighting a brave battle with cancer.

Michelle worked with Prince of Pot Marc Emery during the booming seed business years and became a dedicated activist and avid contributor to Pot-TV, Treating Yourself Magazine, and other pot publications, while serving as the co-founder and vice president of the BCMP. Michelle was arrested and became one of Marc's co-accused when his store was raided in 2005. Like Marc, she was threatened with extradition, but was fortunately given a conditional sentence without jail time after arranging a plea agreement with American authorities.

A sufferer of Crohn's disease, Michelle fought tirelessly for the rights of medical marijuana patients and became known for her popular "MEDICINAL" t-shirts, medpot informational packages, and her Medicinal Michelle YouTube series. She was a passionate, hard-working and loving person who always had a big smile and contagious enthusiasm. She will be dearly missed by all who knew her.

Please join Michelle's friends and admirers for a gathering on Thursday night to share memories and more. Those in Vancouver who knew Michelle can attend at 307 West Hastings Street on the third floor, and people everywhere else can watch the LIVE webcast of the Memorial Tribute to Michelle Rainey from the BC Marijuana Party Headquarters.

WEBCAST STARTS AT 8PM PACIFIC - THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28

Monday, October 25, 2010

Chicago Kids Reap What They Sow, but Can't Eat It

October 21, 2010 03:25 PM (PT) Topics: Food Policy, Health, Local Food, School Lunch

 

5415 Views so far...PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK TO VIEW STORY AND SIGN PETITION

Chicago boasts some of the best school gardens and greenhouses in the nation. The city's public school system holds more than 40 agricultural operations, with kids growing everything from tomatoes to pumpkins to fresh herbs. The Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences, for example, features a 25-acre farm where students raise tilapia and chickens and grow produce like squash, basil, and blueberries.

The school district's learning gardens seem like a sustainable foodie paradise. But like most things that sound too good to be true, the schoolyard farms come with a caveat: Students aren't actually allowed to eat anything that they grow during the day, The Chicago Tribune reports. Cafeterias won't serve up any of the hyper-local fruits and veggies, and most of the student-grown produce gets sold or given away. Talk about one giant missed opportunity.

The Chicago Public Schools (CPS) district and its meals provider, Chartwells-Thompson, cooked up this bizzaro, anti-produce rule. Under their regulation, student-grown produce needs to meet certain specifications in order to be served in school cafeterias. For one, student farmers couldn't apply any pesticides or insecticides on their crops, and they could only use commercially prepared, organic compost and fertilizer in order to supply veggies to a school cafeteria.

While cutting back on chemicals is a noble goal, Chartwells-Thompson and CPS don't require their commercial vendors to meet these same standards. In fact, produce grown by Chicago students likely contains far fewer chemical residues than fruits and veggies from industrial mega-farms. The Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences, for example, uses only a single pesticide on its corn. This scant use of chemicals means that schools won't dish out the local corn, even though corn sourced by Chartwells-Thompson can come loaded with all kinds of pesticides, herbicides, and every other kind of 'cide. Seems like this little rule was designed to ensure that Chartwells-Thompson's wallet stays full rather than Chicago's students' bellies.

We all know school lunch needs a serious overhaul — nachos, chicken nuggets, and soggy pizza do not a healthy, sustainable diet make. Incorporating fresh fruits, veggies, and cage-free eggs into lunch menus would undoubtedly boost meals' nutritional quality without costing the school district any more money than it's already spending. It's a win-win situation that's rendered impossible by district regulations.

The benefits of students eating their own produce extends beyond better lunches, too. American kids notoriously don't consume enough fruits and veggie. Studies indicate that kids who help grow crops are much more likely to chow down on fresh produce. Kathleen Merrigan, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Deputy Secretary, recently co-authored a study that showcased this fact. The study found that "...children who engaged in garden-based learning did better on their standardized test scores, were more environmentally aware and were willing to try and consume more fruits and vegetables, even beyond what they saw in the garden," Merrigan told the Tribune.

So let's add up the evidence so far: Students eating produce they grow themselves not only adds nutritious stuff to typically gross school lunches, it helps establish healthy eating patterns, allows kids to perform better in school, and makes children more environmentally aware? Anyone seeing a downside to this?

CPS and Chartwells-Thompson seem more concerned with sticking to the status quo than actually amending a rule to make meals — and, well, life — a whole lot better for Chicago's students. Sign our petition asking the district and the food-service company to ditch their ridiculous regulation, and let Chicago's students eat the produce that they grow.

Related Petition

Let Chicago Students Eat What They Grow
Sign Petition

1,006 Signatures

Start a Petition »

Photo credit: whirledkid via Flickr

Sarah Parsons is Change.org's Sustainable Food Editor. Her work has appeared in Popular Science, OnEarth, Audubon and Plenty.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Prop 19 and Constitutional Law for Dummies (and DEA Administrators) by Dan Riffle October 13, 2010

There’s been a great deal of chatter recently about what the federal government can or will do if Californians wisely pass Proposition 19 in a few weeks (read up here and here for example). President Obama has several choices, but the one I want address here is the one recently urged by nine former DEA heads (pdf):  for the feds to sue California in an attempt to declare the law null and void under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution because it violates the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). I have yet to see a more than perfunctory analysis of such a scenario, so I thought I’d post a little introductory Constitutional Law lesson for our curious readers.

Article VI, Section 1, clause 2 of the Constitution says “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; … Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” In short, if state law conflicts with a constitutionally valid federal law, the state law is void. Now for starters, not even Supreme Court justices will agree on what the CSA can constitutionally prohibit. At least one justice will tell you a law prohibiting the intrastate cultivation and consumption of marijuana (at least for medical use) isn’t constitutional in the first place. But since a majority on the Court has already said Congress has authority to regulate even intrastate marijuana cultivation, does that mean Prop 19 would be void? Hardly.

The legal term for this analysis is “preemption” – does federal law preempt state law? There are two ways this can happen, express or implied. Express preemption is when federal law expressly says that it preempts state law (example) – the CSA does not. The second is implied preemption, and there are multiple versions of implied preemption. First is when federal laws and regulations are so comprehensive that they intend to “occupy the field” and leave no room for the states to regulate. The second is when there is a direct conflict between state and federal law, so that one law forbids something the other requires, or visa versa. Fortunately, section 903 of the CSA speaks directly to this question:

No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.

As you can see, the CSA itself says explicitly that it doesn’t “occupy the field.” That’s why in addition to federal laws on marijuana possession, every state in the country has its own laws, most of which differ from one another and federal law. So the question is whether there’s a “positive conflict” between federal law and Prop 19 — does the proposition require something that the CSA forbids? Late night punchlines notwithstanding, smoking marijuana will not be mandatory in California if Prop 19 passes. And Prop 19 doesn’t forbid anything the CSA requires.

There’s one final wrinkle though. A state law can conflict with federal law if it creates an obstacle to accomplishing the goals behind federal law. There’s some question as to whether this form of preemption even applies since one could argue the language of section 903 limits the analysis to direct, positive conflicts (and at least one court agrees with this interpretation). But let’s assume for argument’s sake that it does apply. Some will argue that a state making marijuana legal under its own laws frustrates Congress’ intent to control (by prohibiting) marijuana possession and use. Does that mean California has to keep marijuana illegal? No. A separate line of cases says the feds cannot “commandeer” state governments by telling them what they can and cannot do. In other words, the federal government cannot force California to keep marijuana illegal under state law or enforce federal law.

So what does all this mean? Without question, California can simply remove its criminal laws concerning the possession, cultivation, and use of marijuana, which Prop 19 would do. Then, cities and the state would be free to decide whether to tax and regulate marijuana distribution. Whether and how states or municipalities can enact regulations concerning sales and use of marijuana is another question, but the court decisions on similar issues are encouraging. Decisions in two California cases have found that federal law doesn’t prevent cities and counties from licensing medical marijuana dispensaries and that federal law doesn’t preempt the issuance of patients’ and caregivers’ ID cards. But suffice it to say, anyone claiming Prop 19 will just be void anyway because it conflicts with federal law is, at best, grossly oversimplifying matters. More likely, they’re just flat out wrong, and running scared now that it’s becoming clear what a failure marijuana prohibition has been.

The bottom line is this: California voters have a very real opportunity on November 2 to finally start unwinding marijuana prohibition, and nothing in the Constitution says otherwise.

(Thanks to Karen O’Keefe, MPP’s director of state policies, for her assistance.)

Friday, October 15, 2010

Marijuana has a checkered history

Debbie Pfeiffer Trunnell, Staff Writer

Posted: 10/15/2010 08:22:32 PM PDT

Updated: 10/15/2010 08:53:33 PM PDT

In the 1930s, the drug czar of the day and a powerful newspaper publisher launched a vicious campaign against marijuana, naming it a deadly, dreadful poison.

The efforts of Harry Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, with the support of William Randolph Hearst and other staunch opponents, led to the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which made it illegal at the federal level.

"Before then it could be found in every corner drugstore," said Lanny Swerdlow, director of the Inland Empire- based Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project.

There have been many rules and regulations since.

On Nov. 2, Californians will vote on Proposition 19, which, if passed, would change California law to legalize

Richard Portillo of Og Genetics in Hemet provides medical marijuana for marijuana dispensaries and medical marijuana patients with what Portillo says is "high quality genetic marijuana." (LaFonzo Carter Staff Photographer)

marijuana and allow it to be regulated and taxed.

It is the latest in the debate over marijuana use.

Richard Portillo, who runs Hemet-based Og Genetics, helps supply medical marijuana for medical marijuana dispensaries and the patients who rely on them. He calls Proposition 19 a "funny thing" since lawmakers seem to have been constantly "going back and forth" on the issue.

For centuries, it was legal, with Chinese physicians recommending its use 5,000 years ago for pain. The Egyptians used it for the pain of childbirth.

In this country, the Virginia Assembly passed legislation in 1619 requiring every farmer to grow hemp, the fiber that comes from cannabis, or marijuana.

Colonists subsequently set aside part of their gardens to grow hemp, which was used for rope, clothing and ship sails.

"George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both promoted its use, while Benjamin Franklin went to Europe wearing homespun clothing made from hemp," said Jan Werner, vice president of the Clearview Lake Corp., which has medical marijuana dispensaries in Bloomington and Corona.

Although laws were enacted regulating its use, marijuana continued to be used for medicinal and industrial purposes leading up to the 1930s.

After the Marijuana Tax Act, drafted by Anslinger, passed, doctors could no longer prescribe the drug, said Swerdlow.

"The busting and the terrorizing began and it has been going on since," he said.

Although marijuana was ubiquitous in the 1960s, it remained illegal.

In 1996, Proposition 215 was passed in California, allowing patients with a valid doctor's recommendation to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal medical use.

Several other states followed suit.

It remains illegal at the federal level and marijuana dispensaries continue to be in the line of fire in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, said Swerdlow.

And now there is Proposition 19, which would allow people 21 and older to possess, cultivate or transport marijuana for personal use.

The controversial proposition is currently the source of much debate. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced Friday that the proposition won't stop federal drug enforcement.

Tim Rosales, spokesman for Sacramento-based No on Proposition 19, believes it is a badly flawed initiative that will not have the desired effect.

"It essentially carves out special rights for people who use recreational marijuana that could cause a host of other problems," he said. "There are people across the board opposed to it, and we need to go back to the drawing board."

But Swerdlow, a supporter, believes the time is now for the legalization.

"It will raise a lot of revenue for a bankrupt state and allow the police to go out on real crimes," he said. "It's absolutely time because it should never have been made illegal in the first place."

deborah.pfeiffer@inlandnewspapers.com, 909-386-3879

U.S. War Veterans Gain Medical Marijuana: Best News for Vets Since WWII

Dr. Phillip Leveque Salem-News.com

 

The U.S. Veterans Affairs Department finally woke up to smell the coffee...

Salem-News.com

tokeofthetown.com

(MOLALLA, Ore.) - I have been yearning for this title in Salem-News.com for about 11 years, since Oregon legalized Medical Marijuana in 1999. Many of my first patients, of 5000, were veterans who discovered in Viet Nam that Marijuana was very effective therapy for BATTLE TERRORS, formerly called BATTLE FATIGUE or SHELL SHOCK which it isn’t. They also found it excellent therapy for PTSD and NIGHT TERRORS long after coming home.

There are at least 1,000,000 American War Veteran PTSD Victims and probably as many non-veterans of rape, child abuse, “burned-out” nurses, EMTs, trauma surgeons, et cetera. There is a long list of such victims.

The U.S. Veterans Affairs Department finally woke up to smell the coffee or the aroma of Cannabis after hearing from hundreds of thousands of Vets telling their Doctors and mental health Nurse Practitioners that Cannabis/Marijuana (C/MJ) really WAS excellent treatment for PTSD and literally all psychological and/or physical wounds. C/MJ is excellent for pain of the body and the soul with an added effect of mood stimulation called euphoria.

C/MJ is better and safer than ANY kind of Morphine-like drug. The addiction liability of C/MJ is miniscule compared to the Opiates.

The U.S. V.A. follows not only its own War Veterans but also those of Canada, Israel, Netherlands, Spain and certainly other countries.

The Anti-depressant drugs of many classes have been forced upon PTSD Veterans et cetera for many years. The record of these drugs is deplorable with fake sugar pills often working better. The adverse side effects of the drugs are more dangerous than any other drugs except Morphine-like drugs such as Oxycontin, a real killer. Now they can use something which really works!

C/MJ works WITH many classes of drugs and because it has a totally different mechanism of action it works with and frequently totally supplants many drugs.

At this time only New Mexico allows Medical Marijuana for PTSD although California is miles ahead with C/MJ permits for ANY condition which it helps, which is almost anything except dandruff and athlete’s foot.

HOORAH FOR VETERANS FOR CANNABIS!!

THE VOTE HEMP REPORT

 

Vote Hemp Report Header

The Vote Hemp Report

Volume V, Number V

October 14, 2010

On August 20th Vote Hemp board member Christina Volgyesi and Living Harvest CEO Hans Fastre attended a private event at Congressman Kurt Schrader's home in Canby, OR where they had an opportunity to meet Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. They discussed the economic benefits of resuming industrial hemp farming and asked for the Secretary's help in obtaining a meeting with the Department of Justice on behalf of American farmers and the seventeen states which have passed hemp farming legislation. The following week Secretary Vilsack personally hand delivered our briefing documents to Attorney General Eric Holder at a meeting they had scheduled. Vote Hemp is now working with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Congressional staff to request a meeting with the Department of Justice. We are also trying to encourage the USDA to revise the inaccurate ten year old Economic Research Service Report: Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and Market Potential.

Hans Fastre, CEO and President Living Harvest Foods, Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture and Christina Volgyesi, Vote Hemp board member.
Hans Fastre, CEO and President Living Harvest Foods, Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture and Christina Volgyesi, Vote Hemp board member.

In February we wrote to you about our goals for this year and the strategies that we were going to use to achieve them. We also asked you to make a donation to Vote Hemp on our web site and told you that Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps has generously agreed to match every dollar you donate, doubling the impact of your contributions:

Donate to Vote Hemp!

While the economy has not helped us meet our fundraising goals for this year, we have exceeded what we set out to do to help return hemp farming and processing to the U.S. In addition to securing meetings with officials at the USDA, and continuing to work towards meetings with the Department of Justice, we also had a meeting with the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in the first week in August. Eric Steenstra, President of Vote Hemp, and Tom Murphy, our National Outreach Coordinator, met with Kevin Sabet, ONDCP Special Advisor for Policy, and Regina LaBelle, ONDCP Senior Policy Advisor, and discussed a range of issues that surround industrial hemp policy. The follow up on this meeting has been good and we are currently discussing changes to the ONDCP web site and they are working on our request to get a copy of the ONDCP's current policy on industrial hemp in writing. Even if the Obama Administration and the ONDCP don't currently have a policy on industrial hemp we would like to have that in writing.
In July we wrote a letter to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary opposing the nomination of Michele Leonhart to be Administrator of DEA. Leonhart is part of the problem at DEA and has not acted reasonably regarding license applications or general policy. To date there still has not been a Committee hearing on her nomination and considering the gridlock in the Senate during this session of Congress they may not have one before the end of the 11th Congress in January of 2011.
A few weeks ago we announced The Vote Hemp Guide to Hemp Activism, A Concise Guide to Citizen Lobbying on the Hemp Issue. This eleven page guide will give you the information and tools that you need to confidently and effectively ask your elected representatives to support legislation that will lift the current ban on hemp farming in the U.S. The Vote Hemp lobbying page has more information and you can download a PDF copy of this guide.
We are also happy to tell you that we have another co-sponsor for H.R. 1866, the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009." Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine's first district signed on last month. Techniques that are in The Vote Hemp Guide to Hemp Activism were used during the August recess to gain her support. H.R. 1866 now has twenty-five co-sponsors, including Rep. Ron Paul, the most number it has ever had!
Another part of of our strategy this year was the Hemp History Week postcard campaign to get the attention of Attorney General Eric Holder. Volunteers from across the country spread the cards far and wide, getting physical support for our cause and introducing thousands of new people to the issue. We collected as many signed postcards as we could, packed them in boxes, addressed them to the Department of Justice and included a cover letter. If you were not able to sign a postcard in person you may send a virtual postcard to President Obama and Attorney General Holder using our letter writing tool.
Remember that there is an election coming up in November, so register to vote.
Please remember to make a contribution to Vote Hemp today to help us continue working for hemp farming in the U.S. We need and truly appreciate your support!
Regards,
Eric Steenstra
President
Vote Hemp
Vote Hemp Logo

In This Issue

Two New Bills Introduced in Michigan

Hemp - A War Crop for Iowa

The Hemp Millers' Exemption from Marihuana Taxes

Two New Bills Introduced in Michigan

Michigan Capitol

Two new bills were introduced in Michigan late last month! HB 6480 is an industrial hemp farming bill and HB 6479 is an industrial hemp study bill. Both were introduced by Representative LaMar Lemmons and were referred to the Committee on Agriculture. Do you live in Michigan or know someone who does? If so, please read the Vote Hemp Alert: Michigan: Please Write & Call Your State Representatives!

[More...]

Hemp - A War Crop for Iowa

Hemp A War Crop for Iowa

Here is the latest addition to the Vote Hemp Download Center archives. Hemp A War Crop for Iowa, Bulletin P 49, December 1942, Agriculture Experiment Station, Agriculture Extension Service, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa. Cover picture: Hemp harvester in operation near Waupun, Wisconsin. (Courtesy of Bur. Agr. Chern. and Engr., U. S. D. A.) Click here to download a copy (PDF file 2.8MB).

The Hemp Millers' Exemption from Marihuana Taxes

United States Code - 1958

After WWII the Bureau on Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) tried to promulgate regulations that were so bad that they would have effectively banned the processing of hemp, and in effect the farming of it as well, by levying a transfer tax on any leaves that were left on stalks at the hemp mills. Senator Robert La Follette, Jr. of Wisconsin, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, held hearings on the problem and invited a number hemp industry witnesses. According to researcher Jon Gettman the Senate and House had a conference on the adoption of the amendments and that:
"The House agreed during conference to accept the Senate Amendments and Public Law 320 was passed on March 8, 1956, adding the following provisions to the US Code: 26 USC 4742 (c), 26 USC 4751 (6), and 26 USC 4753 (b). These Millers Exemptions were retained by Congress in the Internal Revenue Act of 1954, and remained in the statutes until passage of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970 eliminated the use of prohibitory taxes to prevent marijuana production."
Two of these sections of the U.S. Code of 1958 are below:

[More...]

Support Vote Hemp

Vote Hemp Sticker and Hemp Oil Lip Balm
Donate $20 and get a Vote Hemp Sticker and Hemp Oil Lip Balm
Hemp Product Sampler
Donate $25 and get the Hemp Product Sampler
Vote Hemp logo hemp hat Donate $36 and get a Vote Hemp logo hemp hat
"Standing Silent Nation" DVD
Donate $45 and get a "Standing Silent Nation" DVD
Vote Hemp Embroidered Polo Shirt Donate $48 and get a Vote Hemp logo hemp polo shirt
Dr. Bronner's Soap Pack
Donate $100 and get 12 assorted hemp body care products
PollockPrints Vote Hemp Poster
Donate $500 and get the PollockPrints Vote Hemp Poster package

Current Action Alerts

Take Action

Nationwide: Click here to write your Congressional representative and ask him/her to become a co-sponsor of H.R. 1866, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009. If he/she is a co-sponsor already, you will be able to thank them and ask them to help get the bill a hearing in committee.
The following states have passed hemp farming bills and/or resolutions or memorials urging Congress to allow states to regulate hemp farming. Please use the links below to write to your Congressional representative if you are from these states..
Colorado: Click here to thank Rep. Jared Polis for becoming a co-sponsor of H.R. 1866.
Maine: Click here to thank Rep. Chellie Pingree for becoming a co-sponsor of H.R. 1866 or to write to Rep. Mike Michaud and ask him to become a co-sponsor.
Montana: Click here to thank Rep. Denny Rehberg for becoming a co-sponsor of H.R. 1866.
New Mexico: Click here to write to Your Representative and ask them to become a co-sponsor of H.R. 1866.
North Dakota: Click here to write to Rep. Earl Pomeroy and ask him to become a co-sponsor of H.R. 1866.
Oregon: Click here to write to Your Representative and ask them to become a co-sponsor of H.R. 1866. Rep. Earl Blumenauer is a co-sponsor. Please click here to thank him.
Vermont: Click here to write to Rep. Peter Welch and ask him to become a co-sponsor of H.R. 1866.
Washington: Click here to thank Rep. Jim McDermott for becoming a co-sponsor of H.R. 1866.
[More...]

Quick Links

Vote Hemp Home
Hemp Industries Association
Write Congress
Take State Action
Contribute
Hemp News Update
Register to Vote
Download Center
What Can I Do?
Vote Hemp on Twitter
Vote Hemp on MySpace
Vote Hemp on Facebook

Join Our Mailing List

Forward email

Safe Unsubscribe

This email was sent to shereekrider@usmjparty.org by report@votehemp.com.

Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

Email Marketing by

Vote Hemp, Inc. | P.O. Box 1571 | Brattleboro | VT | 05302

Thursday, October 7, 2010

If California Legalizes Marijuana, How Will Obama React?

SOURCE:

California will vote in a few weeks on Proposition 19, which would (if it passes) effectively legalize the recreational use of marijuana in the state. Chances of it passing seem to be growing, if you'll excuse the metaphor, like a weed. Right now, the poll numbers for Proposition 19 are better than the numbers for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown or Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer against their respective Republican opponents, for instance. Meaning California could become a "test-case" state in challenging federal laws on the matter. But what would this mean, practically? Well, a lot of it hinges on how President Barack Obama reacts. Which is impossible to say right now, but at least we can examine the possibilities, now that California legalizing marijuana seems to have moved from the "pipe dream" category (sorry about that, I couldn't resist) to a very real political possibility, if the polling trend continues.

The polling on Proposition 19 still does fluctuate, but appears to be getting better on average. Eight of the last nine polls have shown Yes on Prop. 19 with a 4-11 point lead (average lead: 7.1 percent). The best of these is less than a week old and showed a 52-41 split. In four of these, Yes on Prop. 19 scored at 50 percent or better. Now, this doesn't mean passage is a sure thing at this point. Seasoned supporters of state propositions don't really begin to breathe easily until the polling for the proposition hits 55 percent or better (which is usually seen as pretty much unbeatable). The highest poll yet in favor of Prop. 19 has been 53 percent, in comparison. And, although probably an aberration, the most recent poll showed a stunningly different story, with Prop. 19 losing 43-53. Measuring it against the other polling, though, this latest poll is likely an outlier. Polling on the proposition is in itself questionable, for the simple reason that after 100 years of the "Drug War," most citizens may have problems answering questions about drugs honestly when an absolute stranger calls them up and asks them. But, overall, the polling is much better than it was even a few months ago, and the movement seems to be towards the Yes side. The battle's far from won, but it is looking more and more winnable, to put it another way.

If California does go ahead and legalize marijuana, the entire Proposition 19 campaign could bear some very interesting offspring as soon as 2012. Even the staid Wall Street Journal just pointed out the fact that a whole bunch of Democratic strategists are watching this race very, very closely. This is because it could become a dandy "hot button" issue on the Left, in much the same way that banning gay marriage has been a successful political tool on the Right. These hot buttons on both sides energize the base of the party and increase voter turnout among some normally-apathetic groups. The way this thinking goes is: California's youth may surprise everyone and buck the general trend for any midterm election (where young voters mostly skip voting), and vote in droves precisely because a pet issue of theirs is on the ballot. This means it may behoove Democrats to put marijuana legalization initiatives on state ballots in order to drive up turnout in 2012, and beyond. Democratic politicians, however, are going to be a lot more reluctant to join this bandwagon, but one assumes they'll certainly be thankful for the benefits of a bigger Democratic turnout. Both Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer are officially against Proposition 19, but I bet in private they're thanking their lucky stars that it made the ballot this year.

"Yes on 19" spokesman Tom Angell, when contacted about this possibility, was optimistic about the prospect of Democrats having a change of heart politically, if Proposition 19 wins in November: "The pervasive political thought among Democrats is that supporting marijuana reform is politically dangerous -- but eventually they'll realize that supporting such reform means that they won't be punished at the polls as a result, but that they may in fact be rewarded." Angell is currently "on loan" to the Yes on 19 group, and is normally Media Director for a group which has endorsed Proposition 19, "Law Enforcement Against Prohibition" (or L.E.A.P.), which is made up of current and former police officers, judges, and others from the law enforcement field.

Turning back to my main point, though, let's just assume for the sake of argument that Proposition 19 passes on Election Day California (which, for those of you on the East Coast, will happen three hours later than you expect it to... ). Glassfuls of bubbles will be raised across the state in victory salutes; although these won't be the traditional Dom PĂ©rignon champagne served in Waterford flutes, but rather glass bongs bubbling merrily away. Marijuana legalization is approved by the voters 54-46, and everyone lives happily ever after, right?

Well, no. Marijuana is still quite illegal under federal law. And federal law always trumps state law. At least, unless the United States Supreme Court rules against the federal law or Congress decides to change it. So what would the passage of Proposition 19 actually mean for Californians?

It depends. It all depends on President Barack Obama, at least for now. Because Obama has a number of choices open to him as to how the federal government is going to react to this development. And it's impossible to say exactly what form this reaction would take. But we can at least outline the possibilities at this point. From worst to best, here's how I see these possible options:

Crackdown / escalate
Obama could instruct his Justice Department to crack down unmercifully. This includes both the "law" and "order" parts of the Justice Department, to borrow a television metaphor. Federal agents (such as, but not limited to, the D.E.A. and the F.B.I., just for starters) could be mobilized, and the feds could start busting everyone in sight for blatantly violating the federal Controlled Substances Act (with a Schedule I narcotic, no less), and the federal prosecutors could start jamming these cases through with a passion.

Remember, even though President Obama admits he smoked a little weed in his own day, he has been consistently against any and all hints of legalization. In fact, it was one of the first Lefty issues he not only dismissed, but actually ridiculed (Obama was forced to address the issue because it wildly outpolled all other questions for his first "online town hall" meeting, very early in his term, and he turned the whole thing into a joke).

This is probably pretty far-fetched, though, I have to admit. Such an overreaction would require an immense amount of manpower and court time and likely wind up being pretty futile in the end. But you never know. This could also be an option later on, after Obama leaves office, but we'll get to that in a bit.

Make some examples
The second route the Obama administration could take is to "make an example" of a few people. Crack the whip on some high-profile arrests and court cases, but leave the low-level stuff alone. This could go a number of different directions, depending on which scapegoats the feds choose to go after. The Obama team has, for instance, said that they will not target medical marijuana shops that "are legal under state law" but will continue to bust those that fall afoul of the law (mostly by not checking the paperwork of who they sell to). Which they indeed have continued to do.

But that kind of all goes out the window if it's legal for everyone. Assumably, the Obama people would refrain from sending in thousands of new D.E.A. agents to the state, but also go after some big-time busts, just to make a legal point. Which leads us to the next option.

Fight it out in the courts
Whether the Obama folks use a test case via a big bust, or they just sue the state directly, this battle may get fought out in the court system. Which doesn't exactly bode well for Proposition 19, for the exact same reason Obama is suing Arizona over their recent immigration law -- federal law always trumps state law. Unless California can convince the Supremes that there is a constitutional right to smoke pot, which should be seen as somewhat of a longshot, at least in the legal realm.

Blackmail the state
This one may come from Congress, but it may also get Obama's support (again, Obama himself is on record as being against legalization). Congress could cut off a whole bunch of money for the state of California. This would not be limited to "funds to fight the Drug War," most likely. There are all sorts of things in the federal budget that could be used to make California pay a serious price for legalizing marijuana. This sort of congressional "blackmail" happens all the time, I should point out, and was the mechanism used in the 1980s (with highway funding) to force all the states to raise their drinking age to 21. Again, though, this would likely come from Congress itself, rather than the White House.

Do nothing
There's a long history of standing back and letting states be the "laboratories of democracy" in situations like this, which Obama could indeed take. Call it the laissez-faire option. Or, if you prefer non-French terminology, call it the free-market option.

This option would consist of sitting back, and then waiting to see what happens. Obama could tell the Justice Department to only enforce the federal marijuana laws in 49 states, since California has shown it wants to try something new. There is lots of precedent for doing so, most notably up in Oregon, where they have an assisted-suicide law. This law was passed by Oregon residents, and at first the feds were very heavy-handed and threatened doctors with the loss of their D.E.A. approval to write prescriptions, but has since calmed down (since Obama took office, at least) into the feds "looking the other way." Civilization in Oregon has not noticeably collapsed in the meantime.

This would be the thing Californians are likely to hope for from Obama. If Obama came out and gave a speech on "the will of the voters" and that sort of thing, and then announced a new "hands off CA" policy, then we would have a little laboratory-of-democracy experiment, which could be very instructive to the rest of the country. I have no idea what the chances of this outcome happening are, though, I freely admit.

Jump on the bandwagon
And I have to put this last one as just as unlikely as the first one. President Obama could see the error of his ways, not only announce his "hands off CA" federal policy, but also become an advocate for full legalization of marijuana nationwide.

As I said, I really don't expect or even hope for this to happen, because it seems so far-fetched, but I mention it here for completeness' sake.

CONTINUE READING:

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Judge Rules In Deonte Hallowell's Favor

By Daniel Kemp/WLKY News

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A Metro Council member running as an independent will remain on November's ballot as a candidate in the 6th District race.

A hearing was held Wednesday in Jefferson County circuit court challenging the number of signatures on Councilman Deonte Hollowell's nominating petition.

"Given that one can make a valid argument either way, I have to choose that which gives people the most choice," said Judge Charles Cunningham.

"We're just happy that the judge ruled in our favor and he's allowed to be on this ballot for November," said Derwin Webb, Hollowell's attorney.

Attorneys for William Clark, a 6th District voter who filed the lawsuit, said according to a Kentucky revised statute, an independent running for Metro Council must have at least 20 signatures on his or her nominating petition. Hollowell only had two.

"The statute we keep referring to, basically, this government has the powers of a county and a city, and it specifically says in there you have the greater powers of the lesser restrictions. The lesser restriction in this case, 20 or 2, and the lesser restriction would be 2, so somebody could run for this office," said Assistant County Attorney Patrick Mulvihill.

"I understand the judge's ruling that he believed that the statute was subject to interpretation and then in the interest of keeping Mr. Hollowell on the ballot, he chose to go with two signatures, which Hollowell had and we understand the judge's ruling and will take that into consideration," said Jennifer Moore, Clark's attorney.

Moore would refer only to her client as a political activist working in the 6th District.

Webb called the lawsuit "politics."

"We know he's been barraged with some things recently so we don't expect this to be the last thing," Webb said.

The hearing comes shortly after a report first publicized by a local blogger revealed that Hollowell was found with marijuana when he was arrested on a bench warrant for speeding last year.

"Politics are politics. This is the political season and we know that during the political season, things come up," Webb said.

Hollowell declined to talk to WLKY after the hearing.

Following the death of Metro Councilman George Unseld, the council took 34 ballots at a June meeting to decide on Hollowell as a compromise candidate to fill the seat.

Attorneys for Clark have five days to appeal the judge's ruling.

Previous Stories:

By Daniel Kemp/WLKY News

CALLING ALL PATRIOTS!!!! I was arrested

Roland A. Duby (Ronnie Smith)

 

Roland A. Duby (Ronnie Smith)

CALLING ALL PATRIOTS!!!! I was arrested and the terms of my $10,000 bond are house arrest, but they didn't put me on house arrest until after they found out I was running for sheriff! They did this to keep me from campaigning, and it is a dirty trick, I need recourse, Does anyone have any ideas? any ACLU lawyers out there?

THE U.S. MARIJUANA PARTY OF KENTUCKY ENDORSES THE ELECTION OF RONNIE SMITH FOR SHERIFF OF GALLATIN COUNTY KENTUCKY!