Secretary Grimes Expands Efforts to Protect Election Integrity

Secretary of State
Secretary Grimes Expands Efforts to Protect Election Integrity

Press Release Date:
Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Contact Information:
Lynn Sowards Zellen
Director of Communications
Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes
(502) 330-9839
Email: lynn.zellen@ky.gov

Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky’s Chief Election Official, is rallying forces to prevent vote fraud in the November 6th General Election. Today, members of the Kentucky Election Integrity Task Force, headed by Grimes, met in the State Capitol to coordinate efforts to protect the integrity of the election. As part of Grimes’ initiative to broaden the approach to combating election fraud, West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant, who is confronting similar issues in her state, also attended the meeting.

Because there are federal races on the ballot, in addition to the offices of Secretary Grimes and Attorney General Jack Conway, the United States Attorney’s offices in the Eastern and Western Districts are members of the Task Force. In addition, as a result of meetings with county clerks across the state and observations from past elections, Secretary Grimes is expanding Kentucky’s traditional defenses against vote fraud. Among other things, Grimes invited the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Kentucky Commonwealth Attorneys Association, Kentucky County Attorneys Association, Kentucky County Clerks Association, Kentucky Sheriff’s Association, Kentucky State Police and Kentucky Democratic and Republican Parties to join the Task Force.

“The need to preserve the integrity of elections is not specific to a particular county or state,” said Grimes, “and we welcome input and cooperation from all officials who share our commitment to protecting the right to vote. By bringing new members into the task force, we gain not only feet on the ground on Election Day, but also fresh ideas and perspectives on how to ensure our elections remain free and fair.” According to Assistant United States Attorney Ken Taylor, who has prosecuted election violations in Eastern Kentucky for the past decade, this year’s Task Force is “by far the most aggressive and active group I have seen.”

Noting the history of vote buying in Kentucky, Grimes warned would-be election manipulators that “our elections are not for sale.” And Tennant commended the Task Force for expanding efforts to protect the election process and showing that “unscrupulous people cannot chip away at our democracy.”

In addition to the Task Force members, Rep. Darryl Owens, Chair of the Elections, Constitutional Amendments and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Franklin County Sheriff Pat Melton and members of the State Board of Elections were on hand for the meeting and press conference.

Grimes, along with United States Attorneys David Hale and Kerry Harvey, encourages citizens to be alert on Election Day and report any suspicious activity. “Voters form the front lines of our fraud-prevention efforts,” said Grimes. “With their help, I am confident the integrity of our election process will be upheld.”

Leading up to the election, citizens may contact their county clerk or the State Board of Elections at 800-246-1399 or 502-573-7100 to express concerns or request election information. On Election Day, citizens can contact the Attorney General’s Election Fraud Hotline at 1-800-328-VOTE. The Hotline is open throughout the year during normal business hours and from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. (EST) on Election Day. Conway encourages citizens to report election irregularities and said that, “Working together, we can ensure a fair and honest election for all Kentuckians on November 6th.”

Members of the news media covering the election are reminded that they may be in the voting room for the limited purpose of filming the voting process. However, as per OAG 88-76, the media may not conduct interviews with voters inside the voting room, record the identity of voters, or disrupt the voting process, a Class A misdemeanor. See KRS 117.236.

###

http://migration.kentucky.gov/newsroom/sos/sos102312a.htm

We need to think carefully, critically about legal marijuana

• Published October 03, 2012

As I visit with people, read newspapers and watch the news, it is clear the people who wish to legalize marijuana are passionate about their cause. The advocates for legalization of marijuana assert that if Initiative 502 were to pass, that it is good public policy that will help the state economically and provide the law enforcement the opportunity to be better stewards of our resources, as we will not be enforcing “minor” marijuana possession laws.

I ask each of you to carefully and critically evaluate what is being said about the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana is the most commonly abused illegal drug in the U.S. Those who support its legalization, for medical or for general use, fail to recognize that the greatest costs of marijuana are not related to its prohibition; they are the costs resulting from marijuana use itself.

ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO USE LESSONS

Important lessons can be learned from those two widely-used legal drugs. While both alcohol and tobacco are taxed and regulated, the tax benefits to the public are vastly overshadowed by the adverse consequences of their use. Alcohol-related costs total more than $185 billion while federal and states collect an estimated $14.5 billion in tax revenue. Similarly, tobacco use costs more than $200 billion but only $25 billion is collected in taxes. These figures show that the costs of legal alcohol are more than 12 times the total tax revenue collected, and that the costs of legal tobacco are about eight times the tax revenue collected. This is an economically disastrous trade-off.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM MISCONCEPTION

There is a common misconception that the principle costs of marijuana use are those related to the criminal justice system. This is a false premise. Studies have found that the percentage of people in prison for marijuana use is less than one half of one percent (0.1-0.2 percent).

An encounter with the criminal justice system through apprehension for a drug-related crime frequently can benefit the offender because the criminal justice system is often a path to treatment. The future of drug policy is not a choice between using the criminal justice system or treatment. The more appropriate goal is to get these two systems to work together more effectively to improve both public safety and public health.

DRUG-IMPAIRED DRIVING

Drug-impaired driving will also increase if marijuana is legalized. Marijuana is already a significant factor in highway crashes, injuries and deaths. In a recent national roadside survey conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of weekend nighttime drivers, 8.6 percent tested positive for marijuana or its metabolites, nearly four times the percentage of drivers with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 g/dL (2.2 percent). In a study of fatally injured drivers here in Washington state, 12.7 percent tested positive for marijuana. These studies demonstrate the high prevalence of drugged driving as a result of marijuana use. Law enforcement agencies do not have sufficient resources for dealing with drug impaired drivers.

INCREASED USE BY OUR YOUTH

Studies have shown that expanded availability and perceived social acceptability will increase marijuana use among youth. The percentage of kids in drug counseling for marijuana addiction has been increasing annually, and the resulting negative effects place our youth’s development and our future workforce at risk.

MARIJUANA PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION IS BIG BUSINESS

The production and distribution of marijuana is already big business and many times controlled by violent drug cartels. As a law enforcement executive, I am concerned should this initiative pass that violent drug cartels are well-positioned to take advantage of lower marijuana prices by buying up the supply to resell here and throughout the United States. I have questions regarding where marijuana production will be allowed, dealing with fire hazards, security and safety issues posed by these grow houses, which have serious potential to impact the quality of life in our community. Imagine Washington as an attraction that fuels the illicit drug trade for the entire United States. Is that what we want to develop as one of Washington’s prime industries?

COSTS WILL OUTWEIGH THE SUPPOSED REVENUES

Are we serious about introducing more mind-altering substances into our society because it might produce tax revenues? Marijuana still remains illegal under federal law, thus are any locally imposed taxes legally uncollectible? The question is: Can a state compel a person or business to pay a tax that might subject them to prosecution by the federal government?

Drug use is damaging to our communities, our youth and everyone we are sworn to serve and protect. How could we make access to drugs easier? As protectors of public safety, I see only problems associated with Initiative 502 as it threatens to undermine our communities’ public health and safety.

John D. Snaza is the sheriff of Thurston County.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/10/03/2272182/we-need-to-think-carefully-critically.html#storylink=cpy

Should pot be legal? NO: Voters should hold out for real reform, not fall for this narrow proposal

Washington voters are being told a big lie. New Approach Washington, the campaign behind Initiative 502, is advertising that it will “legalize” marijuana. It would not.

DOUGLAS HIATT • Published October 08, 2012

 

 

It creates a very narrow exception that defines the possession of one ounce by adults over 21, and the state’s rules for production, as “not a violation” of the law.

I-502 leaves every single law now making marijuana illegal on the books. Walk out of the state-sanctioned, licensed and taxed store and hand the marijuana to your significant other and it is a delivery of marijuana. This is not comprehensive, real reform.

What I-502 does change is our DUI law. Our current DUI laws are working just fine and result in conviction rates of over 90 percent. This initiative sets unneeded, unasked for and unscientific levels for impairment for adults (5 nanograms, rejected three times by the Colorado Legislature), while establishing a zero-tolerance provision for all drivers 16 to 21.

It also takes away your ability to defend yourself. If you meet the levels, you are guilty. No explaining that you are a patient, no arguing about the levels or tolerance, nothing. For drivers age 16 to 21, any detectable amount of marijuana will result in a DUI conviction and disastrous effects on their parents’ insurance.

This is not based on impairment; it is simply a new penalty for marijuana for kids. But it is a very impactful one for parents with teenage drivers. What parent wants to face the requirements for insurance and the expense of a DUI, all because of some youthful experimentation?

This initiative is also being sold as “pitting the citizens of Washington state against the federal government” and “carefully drafted” to withstand federal preemption. Not true. I-502 essentially wastes your vote to force federal change and will likely result in the federal courts construing this initiative to change the law to one ounce decriminalized, with nowhere legal to buy it and leaving the terrible changes to our DUI laws.

As U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan has stated, she knows of no attorney who thinks that this will survive federal preemption analyses. There are ways to avoid this drafting problem. See sensiblewashington.org for real cannabis reform.

Because the federal government will not allow the state to begin regulating and taxing a federally banned substance, these projections are moot. I-502 imposes taxes at three distinct levels and does not allow growers and sellers to be the same entity. This will produce taxes that will make the store-bought marijuana way too expensive to even begin to impact the current market.

I-502 will have absolutely no effect on criminal organizations in Mexico or anywhere else. To actually get the benefit of ending prohibition, as we did with alcohol, you have to actually legalize the substance in question, not play games and pander to fears. I-502 also fails to legalize hemp, which would open a $430 million domestic hemp market currently supplied primarily by China.

With regard to other criminal justice savings, because more than 90 percent of current marijuana possession charges are the result of traffic stops, the 10,000 possession arrests per year can easily be converted into 10,000 (or more) DUI arrests, thereby eliminating any savings in the criminal justice system stemming from reduced prosecutions. The zero-tolerance driving standard for drivers 16 to 21 will eliminate any savings on criminal justice costs and produce much misery for many families.

Just say no to I-520.

Douglas Hiatt is a Seattle-based criminal defense attorney and a co-founder of Sensible Washington, which opposes Initiative 502 and advocates for legalization of hemp and cannabis.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/10/07/2278108/should-pot-be-legal-no-voters.html?storylink=addthis#.UHMRJ5sAzPs.facebook#storylink=cpy

Someone who needs help fast….

Steve Tuck

If anybody here knows a lawyer here in KY whom believes in medical cannabis please let me know as mine doesn't seem to realize how serious this situation is, my MD was friends with Gatewood and told me to find out if anybody took his practice over but I was told no ...I've been a medical cannabis patient since 80's due to an accident in the military and got my first rec from a MD at Walter Reed as my body doesn't react well to other drugs and have scripts from dozens of MD's in several states...long story short is my Dad had a stroke and I hadn't been home to KY in years and while here my nephew passed away as well so it's been a very emotional time for me. I got caught in a weird deal with a few grams of cannabis and am willing to pay whatever fine I need to in order to be allowed to return to Cali and my MD's, but they are wanting me to do a week or so in jail and without my morphine and other meds I've been on for 20+ years and last time they were taken away I almost died and am scared it's going to happen again and can't believe they are willing to kill me over a few joints that I only use for myself to stay alive? Sorry for bothering y'all with this but thought somebody here might have an idea???

http://www.facebook.com/#!/herbdoc215

Sheree Krider . . . 'et al': POW Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl US Army Captured Afghanista...

Sheree Krider . . . 'et al': POW Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl US Army Captured Afghanista...: Diane Gibbons Malanga     For those who do not know this following information     POW Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl     On July 18, 2009, the Taliba...

Kentucky’s 2013 Gatewood Galbraith Medical Marijuana Memorial Act

Jacob JonesPublished:October 15, 2012 6:52PM

 

Kentuckians!

The states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia, have removed state-level criminal penalties from the medical use and cultivation of marijuana. Kentucky joins in this effort for the health and welfare of its citizens.

The above text is from the first section of the Gatewood Galbraith Medical Marijuana Memorial Act, this bills fate will be determined during our 2013 General Assembly. Also within the first section of the Act is the text below:

Marijuana’s recorded use as a medicine goes back nearly five thousand (5,000) years. Modern medical research has confirmed the beneficial uses for marijuana in treating or alleviating the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a variety of debilitating medical conditions, including cancer, multiple sclerosis, and HIV/AIDS, as found by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine in March 1999;

Studies published since the 1999 Institute of Medicine report have continued to show the therapeutic value of marijuana in treating a wide array of debilitating medical conditions. These include relief of the neuropathic pain caused by multiple sclerosis, HIV/AIDS, other illnesses and injuries that often fail to respond to conventional treatments, and relief of nausea, vomiting, and other side effects of drugs used to treat HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C, increasing the chances of patients continuing on life-saving treatment regimens.

Marijuana has many currently accepted medical uses in the United States, having been recommended by thousands of licensed physicians to more than five hundred thousand (500,000) patients in states with medical marijuana laws. Marijuana's medical utility has been recognized by a wide range of medical and public health organizations, including the American Academy of HIV Medicine, the American College of Physicians, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and many others.

Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports and the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics show that approximately ninety-nine (99) out of every one hundred (100) marijuana arrests in the United States are made under state law, rather than under federal law. Consequently, changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill patients who have a medical need to use marijuana

States are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law. Therefore, compliance with Sections 1 to 24 of this Act does not put the state of Kentucky in violation of federal law; and

State law should make a distinction between the medical and nonmedical uses of marijuana. Therefore, the purpose of Sections 1 to 24 of the Gatewood Galbraith Medical Marijuana Memorial Act is to protect patients with debilitating medical conditions, as well as their practitioners and providers, from arrest and prosecution, criminal and other penalties, and property forfeiture, if such patients engage in the medical use of marijuana.

You’ve just read most of section 1 from the Gatewood Galbraith Medical Marijuana Memorial Act. Thank you. The next sections of this Act define this crucial medical program and are followed by needed protections along with guiding restrictions. The enacting of this bill benefits our loved ones and people we all know, who need medical marijuana to improve the quality of their lives.

The following are debilitating medical conditions which may qualify one to become a Kentucky medical marijuana patient:

Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, agitation of Alzheimer's disease, post-traumatic stress disorder, or the treatment of these conditions;

A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces one (1) or more of the following: cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe, debilitating pain; severe nausea; seizures; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

Please inform your districts congressmen of your support for the Gatewood Galbraith Medical Marijuana Memorial Act and urge their co-sponsor for the 2013 General Assembly.

Official record of the bill can be found at http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/13rs/SB11.htm

CONTINUE READING…

States Legalizing Marijuana Will Violate Federal Law, Trigger Constitutional Showdown: DEA, Drug Czars

The Huffington Post | By Matt Ferner Posted: 10/15/2012 3:13 pm EDT

 

On a Monday teleconference call, former Drug Enforcement Agency administrators and directors of the Office of National Drug Control Policy voiced a strong reminder to the U.S. Department of Justice that even if voters in Colorado, Oregon and Washington pass ballot measures to legalize marijuana use for adults and tax its sale, the legalization of marijuana still violates federal law and the passage of these measures could trigger a "Constitutional showdown."

The goal of the call was clearly to put more pressure on Attorney General Eric Holder to make a public statement in opposition to these measures. With less than 30 days before Election Day, the DOJ has yet to announce its enforcement intentions regarding the ballot measures that, if passed, could end marijuana prohibition in each state.

"Next month in Colorado, Oregon and Washington states, voters will vote on legalizing marijuana," Peter Bensinger, the moderator of the call and former administrator of the DEA during President Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan administrations, began the call. "Federal law, the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court decisions say that this cannot be done because federal law preempts state law."

Bensinger added: "And there is a bigger danger that touches every one of us -- legalizing marijuana threatens public health and safety. In states that have legalized medical marijuana, drug driving arrests, accidents, and drug overdose deaths have skyrocketed. Drug treatment admissions are up and the number of teens using this gateway drug is up dramatically."

Bensinger was joined by a host of speakers including Bill Bennet and John Walters, former directors of the While House Office of National Drug Control Policy; Chief Richard Beary of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP); Dr. Robert L. DuPont, founding director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and who was also representing the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) and several others.

In response to the drug warriors calling out Holder again to take a strong public stance against these marijuana legalization measures, Mason Tvert, co-director of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, the group behind Colorado's Amendment 64 said to The Huffington Post:

We believe anything claimed by participants on the call today needs to be taken with many grains of salt. These people have made a living off marijuana prohibition and the laws that keep this relatively benign substance illegal. The nation wastes billions of taxpayer dollars annually on the failed policy of marijuana prohibition and people like Bill Bennett and John Walters are among the biggest cheerleaders for wasting billions more. The call today should be taken as seriously as an event by former coal industry CEOs opposing legislation curtailing greenhouse gas emissions. They are stuck in a certain mindset and no level of evidence demonstrating the weakness of their position will change their views.

This is an election about Colorado law and whether the people of Colorado believe that we should continue wasting law enforcement resources to maintain the failed policy of marijuana prohibition. Our nation was founded upon the idea that states would be free to determine their own policies on matters not delegated to the federal government. The Controlled Substance Act itself acknowledges that Congress never intended to have the federal government fully 'occupy the field' of marijuana policy. We hope the Obama administration respects these state-based policy debates. If Amendment 64 is adopted by the people of Colorado, there will be sufficient time before any new businesses are established for state and federal officials to discuss the implications.

Today's call elaborated on a September letter that nine former DEA heads sent to Holder strongly urging him to oppose Amendment 64 in Colorado, Initiative 502 in Washington and Measure 80 in Oregon. "To continue to remain silent conveys to the American public and the global community a tacit acceptance of these dangerous initiatives," the nine said in the letter to holder obtained by Reuters.

A month before the 2010 election in California, Holder vowed to "vigorously enforce" federal marijuana laws and warned that the government would not look the other way and allow a state marijuana market to emerge. California's Proposition 19 was narrowly defeated in 2010 and the pressure is on Holder again to voice opposition to these 2012 measures.

When pressed by a reporter during a Q & A following the call if the group was at all surprised that Holder had not yet made a statement about the measures, former drug czar John Walters replied, "I think it's shocking. All you have to do is say things that this administration has already said. It would help enormously and I think it would defeat these measures."

Both Colorado and Washington's pot ballot measures are quite popular with voters, according to recent polling and have been backed by an increasingly diverse group across a range of ideological perspectives.

In Colorado, if marijuana is legalized it would be taxed and regulated similar to alcohol and tobacco. It would give state and local governments the ability to control and tax the sale of small amounts of marijuana to adults age 21 and older. According to the Associated Press, analysts project that that tax revenue could generate somewhere between $5 million and $22 million a year in the state. An economist whose study was funded by a pro-pot group projects as much as a $60 million boost by 2017.

CONTINUE READING……(VIDEO)

The 10 Best Politicians on Pot Reform

From Barney Frank to Ron Paul, these elected leaders are challenging the government's pointless war on marijuana

By Kristen Gwynne

October 9, 2012 3:16 PM ET

This month marks the 75th anniversary of marijuana prohibition in America – and the evidence suggests that the government ban may finally be on its way out. Last year, for the first time ever in this country, a Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans think marijuana should be legal, and several states have legalization bills on their ballots this fall.

Nine Signs That Pot Legalization Is Coming Soon

Despite this changing landscape, most national politicians have been slow to adapt their stances on weed. But there are a number of political power players fighting to reform the pot policies that lock up more than 800,000 Americans per year. This fall, two third-party presidential candidates – Green Party nominee Jill Stein and Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson – favor legalization. And while winning is a very long shot for either of them, there are a growing number of elected officials – both Republicans and Democrats – on the right side of this issue. Read on for 10 of the strongest reform advocates in office today:
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Frank, who plans to retire next year after three decades in Congress, has never been afraid to back marijuana reform. In response to the federal war on state medical marijuana programs, Frank recently introduced legislation to prohibit such interference. The States Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act would specify that no part of the Controlled Substances Act "shall prohibit or otherwise restrict" medical marijuana in states where it has been made legal or prescribed medically. It also calls for a review of marijuana's Schedule I classification – which defines the plant as dangerous and not medically valuable – in favor of the less-restrictive Schedule III category. Unfortunately, since being referred to committee in May, the bill has seemingly stalled.

In the meantime, Frank has continued to speak out for both medical and non-medical marijuana users. "If there's an activity that I could engage in without hurting anyone else, as an adult, but other people if they engage in it may abuse it, please don't prevent me from doing it," Frank said last month. "Whether you want to do these things or not ought to be your own choice."

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)
Paul, another retiring congressman, is one of the most prominent voices for drug law reform. A sharp critic of the War on Drugs and its violations of civil liberties, Paul sees ending pot prohibition as part of his libertarian philosophy. Campaigning in the Republican presidential primary, he vowed to pardon all non-violent drug offenders if elected – a stance that made him very popular with young voters. Along with Barney Frank, Paul co-sponsored the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011, which would have amended the Controlled Substances Act to remove marijuana from the Schedule I category, leaving legalization and regulation up to the states. The bill is viewed as unlikely to pass.

Rep. Sam Farr (D-California)
Farr has been a leading legislative voice for medical marijuana patients' rights at trial. "The federal government has tilted the scales of justice towards conviction by denying medical marijuana defendants the right to present all of the evidence at trial," he recently said. In 2009 and again this summer, Farr introduced the Truth in Trials Act, which would grant medical marijuana patients the ability to present courtroom evidence on their prescription-authorized use of the drug. The bill was promptly referred to the Judiciary Committee, and will likely die before making it to a vote. Nevertheless, Farr has thrown his weight behind other medical marijuana legislation, including the Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Farr-McClintock Medical Marijuana Amendment to bar federal funding for federal raids and the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California)
A staunch Republican, Rohrabacher has called out President Obama for escalating the war on pot and has criticized federal pot prohibition as a drain on resources and an infringement on states rights. "I don't believe that you protect people by throwing them in cages," Rohrabacher said last fall. "For us to be taking people for smoking a weed and putting them in prison or jail for that is a travesty. It's against everything our founding fathers believed in and somehow we got away from that."

In May, Rohrabacher co-sponsored the bipartisan Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Farr-McClintock Medical Marijuana Amendment, which would have forbidden the Justice Department from using federal funding for raids on state-approved medical marijuana operations. (A week later, the House struck it down in a roll call vote.) Last year, he supported California's unsuccessful legalization initiative, the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act; he has also co-sponsored the recent Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, the States Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act and the Truth in Trials Act.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California)
This August, Lee introduced the Medical Marijuana Property Rights Protection Act to defend medical marijuana operators from losing their property – a tactic the federal government has used in both threats and reality. "The people of California have made it legal for patients to have safe access to medicinal marijuana, and as a result thousands of small business owners have invested millions of dollars in building their companies, creating jobs and paying their taxes," Lee said. "We should be protecting and implementing the will of voters, not undermining our democracy by prosecuting small business owners who pay taxes and comply with the laws of their states in providing medicine to patients in need." The bill has struggled to move since being referred to committee on August 14. Lee also co-sponsored the States Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act, the Ending Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011 and the Truth in Trials Act.
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colorado)
In 2010, when the feds raided a number of medical marijuana operations in Colorado, Polis spoke up in defense of his constituents. In a letter to Eric Holder, Polis urged the attorney general to enforce the Justice Department's written guidelines, which discourage federal interference with legal medical marijuana operations at the state level. Polis also co-sponsored the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act and the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act – but it was his showdown this June with Drug Enforcement Agency head Michele Leonhart that really earned him his stripes. When Leonhart testified before a House judiciary subcommittee, Polis pressed her on whether drugs like crack and heroin are more or less dangerous than marijuana. Leonhart contended that "all illegal drugs are bad," refusing to acknowledge any distinction between pot and harder substances. "If you don't know, you can look this up," Polis retorted. "You should know this as the chief administrator for the Drug Enforcement Agency." Video of the exchange went viral, providing a clear example of the irrational beliefs behind pot prohibition.
Rep. Early Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
As a speaker at the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws conference in 2010, Blumenauer told attendees they had reached their "decade of decision." Despite his past statements in favor of marijuana legalization, he is one of the weaker advocates on this list after failing to back Oregon's legalization initiative, Measure 80, which will be on the ballot in November. However, Blumenauer has continued to speak out for drug reform, and he has co-sponsored many of the recent pro-pot bills, including the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, the States Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act and the Truth in Trials Act.
Gov. Dannel Malloy (D-Connecticut)
Last year, Connecticut's governor signed a marijuana decriminalization bill into law. Instead of facing a $1,000 fine and possible jail time, marijuana offenders now must pay $150 for their first offense and between $200 and $500 for subsequent violations. This spring, Malloy also signed a new law making Connecticut the country's 17th state to legalize medical marijuana. (As his opponents often point out, Connecticut's governor has a personal stake in marijuana policy reform: His son, now in his twenties, has had multiple legal run-ins allegedly involving marijuana.)
Gov. Pete Shumlin (D-Vermont)
When Vermont legalized medical marijuana in 2004, the legislation had one gaping loophole: It did not allow for dispensaries. To assist the patients who were now legally allowed to use medical marijuana but forced to grow their own or buy on the black market, Shumlin signed a bill last summer authorizing up to four medical marijuana dispensaries in Vermont. And late last year, Shumlin joined two other governors – Washington's Christine Gregoire (a Democrat) and Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee (an Independent) – in petitioning the Drug Enforcement Agency to reclassify marijuana, moving it out of the highly restrictive, non-medical Schedule I category to at least Schedule II, which would recognize marijuana's medical benefits. (Shumlin has been harder on so-called synthetic marijuana, recently signing a ban on chemicals commonly found in the substances. "We're not talking about a plant that is grown, like marijuana," he said. "This junk will kill you.")

Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan)
In 2008, while serving as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Conyers slammed the Drug Enforcement Agency and its leader, Michele Leonhart, for executing pot raids on California's regulated medical marijuana program. Pulling few punches, he made clear his opinion that dispensary-busting was an inappropriate response by the DEA and a waste of resources. "Please explain what role, if any, emerging scientific data plays in your decision-making process to conduct enforcement raids on individuals authorized to use or provide medical cannabis under state law," he wrote in a pointed letter to Leonhart. At a press conference last summer, Conyers went further, arguing for the decriminalization of marijuana for recreational use. He also co-sponsored Frank's Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-10-best-politicians-on-pot-20121009#ixzz29Cuh4pRY

Court To Review Marijuana's Medical Benefits

Lucia Graves

lucia@huffingtonpost.com

 

 

It started with a coalition of disgruntled Americans, then a handful of governors took up the cause last year, and now -- for the first time in nearly 20 years -- a federal court will hear oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging the classification of cannabis as a dangerous drug without medical benefits.

In the case, Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration, the court will be presented with scientific evidence regarding the medicinal effects of marijuana, and is expected to rule on whether or not the Drug Enforcement Administration acted appropriately in denying a petition to reclassify cannabis, filed by a collection of public interest organizations back in 2002.

"Medical marijuana patients are finally getting their day in court," Joe Elford, chief counsel with ASA, said in a recent statement. "This is a rare opportunity for patients to confront politically motivated decision-making with scientific evidence of marijuana's medical efficacy."

Under federal law, a schedule I prohibited substance is defined as having “a high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment.” Heroine and LSD are classified alongside marijuana as schedule I, while cocaine, opium and methamphetamine are classified as schedule II, meaning they have "some accepted medical use."

Other groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians, support medical access to the drug or its reclassification, while the California Medical Association has called for full legalization.

Donald Abrams, chief of hematology-oncology at San Francisco General Hospital, recently described the effectiveness of medical marijuana in the treatment regimens of cancer and HIV/AIDS patients. "I see patients who have loss of appetite, nausea and vomiting from their chemotherapy, pain on and off of opiates, anxiety, depression, and insomnia," he said in a press briefing last week, adding that these are just some of the conditions that can be alleviated by the use of medical marijuana.

In its rejection of the ASA’s rescheduling petition in 2011, the DEA cited a 4-year-old Department of Health and Human Services paper that found no consensus on medical uses for marijuana, but it did not take into account studies showing the medical benefits of marijuana on the grounds the studies did not meet the standard of double-blind FDA approval trials.

"[T]here are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving (marijuana's) efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts..." wrote DEA administrator Michele Leonhart in a July 8, 2011 letter. "At this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy."

A similar petition calling for marijuana to be reclassified as a schedule II drug was filed with the DEA in 1972, and in 1988, following a federal hearing, Administrative Law Judge Francis Young ruled that marijuana should indeed be reclassified. But that verdict was rejected by then-DEA administrator John Lawn and in 1994, his rejection was upheld by the D.C. Court of Appeals.

The current case will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Oct. 16.

CONTINUE READING…

Law Blog Fireside: The Lawyer Protecting Oakland’s Medical Pot

By Joe Palazzolo

iStock

Oakland, Calif., is trying to keep the federal government from seizing its biggest medical-marijuana dispensary.

On Wednesday, the city took a bold step: It sued the feds, arguing that the U.S. attorney for Northern California is barred from seizing the property by the five-year statute of limitations on civil forfeiture.

Sure, it’s illegal to sell medical marijuana under federal law, but President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have said publicly they wouldn’t pursue people who are in compliance with state law. A 2009 Justice Department memo gave the same guidance to U.S. attorneys.

California, of course, permits the sale of medical marijuana, and Oakland strictly regulates and taxes its dispensaries. Harborside Health Center, the property at issue here, has been open since 2006 and sells more than $20 million of pot annually, according to its owner.

The lawsuit argues that the Justice Department can’t snatch up Harborside Health Center, because of the doctrine of estoppel, which says, in essence, you can’t say one thing and do another. U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag has said Harborside has grown into a large-scale operation that isn’t legal even under California law.

Law Blog caught up with Cedric Chao, who is representing Oakland. When he’s not suing the federal government, Mr. Chao is co-chairman of Morrison & Foerster LLP’s international litigation and arbitration practice.

Law Blog: So this is the first case of its type?

Cedric Chao: We’re not aware of a city pushing back on a forfeiture action against a medical cannabis dispensary.

LB: We noticed you refer to medical marijuana as “cannabis” throughout the lawsuit. Any reason?

CC: No, but people refer to it both ways.

LB: You argue that DOJ can’t go after Harborside because it opened six years ago — exceeding the five-year statute of limitations. Isn’t there a good argument that, since Harborside continued to break federal law until this year, the clock shouldn’t start ticking until after the dispensary stopped selling medical cannabis?

CC: Well there’s actually a case out there in the Sixth Circuit that addresses this issue. In the context of a gambling operation, it held that the statute of limitations began on the first discovery of illegal conduct by the government and that the government was not allowed to claim that the statute of limitations was reset every single day.

LB: I guess the government can’t credibly argue it wasn’t aware of the Oakland dispensaries until now.

CC: They had websites, they had advertisements, they wanted the patient population to know they had safe access to medical cannabis.

LB: But the fact remains. Medical marijuana is illegal under federal law. How do you convince a federal judge that just because the attorney general tells his troops not to go after certain individuals that means it’s OK to break federal law?

CC: Seventeen states plus the District of Columbia have agreed that it is lawful to sell cannabis for medical purposes, so, clearly, there’s a division of thought. And clearly the top officials of our government also believed there were medical benefits to cannabis, otherwise they would not have said publicity that DOJ’s resources will not be used to prosecute where patients, caregivers and dispensaries are acting in conformity with state law. They well knew that people were hanging on their every word. So how is it, after their words and actions and people acting in reliance on those, can they reverse course and say, “Never mind?”

LB: So you’re doing this case pro bono?

CC: Yes.

LB: It’s a controversial issue. Do you worry about getting pegged as the cannabis lawyer?

CC: As a lawyer, you take an oath and you have a client and you do the best for your client. This issue has important public ramifications, and if I didn’t think it was important, I wouldn’t take it.

LB: Thanks, Cedric.

CONTINUE READING…

Ed Forchion, The N.J. Weedman…

 

Latest update on his case in New Jersey in which he is hoping to utilize “Jury Nullification” .

Local Marijuana Collective Founder to Face Federal Charges

 

 

Aaron Sandusky, founder and owner of G3 Holistic that once had a store in Upland and Colton has been charged with six felony counts.

• By Gina Tenorio
• Email the author
• October 5, 2012

 

The owner of an Inland Empire chain of marijuana stores is due to face trial next week in Los Angeles on charges of violating federal pot laws.

Aaron Sandusky, 42, of Rancho Cucamonga -- founder and owner of G3 Holistic stores in Upland, Colton and Moreno Valley -- is charged with six felony counts, including conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute the drug, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

The trial, which is scheduled to begin Tuesday in Los Angeles before U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson, is expected to be watched closely by those on both sides of the medical marijuana issue.

A federal indictment alleges that the now-closed G3 Holistic chain was using California's Prop. 215 and other state laws regulating legal medical marijuana sales to cover for an illegal for-profit marijuana growing and sales operation that took in more than $3.3 million during an eight-month period last year.

An Internal Revenue Service analysis revealed that withdrawals from G3 accounts were almost equal to the $3.3 million in deposits and were designed "to maintain the facade of G3 Holistic as a non-profit organization," the U.S. Attorney's Office contends.

Sandusky's attorney, Roger Jon Diamond, contends that his client was running a perfectly legal operation under California law.

Under federal law, marijuana is an illegal drug. Federal prosecutors in California said last year that they would begin investigating dispensary operations they believed were skirting Prop. 215 regulations.

A  2009 memo from former Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden details guidelines for federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Diamond said he plans to use that memo as part of his defense. The so-called "Ogden Memo" gave some assurance to Sandusky and other providers in medical marijuana states that they would not be targeted by federal agents as long as they abide by state rules, Diamond said.

"It's a horrible situation," the attorney said. "There is no uniform national policy on enforcement of marijuana law. It's too arbitrary."     Sandusky's brother Keith and four other former employees of G3 Holistic were also charged and have pleaded guilty in the case. All five are awaiting sentencing and could be called to testify against Sandusky, Diamond said.

According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, Sandusky ignored a series a warnings that his Upland store was operating in violation of the law. The warnings came from local officials, through letters from the Department of Justice, during the execution of search warrants and through civil lawsuits, federal prosecutors said.

Sandusky could face a life sentence if he is convicted on all counts.

The trial is expected to last through the end of the week.

Related Topics: Aaron Sandusky, Felony Charges, marijuana collective, and marijuana dispensary

CONTINUE READING…

WellCare Selected To Expand Kentucky Medicaid Service Area

WellCare Selected To Expand Kentucky Medicaid Service Area

* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.

Thu Oct 4, 2012 4:00pm EDT

TAMPA, Fla. (October 4, 2012) - WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (NYSE: WCG) today announced that the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services has selected WellCare of Kentucky, Inc. to serve the Medicaid program in the commonwealth's Region 3, including Louisville and 15 surrounding counties. As a result, WellCare will serve the Kentucky Medicaid program statewide.

WellCare is one of four health plans selected to manage care for approximately 175,000 beneficiaries in Region 3. Services for these members are expected to begin January 1, 2013. As of June 30, 2012, WellCare served approximately 154,000 Kentucky Medicaid members.

In addition, beginning January 1, 2013, WellCare will offer Medicare Advantage plans for the first time in Boone, Bourbon, Campbell, Clark, Fayette, Grant, Jefferson, Kenton, Pendleton, and Scott counties in Kentucky. WellCare has offered Medicare Prescription Drug Plans in the commonwealth since 2006, and served approximately 15,000 Kentucky residents in this program as of June 30, 2012.

"We are privileged to have the opportunity to expand our services into Region 3, and we are pleased to continue our collaboration and partnership with the commonwealth," said Alec Cunningham, WellCare's CEO. "This expansion, combined with our new Medicare Advantage plans in Kentucky, enables us to offer the full spectrum of government-sponsored health care programs to our members in Kentucky."

With this new award, WellCare will coordinate medical, behavioral and dental health for eligible Medicaid recipients in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Children's Health Insurance Program and Aged, Blind and Disabled programs. WellCare will focus on improving health care outcomes and care coordination, promoting wellness and healthier lifestyles, and lowering the cost of health care.

About WellCare Health Plans, Inc.
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. provides managed care services targeted to government-sponsored health care programs, focusing on Medicaid and Medicare. Headquartered in Tampa, Florida, WellCare offers a variety of health plans for families, children, and the aged, blind, and disabled, as well as prescription drug plans. The company serves approximately 2.6 million members nationwide as of June 30, 2012. For more information about WellCare, please visit the company's website at www.wellcare.com

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This news release contains "forward-looking" statements that are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements that are predictive in nature, that depend upon or refer to future events or conditions, or that include words such as "expects," "anticipates," "intends," "plans," "believes," "estimates," and similar expressions are forward-looking statements. The company's statements regarding lowering the cost of health care and the anticipated start date of the program are  forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that may cause WellCare's actual future results to differ materially from those projected or contemplated in the forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, future changes in health care law, WellCare's ability to estimate and manage medical benefits expense, WellCare's ability to effectively manage growth, WellCare's ability to build and maintain cost-effective contracts with providers, the demographic mix of members, and WellCare's progress on top priorities such as improving health care quality and access, ensuring a competitive cost position, and delivering prudent, profitable growth.

Additional information concerning these and other important risks and uncertainties can be found under the captions "Forward-Looking Statements" and "Risk Factors" in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, the company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 and other subsequent filings by WellCare with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which contain discussions of WellCare's business and the various factors that may affect it. WellCare undertakes no duty to update these forward-looking statements to reflect any future events, developments, or otherwise.

###

CONTACTS
Investor relations:
Gregg Haddad
813-206-3916
gregg.haddad@wellcare.com

Media relations:
Julie Pulliam
770-913-2200
julie.pulliam@wellcare.com

WellCare Selected To Expand Kentucky Medicaid Service Area

CONTINUE READING….

---

This announcement is distributed by Thomson Reuters on behalf of Thomson Reuters clients.

Medication tied to rare meningitis outbreak may have reached 23 states

 

 

By Tim Ghianni

NASHVILLE, Tennessee | Thu Oct 4, 2012

(Reuters) - A steroid medication linked to the death of at least five people from rare fungal meningitis may have been administered to patients in 23 states, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control said on Thursday, raising fears the rare outbreak could spread.

In a briefing for reporters, the CDC said five people had died so far and 35 had fallen sick from fungal meningitis in six states. The outbreak was first reported in Tennessee, where three people have died and 25 of the cases have been reported.

The other confirmed deaths were in Virginia and Maryland.

"We do know there were over 700 patients in Tennessee who were exposed," said Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, who said the number was provided to him by Tennessee state health officials.

The CDC said it had not yet determined the rate of infection among those patients who received the potentially tainted steroid. The rate of infection is an important barometer of the potential for the outbreak to spread.

"At the moment, fortunately, the attack rate looks pretty low - less than 1 percent -- but we are still in the early days of defining this thing," Schaffner said.

The steroid is administered to patients, usually by injection, primarily to control back pain.

All the cases have so far been traced to three lots of Methylprednisolene Acetate from a pharmaceutical compounding plant in Massachusetts, according to the briefing.

The company, New England Compounding Center Inc, or NECC, in Framingham, Massachusetts, prepared the medication, which has been voluntarily recalled. The company has also voluntarily surrendered its license.

Attempts to view the NECC website prompted a "temporarily unavailable" message, and company officials could not be reached by phone for comment.

"We are encouraging all health facilities to immediately cease use of any product produced by NECC," Dr. Madeleine Biondolillo, Massachusetts public health director of safety, told reporters in a conference call from Boston.

A fungus linked to the steroid medication has been identified in specimens from five patients, according to the CDC's Dr. Benjamin Park.

'FAIRLY LONG INCUBATION PERIOD'

The Massachusetts Health Department said there were 17,676 vials of medication in each of the three lots under investigation. They were sent out July through September and have a shelf life of 180 days.

The CDC said the fungal contamination was detected in the examination of one of the sealed vials taken at that company.

Patients who received the injections were at risk of developing fungal meningitis for at least a month after their last exposure, Schaffner said.

"There is a fairly long incubation period. ... That hasn't run out yet for many patients," Schaffner said.

"Over the next few weeks, we are going to see a progressive accumulation of cases," he said.

Fungal meningitis is rare and life-threatening, but is not contagious from person to person. Meningitis can be passed to humans from steroid medications that weaken the immune system. Symptoms include a sudden onset of fever, headache, stiff neck, nausea, and vomiting, according to the CDC web site.

In addition to the 25 cases so far in Tennessee, one has been reported in North Carolina, two in Florida, four in Virginia, two in Maryland and one in Indiana, according to CDC's Park.

About 75 facilities could have received the steroid in the 23 states. They are California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Texas and West Virginia, according to Park.

One facility in Indiana, St. Mary's Health, said on Thursday that 560 patients had received the recalled medication. They received the steroid at the Surgicare Cross Pointe clinic in Evansville, said St. Mary's spokeswoman Laura Forbes.

She said one of the 560 patients had been diagnosed with meningitis and was in the hospital and 10 to 15 others had been advised to seek further medical care.

In Tennessee, the worst-hit state, some patients are "really critically ill" and in intensive care units, said Dr. Marion Kainer of the state health department. She declined to say how many were critical.

A compounding pharmacy takes medications from pharmaceuticals manufacturers and makes them into specific dosages and strengths for use by doctors.

The drug ingredients are regulated by the FDA, but compounders are regulated by state agencies, the industry's trade association said.

The Massachusetts Health Department said there had been several complaints against NECC. Complaints in 2002 and 2003 about the processing of medication resulted in an agreement with government agencies in 2006 to correct deficiencies

In 2011, there was another inspection of the facility and no deficiencies were found. In March 2012, another complaint was made about the potency of a product used in eye surgery procedures. That investigation is continuing, the state health department said.

(Additional reporting by Deena Beasley, Mary Wisniewski and Susan Guyett; Writing by Greg McCune; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Peter Cooney)

CONTINUE READING….

Alaskan Activism: Wanted - International Drug Legalization Article Links

Alaskan Activism: Wanted - International Drug Legalization Article Links