Supreme Court says State Medical Cannabis Laws are Final - States Cannot Refuse

Dec. 2008 - The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision yesterday in which California state courts found that its medical cannabis law is not preempted by federal law.

"The Supreme Court’s decision in Garden Grove v. Superior Court means that federal law does not prevent state and local governments from implementing medical cannabis laws adopted by voters or state legislatures. In short: the group Americans for Safe Access, says federal law does not override state law on medical cannabis.

The decision follows three years of strategic legal work by Americans for Safe Access in a California case involving the return of wrongfully confiscated medicine, says Steph Sherer, the Executive Director of ASA."

"The Court’s decision has broad implications for medical cannabis patients in the 13 states where medical cannabis is legal, and signals a sea change in the impasse between state and federal laws. Better adherence to state medical cannabis laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and other problems for patients, allowing for better implementation of medical cannabis laws in all states that have adopted them."

'Sherer says medical cannabis advocates should be encouraged by opportunities for change in federal policy with a new Presidential Administration and shift in Congress. But until now, federal pre-emption has haunted patients whose state laws allow for medical cannabis use.

This decision further clears the way for state implementation and Sherer says it also adds new urgency to ASA’s work in the nation’s capitol, where they have been working full-time to change federal policy since 2006.

A clear example of a California law enforcement agency wasting large amounts of time and money trying to bring down a lawful medical marijuana dispensary owner, is found in the story of San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Pat Hedges. "

U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law

NOV. 2008: STATE OF MASS. Decriminalizes!

MassCann: The Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition - Massachusetts NORML

The Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition (Mass Cann/NORML) thanks the projected 65% of Massachusetts voters who were not deceived by the lies of the District Attorneys and other people of authority.

President William Downing commented, "We expected this victory for justice and liberty. We knew the seed sown by Mass Cann/NORML members would bear fruit. We knew the time was ripe by the demonstrated success of marijuana decriminalization public policy questions members put on the ballot in 32 state senatorial or representative districts between 2000 and 2006. These questions passed in every district with an average of 62% approval."

"That Massachusetts voters had to eliminate the criminal sanctions against minor marijuana possession is an indictment of the Legislature for failing to pass reform since 2001, when former policeman and then State Senator Shannon first introduced legislation. The Mental Health & Substance Abuse Committee reported favorably on that legislation in the 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 but died in the Senate Ways and Means Committee," added Mass Cann/NORML founder Steven Epstein.

The question now is when will Congress learn that marijuana prohibition is unjust and permit the states to experiment with regulatory schemes as they do tobacco, beer, wine and hard cider. It is not a question of if, but when.

NOV. 2008: MICHIGAN LEGALIZES MEDICAL MARIJUANA

...25% of all U.S. States have implemented laws that contradict and ignore federal cannabis laws. The people have spoken!

"This is yet more proof that the American College of Physicians was right that U.S. government policy on medical marijuana is totally divorced from scientific reality," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. "Congress needs to act to end the federal war on medical marijuana, but in the meantime states should act on their own to protect medical marijuana patients from arrest, as several states are considering right now."

States where legislators are presently considering medical marijuana legislation include Illinois, New York and Minnesota. A medical marijuana initiative has qualified for Michigan's November ballot... AND IT PASSED!

With more than 23,000 members and 180,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit http://MarijuanaPolicy.org.

Marijuana: Barney Frank Introduces Federal Decriminalization Bill

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #532, 4/18/08

Last month, Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) announced he would file a bill to decriminalize marijuana possession at the federal level. Wednesday, Frank followed through, introducing the "The Personal Use of Marijuana By Responsible Adults Act of 2008," which would set a maximum $100 fine under federal law for possession or not-for-profit transfer of less than 100 grams of marijuana.

Frank did not comment publicly this week on the proposed legislation, but in a statement last month on his marijuana legislation, Frank said it was a waste of federal time and resources to prosecute minor marijuana offenses.

"I think it is poor law enforcement to keep on the books legislation that establishes as a crime behavior the government does not seriously wish to prosecute," he said. "For highly-trained federal law enforcement agents to spend time prosecuting people for smoking marijuana is a diversion of scarce resources from their job of protecting public safety."

Marijuana laws should be left to the states, he suggested. "The norm in America is for the states to decide whether particular behaviors should be made criminal. To make the smoking of marijuana one of those extremely rare instances of federal crime -- to make a 'federal case' out of it -- is wholly disproportionate to the activity involved. We do not have federal criminal prohibitions against drinking alcoholic beverages, and there are generally no criminal penalties for the use of tobacco at the state and federal levels for adults. There is no rational argument for treating marijuana so differently from these other substances."

Even if the Frank bill were to pass, which seems unlikely any time in the near future, it would have limited impact on the 800,000-plus marijuana arrests each year since the vast majority of them are made by state and local law enforcement. But it would send a very strong signal to the states that the federal government no longer considered pot-smoking a serious problem worthy of the criminal justice system.

study

Why did they make synthetic THC?

Partially because it comes back to the idea that the public demands highly pure pills - magic bullets. Everyone seemed to agree that THC was the primary compound responsible for the high and some of the medicinal benefits. Early lab studies indicated that THC had therapeutic potential but there wasn't as much effort put into isolating, investigating and researching the other cannabinoids, the synergies reported by users of poly-pharmaceutical (raw) cannabis. We were ignored again.

The schedule I status of cannabis meant that to do research, researchers had to apply to the DEA before they could do their thing. Mysteriously, the DEA was always losing those applications, saying they never arrived, or "Just saying NO" to legal and culturally necessary research and education. Statistics have always shown widespread use of cannabis, so wasn;t/isn’t it the job of the government to scientifically investigate. Or at least let doctors and scientists do it? It seems like it is their duty to assist the gathering of knowledge. It is rather convenient to prevent research on something that has already been deemed of no medicinal use, and happens to be illegal; the serpent that eats it's tail - Ouroboros. Momentum is hard to change.

And it seems the feds were on board. Once they heard that THC had some positive attributes, it seems reasonable that they would think that having "safe synthetic marijuana" would satisfy the public demand for medical marijuana, and further eliminate the chances of recreational cannabis legalization. Likewise, this was an opportunity for a pharmaceutical company to monopolize a brand new market and have their trademarked, patented formulation escorted into legality, Schedule III. In the end, I believe that getting this THC-sesame oil into Schedule III will have played a significant role in the decriminalization movement.

Marinol works against legalization/decriminalization of cannabis (although having a script apparently federally protects you from job loss for failing a drug test). Everyone that takes Marinol recreationally is creating additional demand for it, additional revenue, and that will be misunderstood as effectiveness. Popularity and high-volume sales of Marinol may indicate to lawmakers/drug makers that Marinol is sufficient and effective, thus no need to legalize cannabis. Besides, why pay a pharmaceutical company more for a tasteless, more expensive, less-environmentally-friendly, inferior buzz?

One thing’s for sure: Marinol sales will plummet with successive cannabis decriminalization acts.

We must keep up the pressure, keep letting doctors and lawmakers know that raw, vaporized cannabis is superior to oral, single-component Marinol. It's important that they get the vaporization part - smoking is a potentially outdated argument.

Big Pharma's Influence on Politics?

"June 11, 2002 - President George W. Bush announced his appointment of Sydney Taurel (President and CEO of Eli Lilly) to serve as a Member of the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council.

February 25, 2003 - President George W. Bush announced his intention to appoint Sydney Taurel (President and CEO of Eli Lilly) to serve as a Member of the President's Export Council.

January 7, 2003 - President George W. Bush announced his intention to appoint Steven I. Cooper to be the Chief Information Officer at the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Cooper previously served as the
Director of Corporate Information Systems at Eli Lilly and Company.

May 31, 2002 - The President intends to appoint Robert Neil Postlethwait to serve as a member of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Mr. Postlethwait was most recently the President of the
Neuroscience Product Division for Eli Lilly where he served from 1971 to
1999. (During the development of Prozac).

July 2, 2003 - President Bush announces the nomination of Randall Tobias to serve as the Global AIDS Coordinator. Mr. Tobias is a former head of Eli
Lilly and Company."

After the appointment to government positions is it any wonder that Ely Lilly was the fourth highest campaign contributor to federal candidates and parties in 2004?" - piece quoted

Immunosupression

One argument is that cannabinoids have shown some immunosuppressant activity in certain test models. As with many of the weak anti-cannabis arguments, the same is true of many things we encounter in this “modern age”. Folks that try to utilize these arguments often think that their claim is unique to cannabis. In truth, these same people are exposed to equal or greater hazards by simply living an ‘average’ life and being a consumer.

For example, bisphenol A is a plasticizer (hardener) used in the manufacture of plastics. It is found in 90% of Americans’ urine and is linked to certain health hazards and immunosuppression as it is an estrogen-like molecule. The Nalgene Corporation is officially phasing out use of bisphenol A from their plastics manufacturing process, while the FDA re-evaluates long-term consequences.

Ethanol, pesticides on our fruit, UV radiation from the sun, mercury fillings, dioxins found in plastics, ALL smoke, smog, antibiotics, poor diet, laziness, these all have immunosuppressant activity. Winter camping is associated with immunosuppression. Physical and emotional stress, intense exercise, exposure to cold (hypothermia), use of a wood stove, these are also factors associated with immunosuppression. Immunosuppressant does not mean immuno-absence. For the uninformed, it is important to understand the difference between immunosuppressant and immunocompromised. The ignorant and assumptive often associate a quantitative measure such as immunosuppression as some sort of black & white, yes/no condition; they think that immunosuppression automatically means that AIDS-like harm is imminent, and that is certainly not the case.

So if immunosuppression potential is considered a valid anti-cannabis argument to prevent legalization/rescheduling of cannabis, then we must also consider prohibition of alcohol, nicotine, food-grade plastic, smog, wood stoves, hypothermia, antibiotics and camping. Criminalize winter camping! It is ignorant to claim that cannabis prohibition is justified by potential immunosuppressant activity when hundreds of other consumer goods and human activities carry the same or greater harm potential. If one wants to selectively apply an argument such as this, then they must apply it across the board to all of the other potentially harmful products that they encounter regularly. It is hypocritical for obese soccer moms swilling coffee from a plastic mug to argue that cannabis should be illegal because of the harm it could do, as if high fat diets and a coffee dependency is any healthier.

With cannabis, immunosuppression is further minimized by avoiding inhalation of smoke. Use of an herbal vaporizer, or eating cannabis eliminates the potential hazards associated with inhalation of ANY kind of smoke including tobacco, cloves, woodstoves, coal, catnip or cannabis. If the immunosuppressant effects of cannabis were of serious incidence then Baby Boomer consumers of cannabis for 40 years would be exhibiting problems in droves. But they are not. With over 60 years of medical data collected, there is no indication that chronic immunosuppression is present in life-long users. As with EVERY drug and most foods in existence, there are going to be a few people in every study that report adverse effects, but these are often statistical outliers, the fringe of the Bell Curve and not representative of the general population.

Drug commercials must disclose side effects and we frequently encounter these absurd disclaimers about increased risk of stroke, heart attack, dry skin, diarrhea, increased suicide risk, etc. Yet, these drugs are consumed daily by millions. Why does the FDA allow such drugs to be prescribed? Because these POTENTIAL side effects are shown in only a very small part of the population, and the FDA concludes that despite their toxicity, these drugs for MOST people (statistics) are far more helpful than harmful. Likewise, the many benefits of cannabis far outweigh any claimed negative potential. Drugs such as Adderall, Ritalin, Prozac, Wellbutrin, etc. are widely abused and carry far greater negative potential than cannabis. Should they really be legal? Cannabis is far safer. In fact, according to Dr. Lester Grinspoon M.D., “Cannabis is one of the safest therapeutic substances known to man”. Similarly, DEA Judge Francis L. Young stated that based on 5,000 years of human use, with over 40 million cannabis consumers in the U.S., cannabis has very low toxicity, is safe, and he has recommended rescheduling of cannabis based on this safety and efficacy. Recall the federally appointed Shafer Commision recommended the same back in 1972. Safety and efficacy are the same criteria used by the FDA when approving ANY drug. Ever heard of Clinical Trials?

From Textbook of Modern Toxicology 3^rd ed. Hodgson, 2004

Table 19.2 Selected Examples of Immunosuppressive Agents

Drugs

Cyclosporin A, cyclophosphamide, glucocorticoids (Dexamethazone), [steroids], azothioprine, [hormones]

Metals

Lead, cadmium, methylmercury, organotins

Pesticides

Chlorodanea, DDT, Dieldrin

Industrial compounds

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), polychlorinated and polybrominated biphenyls

(PCBs and PBBs), benzene, poly aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]

Addictive substances

Cocaine, ethanol, opiates, nicotine, []

Air pollutants

Environmental tobacco smoke, ozone, nitrogen dioxide (smog)

Microbial toxins

Aflatoxin (peanuts), ochratoxin A (cereals), trichothecenes T-2 toxin

Radiation

Ionizing, UV (sunshine)

Other

Asbestos, diethylstilbestrol (DES), dimethylnitrosamine (cured meats)

A FEW POTENTIAL LEGALIZATION BENEFITS

1) DEFLATE THE FEW INSTANCES OF VIOLENCE THAT RESULT FROM THE INFLATED VALUE OF CANNABIS. Money hungry idiots go large-scale (they don't care what the crop/drug is - contraband widgets). The felonious crimes associated with cannabis growing tend to be armed robbery by thugs lookin gto steal the crop and make a quick buck. Legalize, deflate the value, lower crime, generate tax revenue.

2) SIGNIFICANT HELP FOR THE ECONOMY: REGULATE AND TAX. DEFLATE THE VALUE OF CANNABIS, TAX IT, KEEP THE PROFITS FOR FUNDING YOUR WARS.

3) CREATE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS IN NEARLY EVERY SECTOR: MEDICINE, RESEARCH, AGRICULTURE, TEXTILES, EXPORTS, FINANCE, REGULATION, INSURANCE, INDUSTRIAL SECTORS.

4) PUTS FOOD ON THE TABLE FOR STRUGGLING FARMERS THROUGHOUT MUCH OF THE COUNTRY (HEMP & CANNABIS). Why subsidize so much corn and soybeans that it's gets wasted?

5) CREATES A HUGE NEW MARKET FOR SAFER, NATURALLY DERIVED PHARMACEUTICALS, COSMETICS & NUTRITIONAL ITEMS.

6) REDUCE STRESS, WHICH REDUCES HEALTH CARE COSTS NATIONWIDE AND MAKES HEALTH INSURANCE MORE AFFORDABLE AND BUSINESS MORE PROFITABLE.

7) FREES UP FEDERAL RESOURCES, WHICH FACILITATES CONTROL OF ADDICTIVE DRUGS WITH HUGE NEGATIVE SOCIAL / PHYSICAL IMPACTS (i.e. ALCOHOL, METH, CRACK, SODA).

8) FUND ENTIRELY A NEW PUBLIC NATIONAL REHAB PROGRAM. FUNDED BY CANNABIS TAX REVENUE.

9) FUND PROGRAMS FOR HELPING THE INDIGENT/HOMELESS. FOOD, SHELTER, HEALTH CARE, EDUCATION.

10) FUND INTERNATIONAL AID CAMPAIGNS (FOOD DROPS, PEACE KEEPING MISSIONS, PEACE CORPS, etc.).

11) FUND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH.