An opinion released yesterday by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts stated that a person found with a small amount of marijuana could still be charged with intent to distribute, despite a 2008 law removing criminal penalties for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana.

The statement comes from the ruling on a 2010 case in which a person with around six grams of marijuana in three separate bags was charged with intent to distribute marijuana. Defense attorneys argued that intent did not matter if the amount was less than an ounce because there are no criminal charges for that amount. A lower court judge agreed, but was overruled by yesterday’s decision.

The law that removed criminal penalties for small amounts, passed through referendum in 2008 by a significant majority of voters, was not intended to remove penalties for sale of marijuana. But intent to sell is something entirely different. It is highly doubtful that anyone with less than an ounce has the intent to distribute any of it. The burden of proof must lie on the state when charging someone with so little marijuana with being a distributor. To have it otherwise could provide overzealous prosecutors with a method of circumventing the 2008 law.

In this particular case, the ruling is based on pretty flimsy evidence. The defendant had six grams of marijuana stored in three separate bags when he was searched. Even though the police did not witness him conduct a sale, he was charged with intent to distribute simply because his marijuana, which was less than a quarter of what he would need to invoke criminal penalties, was not stored in a single container!

Even disregarding the possibility that this person had different strains of marijuana that he did not want to mix together, or that perhaps he had purchased the marijuana that way and had not thought to consolidate it, the fact remains that it is no more than a civil infraction under Massachusetts law to have less than an ounce of marijuana in one’s possession. The law does not mandate that it must be in a single container. If the authorities believe that someone with less than an ounce of marijuana is actually selling it, they should have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Three tiny bags do not qualify.

When voters passed the law in 2008, they knew what they were doing. They voted to remove criminal penalties for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana. Period. It doesn’t matter if that marijuana is in one bag or ten. If it is less than an ounce, there should be no criminal charges. If there is a sale, let the evidence show it. If not, as was the case here, then the matter should be handled the way the voters declared: with a civil infraction.

Some vocal law enforcement critics of the 2008 law have had trouble adjusting to the new system. It will come as no surprise if police and prosecutors begin looking for increasingly inventive and disingenuous ways to claim that marijuana users have the intent to distribute the contents of their pockets. Maybe next they will claim that simply carrying marijuana with you is proof enough of intent to distribute. All so that a few people who don’t like marijuana use can keep arresting people for it and ignore the considered opinion of the majority of Massachusetts.

A day after Whitney Houston’s unexpected death, singer Tony Bennett, music icon and winner of 17 Grammy Awards, paid tribute to the award-winning star at Clive Davis’ pre-Grammy party. He took this opportunity not only to honor her life and accomplishments and sing a song in her memory, but also to advocate for the legalization of drugs.

(Photo Credit: AP)

In spite of the fact that there is speculation that Houston’s death was drug-related, given her history with drug use (including marijuana), Bennett bravely spoke up about what so many already know: the war on drugs is a failure and is more harmful to society than the drugs themselves. For marijuana offenses alone, there were over 850,000 arrests in 2010, and 88% of those were for simple possession.

Watch this video of Tony Bennett speaking up for change. He gets it, and he had the courage to say so.

(Author's Edit: Original video was taken down by YouTube user. New video links to CNN's coverage, with Tony Bennett's comments, as well as a panel discussion including Arianna Huffington, who echoed Bennett's sentiments that the war on drugs has failed.)

The Obama administration's stunning betrayal of medical marijuana patients claimed a new victim today. Delaware Gov. Jack Markell announced that he would halt the implementation of the state's medical marijuana dispensary program following a vague and threatening letter from U.S. Attorney Charles Oberly III.

Oberly's letter, dated February 9 but made public today, says that patients and individual caregivers would not be federal enforcement priorities, but that entities distributing marijuana "could" be targeted. It also says that state employees would not be immune from liability under the Controlled Substances Act for acts mandated by the Delaware medical marijuana law.

Mr. Oberly's intimidating sentence about state employees is particularly outrageous given that the Delaware law does not require any violation of federal law. Mr. Oberly does not say what actions he believes would constitute violations of the CSA.

In Delaware, state employees would not possess, cultivate, or dispense marijuana. They would merely register those entities that would no longer be criminalized under Delaware law and set up rules dispensaries would abide by for such protections. No court has found that such conduct would constitute a federal crime, and the federal government has not taken any criminal or civil actions against states with medical marijuana programs.

U.S. Attorney Michael Ormsby in the Eastern District of Washington state sent a similarly vague letter, which was used as a reason for Gov. Christine Gregoire to veto a dispensary regulation bill. Yet, when an Arizona paper asked why state employees would be at risk in Washington but apparently not in Arizona, U.S. Attorney Ormsby said his concern was that state employees would be grading and handling – and thus possessing – marijuana under the Washington proposal. However, this was likely not even an accurate understanding of the Washington bill.

Following a two-year campaign led by legislators, patients, and MPP, Delaware became the 16th medical marijuana state last May. An affirmative defense went into effect on July 1, allowing qualifying patients who possess marijuana to prove the defense in court to avoid a conviction. The Markell administration was expected to release rules for dispensaries in the coming weeks, with three dispensaries being registered by the end of the year. The rules would also provide for ID cards to protect patients from arrest. Halting the dispensary program forces patients to the criminal market, or leaves them with no access to their medicine at all.

If you live in Delaware, please urge Gov. Markell to reverse course, to stand by patients, and to fully implement the compassionate law. Regardless of where you live, please let President Obama know it's past time to live up to his word. If the Obama administration's hostility to medical marijuana patients and providers will affect your vote in November, or your willingness to donate or volunteer for him, please let his campaign know.

Yesterday was a sad day for drug policy in the mainstream media. Early in the afternoon, executives at Fox Business Network announced that they were dropping “Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano” in favor of … reruns.

Those of you who are familiar with the show know all about host Judge Andrew Napolitano and his pointed attacks on anything threatening to liberty. What you may not know is that he was also a vocal critic of the war on drugs. His show was one of the few that would give airtime to spokespeople for organizations working to end prohibition, and he treated them fairly and with respect. Judge Napolitano frequently speaks out about the militarization of the police that has come about as a result of the war on drugs, particularly on marijuana.

So as a way to say “thanks” to Judge Napolitano for standing up for freedom, I am posting clips of the times he was nice enough to have us on his show. We at MPP can’t wait to see what the Judge will be up to next.

You may know that the University of Mississippi has been growing marijuana for the federal government's little-known medical marijuana program, the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program, for decades. Each month, the federal authorities send four patients a tin canister filled with about 300 pre-rolled marijuana cigarettes. Unfortunately, Mississippi's seriously ill patients are not able to access medical marijuana even with a doctor’s recommendation, and they risk arrest and prosecution if they try.

Mississippians battling cancer, MS, and other serious conditions are fortunate to have a champion in State Senator Deborah Dawkins (D-Pass Christian). Sen. Dawkins has just introduced S.B. 2252, which would make it legal for qualifying patients to possess up to three mature plants, four immature plants, and up to 30 grams of usable marijuana for each plant.

Click here to see Sen. Dawkins talk about her bill on the local ABC affiliate, WLOX 13.

It’s time Mississippi started making sure its own seriously ill patients have safe, legal access to medical marijuana — just like those four patients still benefiting from the federal government’s little-known program!

Please contact your legislator today, and urge him or her to support S.B. 2252.

Cannabidiol (CBD) Reveals Potential for Prevention of Colon Cancer

Colon cancer is the most common cancer afflicting the Western world, with over 100,000 new cases and nearly 50,000 deaths each year in the United States alone. Cancers are generally considered a cellular disease, characterized by unlimited cell proliferation, causing tumors and subsequent metastasis (migration from the tumor). In past studies, CBD, a constituent of medical cannabis called cannabidiol, has already shown many potential benefits in the treatment of cancer as an anti-inflammatory, analgesic, anti-oxidative and neuroprotective agent. In these cases, CBD seems to protect normal cells while attacking those that are diseased. New research shows that CBD shows potential to be a preventative measure against colon cancer.

A recent article from the Journal of Molecular Medicine showed that CBD administered to mice which are predisposed to developing colon cancer, significantly decreased the formation of pre-cancer (tissue aberrance and polyps) and cancer growths (tumors). Additionally, this study showed that CBD induces cell death and inhibits tumor formation in cultured colon cancer cells through a variety of cellular pathways. By exploiting these disease-dependent pathways together, CBD may create an inescapable means of killing off and prohibiting the growth of cancer cells. This is a truly remarkable task for any single molecule — to attack multiple disease pathways while maintaining function in healthy cells. This study strengthens the evidence for CBD’s anti-tumor effects and provides evidence for CBD as a novel preemptive strike against colon cancer.

Brandie M. Cross is a Ph.D. candidate at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in the Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular Biology Program. She is a recipient of the Thomas J. Kelly Award, specializes in the mechanisms of calcium signaling and transport in the body, and was formerly a professional breakdancer. She is a guest blogger for MPP.

Late last month, the Marijuana Policy Project commissioned Public Policy Polling to survey Rhode Island voter attitudes toward marijuana policy. The results are in, and the numbers indicate that Rhode Islanders from both sides of the aisle are clearly aware that marijuana prohibition is failed policy, and they are ready for change.

A majority of Rhode Islanders appear to be fed up with the current marijuana prohibition. Of the 714 voters polled, 52% would like to see all penalties for personal possession and use of marijuana removed and marijuana treated in a manner similar to alcohol, where it would be taxed, regulated, and sold in state-licensed stores to adults over the age of 21. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the idea received bipartisan support and was backed by 55% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans. Legislation spearheaded by MPP to establish such a system will be introduced in Rhode Island this session.

When Mason-Dixon Polling and Research asked the exact same question in 2008, only 41% of 625 voters surveyed supported regulated legalization of marijuana. That’s an increase of 11 percentage points among all voters in less than three years. The ’08 poll showed majority support among Democrats (52%) but strong opposition among Republican voters, with only 26% supporting and 66% opposing the idea just 33 months ago. This means we’ve seen support more than double among Rhode Island Republicans. So what’s going on here?

Although it may seem odd at first, I’ve long argued that replacing the marijuana prohibition with a legalized and regulated marijuana market is an issue perfectly teed up for true conservatives. Ending the marijuana prohibition, and to a greater extent the “War on Drugs,” would massively decrease the size and scope of the federal government and restore police power to the states. Massive federal programs that consume enormous amounts of tax dollars while failing to reduce use and abuse of marijuana would be dismantled, and the oft complained of “nanny state” – the government telling responsible adult citizens what they can and cannot do – would be whittled away at. But can this enormous increase in support for a regulated marijuana market among Rhode Island Republicans be attributed solely to the respondents tapping into their true conservative cores?

While the questions posed to voters were identical in 2008 and 2012, the polls were conducted by different firms. To see if this could be responsible for some of the increase, I reached out to Tom Jensen at Public Policy Polling to get his take. “Automated polls [like the one conducted by PPP] tend to get more honest responses from people about sensitive issues than live interview [polls] like Mason-Dixon conducts. People might not be comfortable telling another human on the line that they think marijuana use should be legal, but they’re fine with pushing a button to express that same opinion.” So there is an argument that some of the increase in support was actually there all along, but it was quiet support. This kind of support may be stifled in part by voters’ reluctance to tell a live human being that they support something that could be perceived as taboo.

But I don’t think the live vs. automated distinction can account for the entire increase, and neither does Mr. Jensen. “I think with the tough economy and all the hard cuts state governments across the country have had to make over the last few years, voters are open to new ways to generate revenue, like legalizing and regulating marijuana use, in a way that they might not have been in more prosperous times.” Faced with the current economy, the typical American voter is given two options: cut popular and necessary programs or raise taxes. Neither of these options seems politically popular for members of either major party. So it shouldn’t be surprising to see people from both sides of the political spectrum supporting a proposal that would raise an untold amount of revenue while keeping intact support for current programs and not raising personal income taxes.

Regardless of the reasoning, it is clear that support for regulated legalization of marijuana is increasing and increasing fast. And this phenomenon is not limited to just Rhode Island.

In October of 2011, Gallup conducted their semi-annual “Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal, or not?” poll. They have been polling the American public on this question, off and on, since 1969. It is important to note that Gallup does not ask about a regulated market, just if marijuana should be legal. It’s also important to keep in mind that Gallup’s results are based on telephone interviews, so if Tom Jensen is correct, we’d expect that the actual support among the public is some degree higher than the results show. With that in mind, it’s incredibly telling that for the first time since 1969, Gallup found that 50% of the American public agrees that marijuana should be legal while 46% think it should remain illegal. Additionally, plurality support for a regulated and legalized market is found in both Colorado and Washington; both states will be voting on ballot measures asking if marijuana should be legalized and regulated come November.

Whatever the reasons may be, the public at large – and Rhode Island voters in particular – have come around to the idea of regulated legalization of marijuana, and why shouldn’t they? Marijuana is demonstrably safer than alcohol and tobacco – both of which are legal yet regulated. Responsible marijuana legalization and regulation will create entire industries worth of jobs, allow federal and state governments to collected needed revenue from responsible sales, and keep marijuana out of the hands of minors through thorough regulations. We’ve got the public behind us, it’s time the lawmakers open their eyes.

(NOTE: PPP also polled Rhode Island voter attitudes toward Rhode Island’s medical marijuana program and a proposal to decriminalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by replacing the criminal penalty with a civil citation. Both of these enjoyed very strong support. Click here for full poll results.)

Last September, after activists brought attention to the fact that New York City is the misdemeanor marijuana arrest capital of the United States despite marijuana being “decriminalized,” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly directed the NYPD to respect the rules of “stop and frisk” and not charge those found with marijuana in their possession with a criminal charge unless the marijuana is in plain view or being smoked. New York cops have traditionally gotten around this rule by tricking people being frisked into exposing their marijuana. Research has shown that this ploy is used far more on minorities in New York City, despite higher use rates among whites.

Kelly’s statements were admirable and at first seemed to work. For the first several months, marijuana arrests in the city dropped.

According to the Drug Policy Alliance, however, the total number of marijuana arrests for 2011 is actually greater than the previous year!

How could this be? Was there an explosion in marijuana use in New York City in the last year that led to more arrests? Doubtful.

Did some members of the NYPD simply ignore the Commissioner and carry on with their illegal, racist enforcement tactics? Probably.

Let’s see what Commissioner Kelly had to say:

“The numbers are what they are, based on situations officers encounter in the street,” Kelly said at an unrelated press conference Wednesday. “It’s very difficult to quantify whether or not what’s happening [out there],” he said.

The first sentence does not make a lot of sense and would require a massive increase in the number of people openly using marijuana to explain the arrest numbers.

The second sentence … isn’t even a sentence, much less a statement.

This should come as no surprise by now, but President Obama has once again failed to address questions about the need for marijuana policy reform in a public forum. Once again, this issue was among the most popular, but it seems that after laughter, disagreement, and capitulation, the president’s responses are wearing thin, and the question will no longer be asked or answered.

Last week, the White House asked for people to submit questions to be asked during a Google+ Hangout with the president. As usual, marijuana questions dominated the site. Unfortunately for the majority of Americans who support making marijuana legal, the popularity of this issue no longer matters.

First, NORML’s question was removed for being inappropriate.

Then MPP’s question suffered the same fate.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition spokesperson Stephen Downing submitted a video question that quickly became the second most popular on the site. During the forum, however, the folks at Google decided that the president had already answered their question in previous forums and opted to ignore the people and ask inane questions about midnight snacks and tennis instead.

The White House, of course, had nothing to do with the exclusion of a marijuana reform question (or so they say).

The time has come to demand real answers to these pressing questions, not jokes or simple platitudes. Marijuana prohibition is a failed policy that causes far more harm than good, and alternatives must be seriously discussed in open forums before this juggernaut can do any more damage.

It is time for the president to take this issue seriously.

Vermont was the ninth state to allow seriously ill patients to use marijuana to treat certain illnesses, and now it may become the third to make post-traumatic stress disorder one of those qualifying illnesses. A new bill, introduced by Rep. Jim Masland, would allow patients afflicted with the serious psychological condition from war or other trauma to use medical marijuana without fear of arrest.

There are many people suffering from PTSD who have tried treating their symptoms with marijuana and have found it to be far more effective than the prescription pharmaceuticals they had been directed to use. Unfortunately, there is little scientific research to support their claims, and the federal government recently denied permission to study the potential benefits of marijuana for returning veterans.

If the law passes, Vermont will join New Mexico and Delaware as the only states to allow medical marijuana to be recommended for PTSD out of the 16 states (and the District of Columbia) that permit marijuana treatment for other conditions.

In June 2011, Vermont passed a bill that would regulate the establishment of four non-profit medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the state.