This is one of those stories that churns my stomach.

In early September, officials in Shawnee County, Kansas, announced that due to budget constraints, they would stop prosecuting misdemeanor domestic violence cases. This resulted in many domestic violence cases being dismissed without prosecution throughout the county. Also, a flood of such cases is being sent to the Topeka legal system instead.

Topeka is in just as dire economic straits as the county in which it resides. After determining that they could not afford to prosecute these cases either, the city council is now considering a series of proposals to cut expenses from the budget. One of those is removing the portion of the city code criminalizing domestic battery. Adding insult to injury, literally, they’ve chosen Domestic Violence Awareness Month to have this discussion.

Can’t these city council members think of something less vile, hurtful, and dangerous to both individuals and society than domestic abuse to decriminalize?

We have a suggestion:

 

Topeka City Council

215 SE 7^th, Room 255

Topeka, KS 66603-3914

Re: Decriminalization of Domestic Violence

 

Dear Councilmembers,

It has come to my attention that the city of Topeka, facing unprecedented budget shortfalls, is considering repealing that portion of the city code that bans domestic battery as a means of forcing county officials to prosecute this crime – something Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor has apparently already stopped doing. In fact, since Taylor announced on September 8 that he would no longer be prosecuting misdemeanor cases in the City of Topeka, 30 domestic battery cases have not been pursued, and three alleged domestic violence offenders have been released – their cases put on hold – until the dispute over who will pay for prosecution of such cases has been resolved.

I write to offer a potential solution to this standoff: decriminalize misdemeanor marijuana possession instead. Many other governments, state and local, are facing similar budget deficiencies and are increasingly turning to marijuana decriminalization as a partial solution. In fact, just this year the Connecticut Legislature passed a measure decriminalizing possession of less than half an ounce of marijuana. In 2008, 65% of Massachusetts’ voters approved a similar measure, and ten other states – including neighboring Colorado and Nebraska – have also decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Marijuana decriminalization is also an increasingly popular solution at the municipal level. Columbia, Missouri, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and even your in-state neighbor, Lawrence, Kansas are among the many municipalities that have made possession of marijuana a civil, fineable offense with no possibility of jail time.

Not only would decriminalizing marijuana free up funds, but Topeka police, who would otherwise be tied up booking and processing non-violent marijuana users, could instead simply write a ticket and return to protecting the community from real threats to public safety, like domestic abusers. The same goes for judges, prosecutors, and district attorneys, like Mr. Taylor, should Shawnee County consider a similar move.

As our recession recovery continues, all across the country cities and counties are being forced to make decisions, many of them very difficult, about what services they can afford to provide. This decision, however, should be an easy one. People who choose to use marijuana instead of more dangerous drugs like alcohol are not public safety threats. On the other hand, those who would abuse their own loved ones are among the greatest threats to public safety in any community. Battered spouses should not be left defenseless in the name of enforcing misguided marijuana laws. Will you please consider this sensible alternative? I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Dan Riffle

Legislative Analyst

Marijuana Policy Project

Hopefully, the Topeka City Council will listen to reason and at least seriously consider this option. After all, even staunch drug warriors have a hard time explaining how simply decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana can actually hurt anybody. In Massachusetts, where possession of less than an ounce is now treated as a civil infraction, law enforcement is recognizing that there have been no noticeable negative consequences to such a policy.

I’m pretty sure that everyone can agree domestic violence is much more harmful. Except, perhaps, the abusive scum that will walk if the city council moves ahead as planned.

We’ll let you know if they respond.

Support the Marijuana Policy Project: Donate. Subscribe to the MPP Newsletter. Take Action.

Read more

UPDATE: Write President Obama and make your voice heard!

In a press conference today, all four U.S. Attorneys in California announced that the administration will no longer ignore dispensaries and will actively prosecute many commercial operations. The attorneys said they will concentrate on criminal prosecution and asset forfeiture against the landlords of medical marijuana dispensaries or cultivation centers, and threaten action against certain commercial organizations. Multiple businesses throughout the state have been given 45 days to close down. To support the increased efforts to eliminate the medical marijuana industry, they claim that it has been overtaken by criminal organizations and harms communities, yet do not offer justification of these claims at the present time. In the absence of regulated and licensed dispensaries, however, many patients will likely be forced to obtain medical marijuana from street dealers and gangs, which will doubtless create additional law enforcement and public safety problems for California.

Despite campaign promises not to spend limited law enforcement resources interfering with state medical marijuana laws and a 2009 Department of Justice policy directive against targeting individuals acting in compliance with state medical marijuana laws, the U.S. Attorneys signaled that they now intend to prosecute individuals who provide that medicine to patients under safe, regulated conditions.

"How can the Obama administration say that it's fine for sick people to use this proven medicine, and yet tell them they can’t have any legal place to get it?” asked Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. “Medical marijuana isn't going away. Over 70 percent of Americans support making medical marijuana legal, and 16 states allow it.”

“The end result of the federal government's policy is to ensure that medical marijuana is sold illegally in most parts of the country, as well as to create needless suffering for patients who can't find a place to buy medical marijuana."

Since 2009, eight states have enacted or implemented laws that set high standards and strict regulations on medical marijuana dispensing, moving away from previous “gray market” models that lacked licensing or regulations. During the previous administration, targeting providers in California did not prevent marijuana profiteers from operating. Instead, a federal policy of interference with state medical marijuana laws pushes states towards programs with confusing legal gray areas and little to no control over the operation of providers.

We will be continuing to post updates on this issue and the response from the medical marijuana industry and patients.

For a full text of the Department of Justice press release, go here.

UPDATE: Write President Obama and make your voice heard!

Support the Marijuana Policy Project: Donate. Subscribe to the MPP Newsletter. Take Action.

Read more

As part of the federal government’s escalating efforts to shut down the medical marijuana industry, the IRS is claiming that Harborside Health Center, an Oakland dispensary that is thought by many to represent the best practices in the industry, owes them roughly $2.5 million in back taxes. The reason for this is that during the audit, the IRS would not let Harborside deduct many of its business expenses.

Most of these expenses were for things that all other legitimate businesses are allowed to deduct, such as rent and payroll. They were, however, allowed to deduct the actual marijuana being given to patients. The reason for all this is Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which basically allows the IRS to fully tax any group it considers a drug trafficking organization. This is mostly used to snare actual drug traffickers for tax evasion, much like the way Al Capone was finally arrested. Criminal kingpins are not known for filing taxes and reporting their illicit income.

The IRS claims that Harborside, and all other dispensaries, are criminal organizations, so they can’t make any of the deductions other businesses make. But they will still take the money. Many are worried that this will destroy the industry by making it impossible for most dispensaries to afford to stay in business.

MPP is currently pushing a pair of bills through Congress that would remove this threat to patients and providers, as well as allow banks to do business with dispensaries without fear of federal prosecution.

Please urge your representative to sponsor the Small Business Tax Equity Act of 2011 and the Small Business Banking Improvement Act of 2011.

While we’re waiting for Congress to act on these bills (and it may take a while), feel free to contact the IRS and tell them that tax-paying medical marijuana businesses are legitimate and should be treated as such. They are not drug dealers.

Here’s the number: 1-800-829-4933

Read more

It’s bad enough that so many self-declared conservatives, who support personal freedoms and limited government in so many other respects, are opposed to taxing and regulating marijuana. But it’s completely unacceptable for an otherwise stalwart progressive to have such backward views on marijuana.

Asked last night whether she supports legalizing and regulating marijuana, leading Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren gave a flat, no-nonsense (and no-common sense) “no.” Several other candidates for the Democratic nomination had more reasoned answers, and one correct answer – that marijuana should be taxed and regulated in a manner similar to alcohol (apparently to big applause).

Ms. Warren might want to give some more thought to the question the next time it comes up. The people of Massachusetts she hopes to represent already decided by a wide margin that people shouldn’t be arrested for possession of small amounts of marijuana when 65% of them voted in favor of an MPP-written and sponsored decriminalization initiative (PDF) just three years ago.  And it’s not just Massachusetts. By far the most popular draw at the White House’s We The People petition site is “Legalize and Regulate Marijuana in a Manner Similar to Alcohol.” In fact, half of the top ten most popular submissions deal with the subject.

Even President Obama gets it at times: “If you think about the enormous changes that have been made in terms of people's use of tobacco, for example, that wasn't because they were arrested.” Did you hear that Ms. Warren?

If you live in Massachusetts and would like to politely urge Ms. Warren to reconsider, you can do so here.

Read more

"When I ran for this office, I pledged to make government more open and accountable to its citizens. That’s what the new We the People feature on WhiteHouse.gov is all about – giving Americans a direct line to the White House on the issues and concerns that matter most to them." - President Barack Obama

Here are 12 marijuana policy related petitions currently on the White House We the People petition page:

1. Give States the Freedom to Establish Their Own Marijuana Laws.
2. Stop denying the medical value of cannabis (marijuana.) Remove it from schedule one of the controlled substances act.
3. Release all known beneficial information regarding cannabis (hemp, marijuana) and its derivatives.
4. End the destructive, wasteful and counterproductive "War on Drugs".
5. Remove Marijuana from the Schedule 1 list of drugs in the Controlled Substances Act.
6. Allow United States Disabled Military Veterans access to medical marijuana to treat their PTSD.
7. Eliminate or Reform Departments whose Officers are Required by Law to Lie to the American People.
8. Pardon Marc Emery.
9. Allow Industrial Hemp to be Grown in the U.S. Once Again.
10. Stop Interfering With State Marijuana Legalization Efforts.
11. Legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana.
12. Legalize and Regulate Marijuana in a Manner Similar to Alcohol.

To donate, please visit https://www.mpp.org/donate

Read more

In an act of outright legislative interference, S.B. 423, “repeal in disguise,” promised to regulate but instead flouted voters’ wishes and cruelly and arbitrarily gutted Montana’s medical marijuana program, shuttering most providers and reducing the number of patients. By mid-August, the number of patients had dropped by 10% and only 1% of medical marijuana providers remained in business, leaving patients without access to medicine.

However, Montanans have fought back. First, the Montana Cannabis Industry Association got a judge to temporarily block implementation of part of the law. Even more excitingly, Patients for Reform — Not Repeal successfully collected enough signatures to put a referendum to overturn S.B. 423 on the November 2012 ballot! The Secretary of State confirmed that the referendum had already exceeded the minimum signature requirements, and organizers announced they collected more than 46,000 signatures. Kudos to the petitioners; we will keep you updated!

Sadly, another legislative move overturning the will of the people, H.B. 391, went into effect on Saturday. It is intended to overturn Missoula County’s Initiative 2, which made marijuana offenses the lowest law enforcement priority. As a result, local initiatives may not de-prioritize the enforcement of state law. Missoula County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg, who pushed for the bill, says he will move forward with prosecution of marijuana misdemeanors.

Luckily, many Montanans are very upset by these attempts to overturn the will of the voters, and are lending support to the medical marijuana community. Even the Attorney General Steve Bullock is speaking out, although more so about the ATF announcing that it is illegal for medical marijuana patients to purchase or possess firearms.

Read more

The news has been all abuzz for the last several months about various forms of designer drugs meant to mimic marijuana. Called Spice, K2, and a million other mildly clever names, these substances usually consist of a synthetic cannabinoid sprayed over plant matter. The resulting euphoria is supposed to be similar to the effects of marijuana. Unfortunately, it is also untested and has been reported to have all sorts of nasty side effects. Enter the DEA, who recently asked the FDA to temporarily ban several of these chemicals, pending a more permanent solution.

Needless to say, most people probably wouldn’t use these chemicals if they could legally use marijuana. Many users of the synthetics report drug tests for probation or work to be their main reason for using it. The Navy had to start testing for it regularly, so prevalent was its use among the oft-drug-tested sailors. Once again, we have prohibition encouraging people to use drugs more dangerous than marijuana.

The inventor of these substances, John W. Huffman of Clemson University, strongly warns against using them and thinks they should be banned. What does he think should be legal?

In an interview this week with the L.A. Times, Huffman said marijuana should be taxed and regulated, and had this to say:

"You can't overdose on marijuana, but you might on these compounds," he said. "These things are dangerous, and marijuana isn't, really."

I wonder if the DEA will listen. Probably just the “dangerous” part.

Read more

As a female working in the generally male-dominated world of marijuana policy reform, you’d think I’d be accustomed to the gender gap that exists between male and female support for the taxation and regulation of marijuana. And yet, I’m continually shocked when poll after poll reveals sizeable differences among levels of support between the two genders. Although nationwide support for legalizing marijuana has never been higher, we’re going to need the backing of the ladies to push the issue over the tipping point.

As a matter of fact, women generally tend to lag at least five percentage points behind men when it comes to support for ending marijuana prohibition. In national polling, for example, a March 2011 Pew Research Center poll found 48% of males favor marijuana legalization, while female support trailed at 42%. An October 2010 Gallup poll showed a more striking gap between male and female support, with 51% of males and only 41% of females in favor of making the use of marijuana legal.

Unfortunately, this gender gap also exists in state-level polling, as evidenced by the following cases from Colorado and Washington state. An August 2011 Public Policy Polling poll of Colorado voters found 54% of males, but only 49% of females, support making marijuana usage legal in the state, while a September 2011 Strategies 360 poll of Washington state voters showed 56% of males and a whopping 37% of females think the use of marijuana should be made legal in Washington. That’s a difference of nearly twenty percentage points!

Colorado and Washington state are notable examples here, as voters in both states will likely have the opportunity to vote on state ballot initiatives to tax and regulate marijuana in 2012. With voters in those states currently split on the issue, a boost in female support is exactly what’s needed to achieve strong majority support for taxing and regulating marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. And speaking of alcohol, just as women were pivotal in bringing about the repeal of its prohibition in the 1930s, so too will they be instrumental in effecting the end of marijuana prohibition.

In fact, perhaps we can learn something from our Prohibition-era sisters. Did you know that many of the women who initially supported alcohol prohibition ultimately grew disenchanted with it and fought for its repeal? Pauline Sabin, founder of the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform, favored prohibition in the beginning because she thought it would be best for her children. But Sabin, like many others, finally came to the conclusion that the prohibition against alcohol was more dangerous and destructive than the substance itself. Perhaps, someday soon, more and more women will come to realize that the greatest harm associated with marijuana is the prohibition against it.

Though women are increasingly coming out in support for reforming our country’s marijuana laws, from “stiletto stoners” to “marijuana moms” and “ganja grannies,” we need to broaden our base to include more women who aren’t necessarily marijuana users, but who share the belief that our current marijuana policies have failed and it’s time for a new approach. Whether they’re ultimately inspired by personal liberty arguments, maternalistic concerns for children and family, issues of public safety, or economic cares related to the waste of public resources, women could very well be the driving force in getting the nation to that critical moment when the demand for the end of marijuana prohibition simply cannot be denied. I hope to see the female voters in states like Colorado and Washington leading the charge in 2012.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Why do you think women are more reluctant than men to support the end of marijuana prohibition? And what can we collectively do to try to change that? Please comment or send me an email at kzawidzki@mpp.org.

Read more

This evening, Governor Lincoln Chafee issued a press release stating that he will not be moving forward on issuing certificates of operation to the three entities chosen by the state Department of Health to bring safe, affordable and reliable medical marijuana to Rhode Island’s most sick and suffering patients. Gov. Chafee has asked the General Assembly to work with him to create a model that does not draw the attention of the federal government.

This whole thing started over two years ago when the General Assembly passed legislation creating compassion centers in Rhode Island. Since then Maine, Vermont, Delaware, Arizona, and New Jersey have all enacted laws allowing for regulated dispensing of medical marijuana. As you may recall, after passage of these laws – or during debate of them – the DOJ through several United States Attorneys fired off scary sounding letters to state officials claiming that they’ll bust up people acting in compliance with these compassionate and popular state laws. A funny thing happened though, all of these states, with the exception of Rhode Island, have moved forward with giving patients the humane option of safe access despite the fact that the laws irk officials in DC.

And now we have the actions of one Gov. Lincoln Chafee. A man who claims to understand that patients need safe access yet steadfastly refuses to allow them that access. A man who refused to hand a confessed killer over to the feds to face the death penalty because it was against Rhode Island’s public policy while at the same time ignoring another public policy decision of the state to allow safe access to medical marijuana because the feds asked him to!

At this point, I’m not sure what to make of all this and what it means for patients in Rhode Island. I do know that it’s outrageous, disappointing and downright mean-spirited. I also know that this is sure to be the beginning of a discussion, not the end.

Read more

We are all used to the federal government offering only limited deference to states when it comes to medical marijuana. And we are certainly used to it refusing to admit that patients have a legal right to use marijuana for medical purposes, or even that marijuana has medical value at all.

Apparently, it also thinks that those who are abiding by state law and using medical marijuana do not have certain constitutional rights, either.

In a memo issued last week by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the federal government asserted that it is a violation of federal law to possess a gun or ammunition if you are a marijuana user. This broad definition also includes individuals who are state-legal medical marijuana patients.

It is important to note that this is only the opinion of the BATFE and is not legally binding. A case dealing with this issue for an individual patient has not been taken up on a federal level, yet many who are charged with federal marijuana violations often find themselves facing additional firearms charges extending from searches of their property. The Department of Justice has so far kept fairly close to its word when it comes to leaving medical marijuana patients alone, but one could easily imagine a situation in which a firearm violation could be used to prosecute a particularly meddlesome patient who may not be doing anything involving marijuana that would warrant investigation.

It is also important to remember that the federal government cannot force state and local law enforcement to enforce federal law. For example, the DEA can’t make the Colorado state police ignore their medical marijuana laws and start arresting patients for violating the Controlled Substances Act. So don’t start worrying that just because you have a medical marijuana card, you are about to be raided because you own a firearm. In fact, a court decision in Oregon ruled that states have every right to allow patients to possess firearms and may even grant them concealed-carry licenses if they wish.

However, federal law enforcement does reserve the right to charge you with firearms violations if you are a patient and own a gun. This should be no more worrisome in practical terms than the Department of Justice asserting that it has the legal right to charge you with marijuana violations if you are a patient and own some medicine.

This is much more troubling in terms of individual rights and human dignity. The Second Amendment clearly states our rights as citizens to possess firearms. The federal government, however, seems to think that people who use marijuana to treat their illnesses can not only face arrest for doing so, but are also not entitled to the same constitutional rights as everyone else. Regardless of the promises to not target medical marijuana users, it is pretty clear that the government views them as second-class citizens. This discrimination cannot be tolerated in a free society.

The full memo can be viewed here.

Special thanks to Ed Docter from the Montana Cannabis Industry Association for the tip.

Read more