MPP Director of Government Relations Aaron Houston explains the implications of the new federal policy toward medical marijuana state laws, and discusses the growing acceptance of marijuana in public perception. 10/20/2009
MPP Director of Government Relations Aaron Houston explains the implications of the new federal policy toward medical marijuana state laws, and discusses the growing acceptance of marijuana in public perception. 10/20/2009
Aaron Houston weighs in on the Justice Department's formal decision to not prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers who are following state law. 10/19/2009
Just as federal medical marijuana policy appears to be moving toward sanity, some local officials in the nation's second largest city seem to be losing it altogether.
Earlier this month, I reported on Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley's decision to use resources prosecuting each of the area's medical marijuana collectives as common drug dealers -- even those operating within city or county guidelines. Now, Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich joins Cooley in his fight against the popular and long-standing medical marijuana laws.
Trutanich is pressing the L.A. City Council to quickly adopt an ordinance effectively banning the sale of medical marijuana through storefront collectives. This uniquely draconian proposal is based on the false premise that California law doesn't allow collectives to accept money from members as reimbursement for their medical marijuana.
Just last year, the state's attorney general issued guidelines declaring that, while medical marijuana could not be sold for profit, it is perfectly legal to exchange money to cover the costs of its production and distribution. The guidelines clearly state, "Members also may reimburse the collective or cooperative for marijuana that has been allocated to them." Further, California law exempts certain medical marijuana-related activities from prosecution under laws that otherwise prohibit the sales of marijuana.
Bizarrely, the ordinance also doesn't allow any medical marijuana facility to operate within 1,000 feet of a "hospital or medical facility." Hmm... I thought that patient collectives were medical facilities.
Clearly medical marijuana collectives in Los Angeles are in need of some more controls (local patients and collective operators have been calling for regulations for years), and some of the facilities in the area are probably not operating in good faith compliance with the law. But the answer to this problem is not in a broad prohibitionist policy that's out of step with state law and a boon to underground drug dealers who would undoubtably fill the vacuum left once all the collectives are closed. The answer, as always, is in sound regulations which facilitate open and safe access to patients while addressing community concerns.
Stay tuned for more developments from the City of Angels. I'll be posting them here as they unfold.
Alameda County, California, oakland, Oakland International Airport, Robert Raich
Over the weekend, the Oakland Tribune reported that law enforcement officers at Oakland International Airport follow an official written policy of respecting California's medical marijuana laws. Qualified medical marijuana patients traveling out of Oakland are not arrested or cited for possession of eight ounces or less of processed marijuana. In fact, patients are allowed to board their plane with their marijuana just as they could with any other legal medicine or prescription drug.
The policy was enacted after an intensive local lobbying campaign by Robert Raich, one of California's preeminent attorneys specializing in medical marijuana law. Although the federal government continues to criminalize medical marijuana, Raich points out that federal regulations restricting marijuana possession aboard an aircraft provide an exception if it is "authorized by or under any Federal or State statute."
Airport security screenings are conducted by the federal Transportation Security Administration, but passengers in possession of marijuana and other drugs are deferred to the Alameda County Sheriff's Department, which applies the favorable policy.
Hopefully all the airports in California -- and 12 other medical marijuana states -- will follow Oakland's lead so that even more patients will be able to travel without fear of persecution.
MPP Assistant Director of Communications Mike Meno is interviewed about the Justice Department announcement that the federal government will no longer use resources to prosecute medical marijuana users and providers that are in compliance with state law. 10/19/2009
Bruce Mirken discusses the Obama administration's memo intended to stop federal resources from being used to prosecute medical marijuana users and caregivers operating within state laws. 10/19/2009
A new Gallup poll released today shows 44% support for making marijuana legal in the U.S., a record high for this particular poll. The poll also shows 53% support in the west.
While we’ve seen higher numbers in the past, and the level of support varies from poll to poll, this recent number shows a trend that’s undeniable: Americans are quickly realizing that taxing and regulating marijuana is preferable to prohibition.
The chart below shows the change in attitudes among various groups. Notice that all of them have increased since 2005.
Huge news!
The Obama administration issued guidelines today clearly stating that the federal government will not arrest medical marijuana patients or providers who comply with state law. This development is the most significant, positive policy change for medical marijuana patients since 1978.
According to Justice Department officials, the orders sent today to federal prosecutors, the DEA, and the FBI clearly state that medical marijuana patients and providers who are in compliance with state law should not be arrested or prosecuted by the federal government. This codifies statements made by the attorney general earlier this year.
The policy is a signal of support for medical marijuana from President Obama and the new administration. And the guidelines are exactly what MPP’s Aaron Houston asked for in a congressional hearing earlier this year.
Under the Bush administration, the feds raided, arrested, and otherwise terrorized medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. Even in the 13 states with medical marijuana laws, patients still lived in fear. With this new policy change, medical marijuana patients finally know exactly where they stand with the law and can focus on their health, not their legal status.
To help MPP build on this momentum, please write your member of Congress. We’ve set up an action item online to make this quick and easy. You can also help by sharing this blog post on Twitter, Facebook, Digg, and other social network sites online.
Those of us feeling perturbed by the recent parade of California officials trying to undermine that state’s medical marijuana laws might find comfort in the recent trends of another medical marijuana state: Colorado.
After 53% of voters in the Centennial State approved a medical marijuana amendment in November 2000, Colorado has quietly emerged as a potential model for how states can responsibly and competently oversee the establishment of a medical marijuana industry.
There are currently more than 100 dispensing collectives statewide, an estimated 13,000 residents with valid medical marijuana cards, and 800 different physicians who have recommended them, according to recent figures. New dispensaries are being opened and considered in municipalities all over the state with little reported opposition.
When protests have been raised, municipalities have, by and large, purposely avoided the type of reactionary backlash seen in California and instead tried to strike a balance among the collectives, patients and critics through discussions and regulations—not orders to shut down. For example, several skeptical municipalities have decided to place temporary moratoriums on new dispensaries until they decide how best to regulate the establishments.
This difference between California and Colorado might best be seen when comparing some of their top lawmen. In California, L.A. County District Attorney Steve Cooley said all collectives are illegal and “are going to be prosecuted.” In Colorado, by stark contrast, Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett has said he wants to be the country’s most progressive D.A. when it comes to medical marijuana. He has even said he’s willing to consider full marijuana legalization.
And if these signs aren’t encouraging enough, the Denver Post is reporting that the tiny valley town of Ophir (population 163) will decide on Tuesday whether to consider becoming the state’s first municipality to grow medical marijuana as a way to make up for lost tax revenues.
Says planning and zoning chairwoman Sue Beresford, "A town can dream, can't it?"
Despite the success experienced by dozens of California cities and counties regulating -- and in one case, even taxing -- medical marijuana sales, some municipalities have seen fit to shutter all open access to patients. In San Diego, where local voters approved the state's medical marijuana initiative 13 years ago, the county district attorney continues to assert that it's illegal to dispense medical marijuana to patients whose physicians have approved its use. Despite repeated losses in court and overwhelming opposition to medical marijuana raids, District Attorney Dumanis has vowed to continue her pogrom against San Diego's sick.
On the other end of the state, the small town of Red Bluff may be taking it upon itself to re-write California's voter-approved medical marijuana law altogether. The city's planning commission voted 3-2 on Tuesday to support of an ordinance which would not only ban storefront medical marijuana dispensing collectives but also prohibit all medical marijuana cultivation. Apparently, the news that California laws specifically allow cultivation by patients and their caregivers hasn't reached Red Bluff in all these years. Nor have the loads of case law supporting these rights been taken into account when the majority of commission cast its vote to thwart state law.
The Red Bluff City Council should reject this offensive proposal but if they don't, I'm confident that it will be overturned in court. Further, public officials like D.A. Dumanis and the three Red Bluff planning commissioners who openly defy the will of their state's voters and its legislature should find another line of work.