The California Supreme Court affirmed today that the state's voter-approved medical marijuana law (Proposition 215) does not prevent qualified patients and caregivers from possessing more marijuana than is set forth in the personal guidelines established by the legislature in 2004. While the outcome of this case, People v. Kelly, hasn't fundamentally changed California law -- not in our view, at least -- the decision provided necessary direction for law enforcement.

Although his status as a legal patient was not in question, the defendant in this case was prosecuted for possessing more marijuana than was allowed by the "limits" (8 ounces and 6 mature plants) established in companion state legislation to Prop. 215. The court affirmed that in fact there are no limits on the amount of marijuana a patient can possess or cultivate so long as it's in accordance with their personal needs. The thresholds set by the legislature are in fact only guidelines for law enforcement to follow when determining whether or not to arrest someone who possesses of one of the state's voluntary medical marijuana ID cards.

So, what does this all mean for California patients and caregivers?

If you're enrolled in California's medical marijuana ID card program and growing no more than 6 mature or 12 immature plants, and possessing 8 ounces or less of processed marijuana (or higher limits if your county allows), you will not be subject to arrest or prosecution. However, if you exceed these floor guidelines or choose not to obtain a state ID card, you may end up under arrest but you will have an affirmative defense in court, providing an opportunity to avoid prosecution if you can convince a judge or jury that you are a qualified patient and your marijuana was only an amount consistent with your personal medical needs.

These guidelines and the ID cards are important tools to help California's patients and caregivers avoid unnecessary legal problems. Without them, the individual police officers would have discretion over whether someone claiming to be a patient was suspicious enough to be arrested or whether their marijuana was more than they needed. And we all know how great cops are at practicing medicine.

MPP Nevada spokesman Dave Schwartz debates the merits of the ballot initiative proposed for 2012 that would allow Nevadans over the age of 21 to legally purchase and possess marijuana in small quantities. This is part two of an appearance on Jon Ralston's "Face to Face". 01/15/2010

MPP Nevada spokesman Dave Schwartz debates the merits of the ballot initiative proposed for 2012 that would allow Nevadans over the age of 21 to legally purchase and possess marijuana in small quantities. This appearance is on Jon Ralston's "Face to Face". 01/15/2010

Last night, Scott Brown (R-Mass.) beat Democrat Martha Coakley in a special election to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy, becoming the first Republican to hold a Senate seat in Massachusetts since the 1970s. So what happened up there?

To state it simply, the Democrats chose a bad candidate. They backed one of the most vocal and public opponents of the MPP-funded ballot initiative, Question 2, which decriminalized marijuana possession in Massachusetts in 2008. Question 2 was more popular than President Obama on Election Day, garnering 65% of the vote compared with the president’s 62%. All but three towns in the state supported the initiative.

There is a lesson here for Democrats and Republicans alike: Support for marijuana reform will help, not hurt, a candidate in elections. Public support is surging forward. Polls on legalization are moving quickly toward majority approval nationwide -- in the west, it’s already passed the 50% mark -- and medical marijuana enjoys 81% support. Politicians on both sides of the aisle must recognize that it’s time to use this populist platform as a tool for winning elections.

Scott Brown is not a card-carrying member of the marijuana reform movement by any stretch of the imagination. As a state senator, he proposed that possession of marijuana in a vehicle remain a criminal offense, attempting to pull back parts of Question 2. But Brown was not a leading opponent of the measure nor was he publicly associated with the issue, as Coakley was. The lesson here, however, is of the could have should have variety: Democrats could have backed a candidate that supported Question 2, and they should have used marijuana reform as a tool in the campaign. Had they, today’s election results may have looked a lot different.

MPP California Policy Director Aaron Smith appears on CNBC to discuss AB390. He debates with other guests about the benefits of a system that allows the taxation and regulated distribution of marijuana to adults 21 and over. 01/13/2010

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll reveals that more than eight in 10 Americans (81%) support efforts to make marijuana legal for medical use, up from 69 percent in 1997. Fifty-six percent say that if it's allowed, “doctors should be able to prescribe medical marijuana to anyone they think it can help.” Last week the New Jersey state legislature passed a medical marijuana bill and yesterday Gov. Corzine signed the bill into law, making New Jersey the 14^th state to provide its sick and dying patients with safe access to marijuana.

Additionally, the ABC News/Washington Post poll finds 46 percent support for making the possession of small amounts of marijuana legal for personal use, up from 22 percent in 1997.

Last night, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a medical marijuana bill into law, officially making New Jersey the 14^th state in the nation to allow qualified patients to use medical marijuana with their doctor’s recommendation. The law allows the establishment of dispensaries around the state, but it does not make it legal for patients to grow their own marijuana.

This law means that New Jersey will no longer prosecute sick and dying patients who try to ease their symptoms with marijuana, but it apparently does not apply retroactively. On the same day Gov. Corzine signed such compassionate legislation, he also refused to pardon one of the most glaring victims of New Jersey’s old marijuana laws—John Wilson, a 37-year-old multiple sclerosis patient who faces 10 years in prison for growing marijuana plants to ease his condition.

When asked for comment, Wilson’s lawyer said he was “deeply disappointed” that the governor did not grant Wilson clemency before leaving office.

Me too.

Pete Holmes, the newly elected Seattle city attorney, is already making good on his campaign promise to dismiss any marijuana possession charges that come through his office, the Seattle Times reported last week. Holmes dismissed two marijuana-related cases on his first day on the job, and several others are about to be dismissed, including cases taken up by the previous city attorney.

According to the Times, Holmes’ predecessor, Tom Carr, had continued to prosecute low-level marijuana arrests even after city voters passed a referendum in 2003 making marijuana the lowest law-enforcement priority for local officials.

This is just the latest in a whole string of good news coming out of Washington state in recent weeks.

A new poll released by Survey USA found that 54% of Washington voters support taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol, and selling the natural plant in state-run liquor stores. When asked broadly if voters “think legalizing marijuana is a good idea,” support was even higher at 56%.

Last month two Washington state legislators submitted a bill to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol. A few days later Seattle Mayor-elect Mike McGinn came out publicly in support of ending marijuana prohibition in The Evergreen State.

A bill more likely to pass is the decriminalization bill introduced last year, which would turn possession of small amounts of marijuana into an infraction similar to a speeding ticket. The Washington State Bar Association has endorsed both bills.

Back in October, the British government fired its chief drug adviser, Prof. David Nutt, for saying that marijuana is less dangerous than many legal drugs and that British laws should be changed to reflect this reality. Many other members of the United Kingdom’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs resigned in protest

Then this week, Les Iversen, a former pharmacology professor at the University of Oxford, was announced as Nutt’s interim replacement as the council’s chairman. And guess what? He’s also said that the UK’s marijuana laws should change.

British media are reporting that in 2003, Prof. Iverson gave a lecture in which he said marijuana use should no longer be criminal “because it is comparatively less dangerous than legal drugs alcohol and tobacco.” Iverson has tried to distance himself from those comments somewhat (perhaps so he too does not get fired!) but it seems evident that as a distinguished academic and scientist who has examined the evidence, Iversen—like Nutt—knows it is wrong to impose harsher penalties on those who use a safer substance.

Meanwhile, Nutt today announced the creation of his own, independent committee, which The Guardian reports “has the potential to embarrass the [British] government, due to its determination to make public the evidence on the relative risks and harms of drugs without regard to political sensitivities.”