Protecting and expanding the rights of medical cannabis patients is the primary goal of ASA’s California Campaign. Sometimes that work is done in the halls of the state capitol building, where ASA pushed legislation to protect employment rights all the way to the Governor’s desk last year. Other times it happens in the courtroom. ASA forced the California Department of Motor Vehicle’s to stop revoking medical cannabis patients’ licenses in March.

Few ASA members know, however, that we are continuously fighting behind the scenes to help patients push back against discrimination. One of those patients is mixed martial arts champion Toby Grear, who was suspended by the California Athletic Commission after testing positive for medical cannabis. I testified before the commission on Toby’s behalf last year. Sadly, they were not persuaded that Toby’s legal use of cannabis differed from use of a “drug of abuse.”

Toby continues to fight back against prejudice and stigma – taking his case to the public with a video published on Bliptv.com this week (above). The voters did not intend that legal medical cannabis patients would be subject to discrimination when they approved Proposition 215. It is important that we continue to fight back to stop discrimination in employment, housing, parental rights, and access to health care.

Protecting patients rights is one of the most imporatnt challenges  ASA confronts in California today. We will keep fighting in the legislature, local government, courts, and media until patients can enoy the full protection of California law.

This past weekend, I had the pleasure of attending the West Coast Regional Students for a Sensible Drug Policy conference in Berkeley, California.  It was exciting to see so many activists coming together to reflect on all of our recent successes and to talk about what we want to accomplish next and the strategies we need to implement in order to reach our common goals.  Our two panels addressed the current state of medical cannabis implementation, how we can effectively change this for the better, and what we envision as the future for medical marijuana and the movement as a whole.

The first panel discussed the issues we are currently facing with implementation, specifically in terms of our current fight to ensure safe and legal access to all patients.  We listened to accounts from people working to provide patients with safe access, and stories about the destructive “smash and grab” style of federal law enforcement raids.  ASA’s Don Duncan sat on the panel, along with Dr. Amanda Reiman, of UC Berkeley, Valarie Corral of WAMM, and Dale Gieringer of CA NORML.  We took a look specifically at California’s model for dispensing collectives and the current state of safe access for California patients.

A key aspect of the second panel addressed how patients can deal with local law enforcement agents who refuse to uphold state medical marijuana laws.  Although the California Fourth Appellate District unanimously ruled that “it is not the job of local police to enforce the federal drug laws,” we are still forced to deal with the ridiculous reality of rogue local law enforcement continuing to harass patients and claim that their particular jurisdiction does not recognize state medical cannabis laws.  As organizers and activists alike, our main goal was to determine what basic tools we can take back to our communities so we can help patients take action in these situations and hopefully bring about some positive change to the area as a whole.  We discussed that two of the most important things a patient can do if he or she experiences a negative law enforcement encounter are to file an official complaint with the law enforcement agency involved and to file a Tort claim with the city or county within 6 months of the incident as well.  Staying in communication with ASA during this process is key, as we have a plethora of resources and support available to patients and advocates alike.

The weekend was an incredible opportunity, and working with and learning from ASA activists from around the state got me fired up to get back in the office and keep up on the success!   Thanks to everyone who came to participate!

Here’s what some other people had to say -

“I have to admit, I didn’t take very many notes I was so involved in the conversations I forgot to write it down.  Thank goodness George & Don had wonderful handouts to give us as we left.  I believe in the next few weeks we will be getting some much needed help with how to educate the law enforcement officers in your community…”

- Diana, Fresno

“ASA really engaged the participants, instead of just dictating what needs to be done. ASA facilitated an incredible environment where we were able to get together to share our ideas about how to get  things done based on our own experiences and contribute to the larger effort of these strategies that WE are going to be carrying out.  It was awesome!”

- Cheryl, Los Angeles

US District Judge George Wu continued the sentencing of convicted medical cannabis collective operator Charles C. Lynch for a second time today. A growing cadre of supporters and media must come back to the Los Angeles Federal Courthouse on June 11 to learn the fate of the man who has become a cause celebre among medical cannabis advocates.

The courtroom was filled to capacity for today’s proceedings – including extra federal marshals on hand to monitor the unusually large crowd. Observers listened to more than two hours of testimony from key players in the case. Owen Beck, the eighteen-year-old amputee and legal patient to whom Lynch provided cannabis, asked the judge for leniency in a heartfelt statement. The judge also heard from Lynch’s brother and the Mayor and City Attorney for Morro Bay, where Lynch operated Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers with the city’s blessing until March of 2007.

ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford testified at the sentencing to explain how Lynch’s collective was legal under state law. His testimony was significant, because Judge Wu is still not persuaded that provisions of California law that allow a legal patients’ collective to maintain a storefront like the one in Morro Bay apply in Lynch’s case. The issue of whether or not Lynch believed his conduct was legal under state law will influence Judge Wu’s decision regarding the applicability of five-year mandatory minimum sentence. The judge promised to review the precedent cited by Joe Elford and the guidelines for medical cannabis he helped to craft with the California Attorney General last year.

At the sentencing hearing on March 23, Judge Wu asked prosecutors to provide a statement from Washington, DC, regarding the evolving federal policy on medical cannabis in light of comments made by the White House and US Attorney General Erik Holder earlier this year. Unfortunately, the statement disappointed advocates by indicating that Lynch’s prosecution and sentencing were consistent with current policy. The incongruity between Holder’s comments and the facts of Lynch’s case, especially regarding compliance with state law, indicate that there is much work to be done with the Obama Administration in realizing the promise of the  new “American policy.”

Judge Wu seemed committed to the two additional one-year mandatory minimum sentences Lynch faces, but asked both sides to brief him on what options he has besides jail if he decides to sentence Lynch to only one year and a day. This led many observers to speculate about a much lighter sentence. One of the most telling moments in the hearing was when Judge Wu conceded that “most people in this room” do not believe someone like Lynch belongs in jail.

The community support throughout the Lynch trial has been remarkable and has almost certainly influenced the sentencing. Supporters in the crowd sometimes reacted with gasps and unsatisfied murmurs to comments in the courtroom today. However, the most poignant message from the crowd was silent. When Federal Public Defender Reuven Cohen stepped up to the podium for the last time, the entire crowd stood in solidarity for the rest of the hearing. Let’s hope that simple gesture is not lost on Judge Wu when he considers Lynch’s fate.

Seven years ago a handful of patients, doctors, and providers came together to stand up against federal intimidation and to chart out a plan for protecting safe access to medical cannabis. Today, we have turned that handful into thousands of committed advocates across the country. Through ASA we have built a strong, engaged movement.

Please donate $100 to ASA today to support this growing movement!

As a movement we have celebrated countless victories in the realm of access and extended patient protections. As a movement we have mourned together as our brothers and sisters left us. And as a movement we have shouted and protested the sight of our friends and family being harassed, detained, persecuted and jailed.

I have been truly amazed and touched by the family that has come together to fight for safe and legal access. Over the past seven years I have had the honor of meeting many of you. I have listened to story after story about the benefits that medical cannabis has brought to you and your loved ones. I have listened to countless stories about the hardships of lack of access and police harassment. And what is truly amazing is that in each of those stories you have also shared the inspiration of your willingness to stand up for yourself and those around you.

I carry those stories with me, as does the ASA staff. Your experiences define the work we do and the manner in which we do it.

We have already accomplished so much together. Our successful lobbying, media and legal campaigns have resulted in important court precedents, new sentencing standards, and more compassionate community guidelines. Together we have rolled back public ambivalence and media bias to make medical cannabis a national issue.

Now the time has come to ramp up our work – we have an administration that is open to moving safe access forward, and now we must show our strength and share our vision. This is ASA’s most important year and we need your support to move forward. Opportunity is there but we must Engage for Change! Please donate $100 today to support ASA’s work this year and beyond.

Happy B-Day ASA family!

1. ASA Argues in Federal Court: Feds, Stop Lying About Medical Cannabis

On Tuesday, Americans for Safe Access argued the obvious in federal court, claiming that the federal government is lying when it says “there have been no studies that have scientifically assessed the efficacy of marijuana for any condition.”

Under a 2002 law known as the “Data Quality Act” federal agencies must disseminate information to the public that is true. That includes information on medical cannabis, which is why ASA jumped to become the first organization in the U.S. to file suit against the government under the law.

Initially, ASA filed a petition in October 2004 with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asking it to correct its inaccurate statements on medical cannabis. After waiting for years without an answer from HHS, they finally responded by telling ASA that they were sending our petition through a different proceeding, which would take years to get an answer.  Being fed up with the government’s stall tactics, ASA took them to court.

In February 2007, ASA sued HHS to force them to at least respond to our petition and to have the court decide whether that response is “arbitrarty and capricious.”  To refute the government’s claim of “no studies”, ASA’s suit included dozens of scientific studies that demonstrate the medical efficacy of cannabis.

Unfortunately, the district court ruled that there was no right to judicial review under the Data Quality Act.  In other words, they said that in passing the law, Congress was simply asking the federal government to tell the truth, not telling it to.  But ASA appealed in the Ninth Circuit and, because of the significance of the case, retained high-profile attorney Alan Morrison.  Morrison and Ralph Nader co-founded the Public Citizen Litigation Group 40 years ago, and in the oral arguments this week, both medical cannabis supporters and the federal government found out why he’s considered ASA’s ace in the hole.

The case puts President Obama’s statements that the federal government will make scientific decisions based on science, rather than politics, to the test.  A ruling is expected within 6 months.

2. San Francisco Supervisor Introduces Plan to Have SF Dispense Medical Cannabis

On Tuesday, San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi proposed legislation that would make San Francisco the first city in the nation to dispense medical cannabis.  He asked the city attorney to draft language for a pilot program through which the Department of Public Health might distribute cannabis to qualified patients of city clinics.

Calling it the “next step” in the progress of California’s state medical cannabis law, Mirkarimi said he wanted to introduce legislation in 2005, but the Bush Administration’s hostility to state laws made him stay his hand. The change in policy from the Obama Administration, as expressed by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and by the President himself, has made this kind of city regulation and oversight much easier.

Although SF Mayor Gavin Newsom was luke warm about the proposal, San Francisco’s current dispensary regulations are a model for other cities, and have been instrumental in alleviating community concerns about oversight to protect patients who rely on dispensing collectives as their only regular source for medical cannabis.

However, Joseph Russionello, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California, who is responsible for prosecuting cases brought by DEA raids, said that he was opposed to the idea because he felt that the city of San Francisco would not be likely to follow the state guidelines established by California Attorney General Jerry Brown.  The statement quoted in the SF Chronicle is an eye-opener to the way DEA plans to adhere to the President’s policy as laid out by US Attorney General Eric Holder, which is to only send DEA to be involved when dispensing collectives violate both state and federal law.  If the U.S. attorney is saying that even the City of San Francisco would be out of compliance and open to raids by DEA, clearly the federal government’s interpretation of state law is highly suspect at best, and dishonest at worst.

3. Sonoma Commission Moves on Dispensing Collectives; Laguna Beach May Have Regulations by Summer

Sonoma Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend that the Sonoma City Council adopt a dispensing collective ordinance.  In the proposed ordinance, only one permit will be issued in the first year, but there is no permit cap after that. It limits membership in the non-profit cooperative to 2,000 persons, and patient visits in any month to 1,000 only. It does not allow for delivery services and prohibits cannabis for dispensing collectives from being grown within city limits.

Only commissioner Robert Felder was vehemently opposed to allowing a dispensing collective in the city.  Though his claims that medical cannabis patients are not part of the image the city wanted, thankfully the 6 votes demonstrated that the city is interested in moving past the “not in my neighborhood” myths and insults that are sometimes hurled at qualified patients.  The City Council will review the ordinance at upcoming meeting and vote on whether or not to move forward with the planning commission’s recommendations.

And in Laguna Beach, officials decided they may establish regulations on dispensing collectives by this summer. In a meeting this week, city council members referenced the position of the Obama Administration in calling for a halt to federal interference, as they discussed the terms and conditions for proposed regulations.

4. Lodi, South Gate Move the Other Way; Enact Moratorium

Despite the action of many California cities in enacting regulations, the Lodi City Council placed a 45-day moratorium on the opening of new dispensing collectives after they received a handful of inquiries from community members interested in obtaining permits from the city. The council tasked city staff in preparing recommendations for regulating or banning dispensing collectives that provide safe access.

In addition, the South Gate City Council continued with its moratorium in late March, with staff claiming they required more time to gather data and research and draft an ordinance. It has been the 3rd extension of the moratorium in 2 years since the South Gate first enacted their ban on dispensing collectives.  In two years of putting the issue off to study it further, the city has collected no data.

The federal government is lying when it states that “there have been no studies that have scientifically assessed the efficacy of marijuana for any condition” and we have called them on this.  Under a little known law called the “Data Quality Act” or “Information Quality Act,” federal agencies have an obligation to disseminate truthful information.  So, back in October of 2004, Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a Petition with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requesting that it correct the above statement, and three others, regarding the efficacy of marijuana for medical use.  After years of evasion and delay, HHS told us that it would defer consideration of our request to a different agency proceeding, which may take years, so we took them to court.

In February of 2007, we sued HHS under the Data Quality Act in order to achieve two goals — first, the force HHS to give us a substantive response to our Petition and, second, if necessary, have the court decide whether that response is arbitrary and capricious.  Three months later, we filed a motion for summary judgment accompanied by dozens of scientific studies, which contradict the federal government’s claims that such studies don’t exist.  Unfortunately, the district court gave our suit short shrift a dismissed the suit on the government’s motion based on the contention that there is no right to judicial review under the Data Quality Act.  In other words, the court reduced the Data Quality Act to an exhortation to federal agencies to disseminate truthful information, not a command.  But, despite what several people have written in our discussion forums, that was not the end of the line.

The case would continue on appeal in the Ninth Circuit and, luckily, our big gun, Alan Morrison, would stay on the case.  Alan co-founded the Public Citizen Litigation Group with Ralph Nader nearly forty years ago and was, until recently, an administrative law professor at Stanford.  As proven today, he’s an extremely effective oral advocate.

When I first came to ASA, I had few demands.  One of them was that I would argue every case I briefed, but to have Alan Morrison on behalf of ASA warranted an exception.

The oral argument was held today and the sparks flew.  Alan went first and the three-judge panel peppered him with questions on standing, whether there is a right to judicial review under the Data Quality Act, and whether ASA had an alternative remedy under the Controlled Substances Act (through rescheduling) that would preclude judicial review under the Data Quality Act.  Alan answered all of the questions eloquently and succinctly.  Near the end of Alan’s presentation, Judge Berzon lamented that the Court should have allotted more time for oral argument because this was such an interesting case.  The audio of the argument can be found here .

Ultimately, in addition to the medical marijuana issue, the case puts President Obama’s statements that the federal government will make scientific decisions based on science, rather than politics, to the test.  It does not seem too much to ask that federal agencies tell the truth and for courts to ensure this when it is demonstrated that they are lying.

1. ASA Releases Report on Obstruction of Medical Cannabis Research
by the Federal Government

Americans for Safe Access issued a report this week aimed at drawing attention to the federal government’s monopoly on the production of cannabis for medical research. The 14-page report, entitled “Obstruction of Medical Cannabis Research in the U.S., <http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5704>” highlights the federal effort to impede therapeutic research on cannabis and exposes a conflict of interest for University of Mississippi professor Mahmoud ElSohly, who holds an exclusive cultivation license issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

The report draws attention to the ways in which the federal monopoly impedes meaningful research and points to the need for a new policy that can be implemented under the Obama Administration. “In the United States, research is stalled,” said Caren Woodson, ASA’s Government Affairs Director. “And, in some cases, research is blocked by a complicated federal approval process, which restricts access to research-grade marijuana.”

Specifically, the report emphasizes the way in which government agencies — namely the DEA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) — selectively delay the process by which researchers obtain cannabis for FDA-approved studies. The report also highlights a federal “double standard” on medical cannabis illustrated by testimony from public officials who concede to the plant’s therapeutic efficacy as long as it is produced in pill.

The report also emphasizes a 2007 ruling by the DEA’s own Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner that “the existing supply of marijuana [for research] is not adequate” and that an expansion of such research is “in the public interest.” Judge Bittner’s recommendations were in response to an application by University of Massachusetts at Amherst professor Lyle Craker to be another cultivator of cannabis for FDA-approved studies. The application was denied by the DEA in the final weeks of the Bush Administration and is currently being appealed. In March 2009, the Los Angeles Times editorialized that, “The attorney general (Holder) should heed calls to end the DEA’s obstruction of serious research into the medicinal value of marijuana.”

Perhaps most alarming is the report’s exposure of the federal license that enables professor ElSohly to exclusively produce cannabis for the pharmaceutical company Mallinckrodt, a subsidiary of Tyco International. This arrangement appears to be for the purpose of bringing to market a generic form of Marinol (a pill of THC, the active compound in marijuana, suspended in oil) due to go off-patent in 2011, thereby directly enriching ElSohly at a price that he and/or the federal government sets. To enable this scheme, the U.S. government has requested the United Nations increase a quota (from past years) for cannabis production by 900 percent. The request to increase federal cannabis production is a requirement of the U.N. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

Recommendations outlined in the report include: implementation of Judge Bittner’s 2007 recommendations, streamlining the approval process for obtaining research-grade cannabis, and ultimately a removal of cannabis from the list of Schedule I substances, so that it can be made available to all who would benefit from its therapeutic properties. “The current research challenge is to conduct large-scale human clinical trials that evaluate the remarkable range of potential applications for cannabis-based treatments to specific medical conditions,” continued Woodson.
————————————————————————

2. San Mateo City Enacts, and County Considers, Medical Cannabis
Ordinance that Prohibits Compensation and Edibles

San Mateo County Counsel’s office drafted and submitted a proposed ordinance this week that would prohibit compensation for medical cannabis and medical cannabis in food. The draft has gotten the nod of a county subcommittee despite serious concerns about the ability of individuals who cultivate quality medical cannabis for those in need to not be reimbursed for those services, as well as patients for whom the most effective route of administration is to ingest, rather than inhale, medical cannabis. A nearly identical ordinance was already passed by the San Mateo City Council this week.

The San Mateo City Council unanimously adopted their ordinance, to go into effect 30 days from passage, that restricts dispensing collectives from selling or exchanging anything of value for medical cannabis and prohibits edibles. California law states that individuals can receive compensation for providing medical cannabis. Therefore ASA’s legal staff strongly believes that the ordinance runs afoul of state law, and may make the city a target for litigation.

In addition, the ordinance states that all members of collectives must also provide their names, addresses and phone numbers, which may leave them exposed to federal DEA raids that have continued into the Obama Administration, despite affirmations from the White House that they would stop.

The restrictions at the county level may be considered by the Board of Supervisors on April 28th, 18 months after DEA agents raided three medical cannabis dispensing collectives in San Mateo. In 2007, DEA was called by the District Attorney’s Office who maintained the collectives were operating illegally, but did not have evidence to substantiate the claim and therefore opted not to move through proper state channels to correct any alleged discrepancies. Local DA’s and police often call DEA to raid and prosecute citizens who are following state laws – as all medical cannabis use is illegal under federal prosecution, leaving the accused with no defense in court.
————————————————————————

3. Oakland City Council to Move Toward Dispensing Collective Tax
Increase

An Oakland City Council committee voiced support for a proposal to increase the business tax on Oakland’s four medical cannabis dispensing collectives this week, which may be headed for the city ballot for a vote on July 21. The tax increase is expected to generate additional revenue from medical cannabis dispensing collectives that would help the city as it faces a deficit that could be as high as $65 million in the 2009-10 fiscal year.

However, the Oakland City Council’s finance committee did not decide on a percentage for the new tax rate, and sent that decision on to the full council, which may set the tax rate at anywhere from $12 to $24 for every $1,000 in gross receipts.

Operators of the dispensing collectives support an increase from the $1.20 per $1,000 in receipts currently paid. Attorney James Anthony, from Harborside Health Center, suggested a tax increase to members of the council about a month ago as an attempt to show other cities and counties that have banned dispensing collectives throughout California that they can actually help provide cities with revenue. The full council will take the item under consideration in a closed session on April 21 to place on the July ballot. If passed by voters in July, the new tax is expected to generate between $200,000 and $400,000 in annual revenue.

Councilmember Nancy Nadel (Downtown-West Oakland) joined Councilmember Jean Quan (Montclair-Laurel) on Tuesday in supporting a rate of $14 per $1,000. Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente (Glenview-Fruitvale) said he will push for $24 per $1,000.
————————————————————————

4. Eureka City Council Opts for Drug Enforcement Over Healthcare

The Eureka City Council this week voted 3-2 to put off creating an ordinance that would regulate medical cannabis dispensing collectives <http://www.safeaccessnow.org/section.php?id=154> in city limits. Instead, the 3 members who voted against the measure, including Mayor Virginia Bass, complained that getting law enforcement to confront “grow houses” was more important than ensuring sick members of the community have a source to obtain medicine legally. Council member Atkins did initiate discussion at the meeting of how the sanction and regulation of dispensaries may have a positive impact on what some see as problematic grows, as the City would then be providing patients in the community a place to go for medication, rather than forcing many to the street. Unfortunately the argument was not convincing to three who voted against addressing the issue, and members of the community are encouraged to contact <http://www.ci.eureka.ca.gov/council/default.asp>Eureka City Council Members in response.
————————————————————————

5. Mendocino Sheriff Issues Grow Guidelines

Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman issued guidelines this week that would provide clarity for Mendocino officers and for potential growers based on the guidelines <http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5562>released California Attorney General Jerry Brown in 2008. In addition to the AG’s thresholds of 6 mature and 12 immature plants, Mendocino County allows a maximum of 25 plants on any taxable parcel of land, and prohibits all cannabis cultivation within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, or youth facilities. It is the first case that ASA has documented of a Sheriff giving his local law enforcement clear direction based off the guidelines issued by the Attorney General.

The Mendocino Sheriff also established the following priorities for county enforcement in 2009:

1. What he defines as “commercial” marijuana operations.
2. Marijuana operations that cause environmental damage.
3. Cultivation on land that has been trespassed.
4. Cultivation that illegally diverts water.
5. Calls for service from citizens reporting cultivation related nuisances.
6. Providing compliance assistance and checks for medical cannabis patients and caregivers.

I hope you’re gearing up and making plans for ASA’s two-day California strategy session, in coordination with Students for Sensible Drug Policy’s West Coast Regional Conference in Berkeley! You can register now for the April 25th and 26th meeting!

ASA leaders and representatives from across California will come to Berkeley to discuss where we’re going as a movement – and we want you in on it!

A lot has happened since our last statewide conference in 2007.  The California Attorney General issued guidelines on dispensing collectives/cooperatives and on how cops should comply with California law.  President Barack Obama and US Attorney General Eric Holder issued ground-breaking statements on a “new American policy” on federal raids in medical cannabis states, but DEA went out on its own and raided a San Francisco dispensary against the will of the President.  One way or another, these developments are going to impact medical cannabis in our state – the question is whether or not it will be on our terms!

Here’s a taste of what’s on the table for the two day meeting:

Working with local law enforcement – What do the California  AG Guidelines mean for law enforcement?  What do we do when cops take the law into their own hands, refuse to follow California law, and claim they “prefer” federal law instead?   How do we hold police accountable to the law?

What’s changed for city and county dispensing collective regulations – Some cities and counties have been misrepresenting the AG Guidelines.  And some cops are raiding collectives while offering their own “interpretation” of the guidelines.  What do they really say, what does it mean – and how do we keep the opposition from sabotaging their impact on dispensing collective regulations?

Civil rights and medical cannabis – All California patients can be fired from their jobs simply for using medical cannabis.  California patients are regularly denied basic health care, welfare, social services, and even have their children taken from them, just because they use medical cannabis legally under California law.  This is a fight for our basic rights.

We can’t go it alone: the need to change federal law – California’s medical cannabis law will always be constrained until Congress acts.  The focus on local regulations and state law can overshadow the need to pressure our federal elected officials. How do California Congressional Reps vote? And what can we do to improve it?
The strategy meetings are part of a larger Students for Sensible Drug Policy conference, which will feature numerous trainings designed to turn the average Joe or Jane who cares about an issue into a stellar advocate.  Professional trainings on fund raising, working with the media, effective advocacy at the local level, increasing diversity, and others will take up two days and cost only $15 for those who pre-register (only $10 for students, and $20 for “day-of” registration).

This is a deal not to be missed – you could easily expect to pay up to $150 for similar trainings.  Thanks to ASA and SSDP’s close relationship over the years – we’re coming together to train and organize California!

Register now – and find information on hotels here. See you there!

Today, I got to debate the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California, Joseph Russoniello, about the merits of medical marijuana and the new federal enforcement policy. We didn’t learn a whole lot of new information from the U.S. Attorney, but it was fun.

The debate began with about a ten minute spiel by Mr. Russoniello about the history of federal marijuana policy and the federal government’s current stance. Some of what Mr. Russoniello had to say was generally positive — that the federal government was not interested in prosecuting medical marijuana patients and that there was "little likelihood" of the federal government prosecuting medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivators if they comply with the Attorney General Guidelines. But most of what the U.S. Attorney had to say was not so positive — that all dispensaries in California are illegal under state law because they make large profits and that the medical marijuana movement is a sham. He also added that he is personally opposed to medical marijuana and that it has no legitimate medical use.

This got me fired up for my 12-minute rebuttal. I gave a very different account of federal policy on marijuana, in particular, the federal government’s efforts to rip the heart out of California’s medical marijuana laws through threats directed at physicians. I responded to several of the U.S. Attorney’s complaints about the system not being sufficiently regulated by pointing out that it is the federal government that stands as a barrier to such regulation, which we support.

Now, he was fired up. Mr. Russoniello took issue with my characterization of federal marijuana policy, which is that Congress in 1970 was not sure where to place marijuana in the drug schedules, so it temporarily placed it in Schedule I and formed a commission, the Shafer Commission, to research the issue and report back. That Commission concluded that marijuana is not very harmful and should not be criminalized at all for personal medical use, which is what I said at the debate. Effectively accusing me of mischaracterizing the Commission’s findings, the U.S. Attorney took out a book, which has a quote from one of the members of the Shafer Commission stating that marijuana advocates have overstated the Commission’s findings and noted that it did not advocate the legalization of marijuana trafficking. Here’s what the actual Commission report, entitled "Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding ," has to say:

[T]he criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only with the greatest reluctance.

* * *

The existing social and legal policy is out of proportion to the individual and social harm engendered by the use of the drug.

Unfortunately, I didn’t have these quotes with me at the debate.

Mr. Russoniello also had a sharp disagreement with me about the number of dispensaries that operate for a significant profit. While he claimed that they all (yes all) do, I disputed that figure and asked that he provide some evidence. This prompted the U.S. Attorney to claim that the California Attorney General had stated that the great majority of marijuana dispensaries are profiteering enterprises and he pulled out a newspaper article, which did not acatually say this. Instead, as I looked over Mr. Russonielo’s shoulder, I noticed that the title of the article was "Brown: Some Medi-Pot Dispensaries Are Illegal" and I asked if he could read the title. I think the audience got the point.

After some other heated exchanges between Mr. Russoniello and me, the students asked questions and the debate got even more heated. In response to a student’s comment that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, the U.S. Attorney interrupted to state that it was the other way around and the audience jeered him. Another student called out Mr. Russoniello for falsely accusing me of misrepresenting the Shafer Report.

All in all, the debate was probably more entertaining than informative (for me anyway) and there was more animated audience participation than I would have expected. You should check back here (under ASA on youtube) in the next day or so to see it for yourself.

San Francisco DEA Raid Defies White House Statements

Last week, DEA raided a San Francisco medical cannabis dispensing collective, prompting a backlash from advocates urging the Obama Administration to implement its policy change aimed at ending the raids that were a signature of the Bush Administration. DEA stormed Emmalyn’s, a dispensary licensed by the City of San Francisco, seizing medical cannabis, money and other property, but making no arrests. The raid came only one week after U.S. Attorney Eric Holder clarified the Obama Administration “new American policy” on medical cannabis, claiming the raids were at an end, and that DEA would only raid those establishments that were outside state law.

After the raid, DEA made public statements claimign the dispensary was violating state laws, but they refused to provide any evidence to the public. In addition, neither San Francisco police, the District Attorney, nor any other state law enforcement bodies were notified by DEA of the raid or of any complaints of state law violation. Speculation circulated that a lag in sales tax payments may have prompted the raid, but the Board of Equalization confirmed that there were no complaints against Emmalyn’s, and that even if there had been discrepancies, BOE Director Betty Yee said they certainly would not have involved the DEA. Emmalyn’s attorney, Terence Hallinan, who is also the former District Attorney of San Francisco, said his clients were operating in strict accordance to state law, and called the DEA raid a “slap to President Obama’s face” in light of his very public statements on an end to these Bush Administration tactics.

“Any violations of California’s medical marijuana law should be the purview of local and state officials,” said Kris Hermes, spokesperson with Americans for Safe Access (ASA). “Medical marijuana patients and providers deserve a chance to defend themselves under state and local law, which is not possible once the federal government gets involved.”

In response, public officials decried the DEA raid on Emmalyn’s. California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-SF) was among them. And San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, in whose district Emmalyn’s operated, responded by stating, “I support safe and adequate access for all patients in the city… As such, I condemn any force which is used to disrupt or prevent patients from accessing their medicine.”

In 2008, the California Attorney General Jerry Brown issued guidelines recognizing the legality of medical cannabis dispensaries under state law, and providing recommendation for their compliance with those laws. However, in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in /Gonzales v. Raich/, that the government had the /discretion/ to enforce federal marijuana laws even in medical cannabis states. “Of course the federal government has the authority to raid dispensaries in California,” said Caren Woodson, ASA’s Government Affairs Director in Washington, D.C. “The question is why does it have to exercise that discretion, especially in light of the Obama Administration’s commitment to reverse that practice.” Since the /Raich/ decision, more than 150 raids have occurred in California, mostly during the Bush Administration.

*For further information:
*Video footage of the DEA raid:
http://cbs5.com/local/medical.marijuana.raid.2.968019.html
White House statement on ending federal enforcement:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/05/dea-led-by-bush-continues-pot-raids/
CA Attorney General Guidelines issued in August 2008:
http://www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/AG_Guidelines.pdf

————————————————————————

Charles C. Lynch Sentencing Postponed

Charles C. Lynch, <http://www.friendsofccl.com/news.htm>the medical cannabis dispensary operator who’s DEA raid and trial has created a national media storm, was unexpectedly not sentenced last week after the Los Angeles federal judge assigned to his case refused to do so until the government clarifies its newly revised position on medical cannabis.

Lynch, who operated his dispensing collective under permit from the City of Morro Bay and with the explicit support of the Mayor, City Council members, and the Chamber of Commerce, was convicted last August of five federal counts, including distributing marijuana, conspiring to distribute marijuana and providing the drug to people under the age of 21. He was unable to present any evidence of his this support, or his compliance with California medical cannabis laws in the federal trial. The courtroom was crowded with Lynch’s supporters, many of whom wore green ribbons to show their support.

U.S. District Judge George H. Wu postponed the sentencing until prosecutors could provide a written clarification from the Justice Department about the government’s position on medical cannabis prosecutions. President Barack Obama and the United States Attorney General have both said that the Justice Department has no plans to prosecute dispensary owners who comply with their state law. Prosecuting U.S. Attorney David P. Kowal tried to claim that there was no change in policy, and that Judge Wu should move forward with sentencing. However, Wu referred to the massive media around the change in policy, saying “I read and heard that something has changed and I want to know what it was… I want it in writing.” An April 30 date was tentatively set to sentence Lynch, though even that date is up in the air depending on when Holder’s office responds.

In an astounding attempt to misrepresent the words of President Barack Obama and the Attorney General in order to continue with the Bush raids, U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien,. whose office prosecuted Lynch, said that “In every single (medical case) case we have prosecuted over the past several years, the defendants violated state law as well as federal

law.” How that can be the case when these collectives, including Lynch, were regulated and issued permits by local governments, is inconceivable. Truly the lies from DEA have gotten so absurd, they’ve lost all credibility and are in need of a massive overhaul. In postponing sentence, JudgeWu said the Justice Department’s clarification would likely not change Lynch’s conviction, but it could affect his sentence. Here is some of the media that picked up on the story of Charles C. Lynch:

Time Magazine story <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1888172,00.html>
CNNs Larry King Live <http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=1062626464>
Al Roker for MSNBC <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cist_J_KoI&feature=channel>
ABC’s 20/20 with John Stossel
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9-09sWCdlY&feature=channel>
The New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/us/24marijuana.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=charles%20lynch&st=cse>
The LA Times
<http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-medpot24-2009mar24,0,1972907.story>
The Associated Press
<http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iHs5ki4JKUS8Q5APCcU3bAjKv5TgD970QM080>
Drew Carey’s Reason TV
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD3kFms2eNU&feature=channel_page>

————————————————————————

Cannabis Chemical Kills Brain Cancer, Says Study The April issue of the /Journal of Clinical Investigation/ reports new research out of Spain that suggests THC, the active ingredient in cannabis, appears to prompt the death of brain cancer cells.

Researchers worked with mice and analyzed THC’s impact on tumor cells extracted from two patients who were diagnosed with a highly aggressive form of brain cancer, finding that THC introduced into the brain triggered a cellular self-digestion process known as “autophagy,” Guillermo Velasco, from the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in the School of Biology at Complutense University in Madrid, who co-authored the study, said that his team had investigated and isolated the specific pathway by which this process unfolds, and noted that THC appears “to kill cancer cells, while it does not affect normal cells.”

The Spanish researchers analyzed brain tissue in the two cancer patients, taken both before and after a 26- to 30-day THC treatment regimen, and found that THC eliminated cancer cells while it left healthy cells intact. They also identified and tracked the signaling route by which the process was activated, and the findings were then replicated in mice. “These results may help to design new cancer therapies based on the use of medicines containing the active principle of marijuana and/or in the activation of autophagy,” Velasco said. Dr. John S. Yu, co-director of the Comprehensive Brain Tumor Program in the Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, called the findings “not surprising,” and noted that this study is just the most recent of a number of previous studies which indicated that THC has an anti-cancer effect.

Dr. Yu said that the study does not suggest that one should expect smoking cannabis to cure their cancer, but rather that THC is a significance source of further study in anti-cancer therapy and treatment.

————————————————————————

Laguna Beachs Stall on Dispensing Collectives, Kern County May Repeal

In Laguna Beach, there is some indication that City Council wants to create regulations for dispensing collectives, though it also appears to be actively stalling the progress. This doesn’t bode well for Sheridan Linehan, who gave public comments at a recent council meeting. Linehan uses medical cannabis in a battle with bone cancer, and wants to form a dispensing collective with permission from the city.

In February, Laguna Beach enacted a moratorium on dispensaries, though Linehan already has spent thousands of dollars over several months attempting to satisfy 12 pages of city-required permit stipulations. The council had considered having regulations drafted by February 2010, which elicited frustrations from residents for being a stall tactic. However, the Council’s sympathies seemed to shift in response to the recount of personal experience with medical cannabis from Council member Verna Rollinger, who asked city staff to speed the measure along so that a final version was reached by mid summer. In Kern County, the County Counsel is recommending that the ordinance which regulates and issues permits to medical cannabis dispensing collectives be repealed, claiming city officials may be at risk from federal agents for implementing the state’s medical cannabis laws. The argument, which is unfortunately still all too common, has already been defeated by both state and federal courts in /Garden Grove/ <http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/GardenGroveDecision.pdf> and /San Diego / <http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/SDvNORML08-050333.pdf>cases.

It is uncertain if Supervisors will back County Counsel’s recommendations without a better knowledgeable of the law. It’s a common theme with local action on medical cannabis by cities and counties; the local government’s attorney brings to Supervisors or Council Members a list of unwarranted concerns based on an incomplete understanding of California’s law and why it does not conflict with federal law. Council members then become scared and pass ordinances to the detriment of the community and the patients they represent. It’s absolutely critical that Kern County residents communicate with Supervisors to ensure the regulations are kept intact, and they understand the true need for patient access.